< 28 January	30 January >

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) 04:19, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Billy Frank (producer)[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Poorly sourced and advertorially toned WP:BLP, actually an WP:AUTOBIO if you check the creator's username, of a television producer. (First discussion was about the same person, but this is written differently enough that I don't consider it a valid G4.) While there are credible claims of potential notability here, none of Wikipedia's inclusion criteria exempt him from having to be reliably sourced — but all of the referencing here is to primary sources that cannot satisfy WP:GNG. As always, a person does not become entitled to start a Wikipedia article about himself just because his own company's own self-published public relations presence provides verification that he exists — he must be the subject of coverage in media outlets independent of him to earn inclusion on here. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 23:56, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A majority of the article is unsourced and written from a non-neutral point of view. While the producer has won some awards, they are not major enough to meet WP:ANYBIO#1. I also cannot find coverage in reliable sources even when searching by their production company. Opencooper (talk) 00:47, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:52, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:52, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as not better satisfying WP:CREATIVE. SwisterTwister talk 00:55, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 00:56, 31 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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 08:15, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Arben Krasniqi[edit]

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

Created by a sockpuppet of User:Blendi111 and there is no evidence of notability as the coach has not been playing in fully pro Adriatic League or similar. The kosovo national league is not enough for notability (at least according to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stanimir Marinov). Qed237 (talk) 23:21, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Musa^Talk ☻ 23:27, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Musa^Talk ☻ 23:27, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ansh 666 23:50, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Curro2 (talk) 05:45, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) © Tbhotch^™ (en-2.5). 21:34, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Kiss It Better (song)[edit]

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

Weird disambiguation page, one with an article, the second is just a song, and Kiss It Better already does this work with the hat note. Per WP:TWODABS Harry's song is the WP:Primarytopic. Unless Rihanna's reach a notable status, there is no need for this kind of pages, and I'm quite sure Kiss It Better would be moved to become a disambiguation page if Rihanna's song is notable. © Tbhotch^™ (en-2.5). 21:23, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Just redirect to Kiss It Better, which is an article about a song. If an article is created for Rihanna's song (which is very likely), then we can have Kiss It Better (Debbie Harry song) and Kiss It Better (Rihanna song). Kiss It Better would then become a disambiguation page, to which we could redirect Kiss It Better (song). ---Another Believer _(Talk) 21:28, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Update: I agree that the page does not need to function as a disambiguation page... yet... I went ahead and redirected to Kiss It Better, which means this conversation is now more like a "redirects for deletion/discussion" conversation. I think the page's current use as a redirect is constructive, and since it serves a purpose (and can be further repurposed later), I think it should be kept. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 21:32, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
That's what I did, I mean. If there were more songs, you'd have a point. I'm closing this as there is no article now. © Tbhotch^™ (en-2.5). 21:34, 29 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. The article's subject is found to lack notability. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 04:33, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Heeba Shah[edit]

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

Non notable actress. Musa^Talk ☻ 20:51, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Musa^Talk ☻ 20:52, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Musa^Talk ☻ 20:52, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Musa^Talk ☻ 20:52, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Certainly questionable for WP:CREATIVE. SwisterTwister talk 05:49, 30 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 speedied as CSD A9. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 22:51, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Refugees (album)[edit]

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

Per WP:NALBUMS, and given the artist doesn't have an article, I say delete. Draft:Rachel Faro was declined at AfC. MB298 (talk) 20:46, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Musa^Talk ☻ 21:00, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Musa^Talk ☻ 21:00, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Musa^Talk ☻ 21:00, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:CSD#A9, which says musical recordings don't warrant articles when artist fails notability Snuggums (talk / edits) 21:26, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The above deletion debate is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of either this nomination or the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result was delete. The article's subject is found to lack notability. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 04:34, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Param Dharm[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:GNG. Promotional in tone, and only reference is book's home page. I tagged this for speedy but was reverted (by a Single-purpose account). ubiquity (talk) 20:42, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Musa^Talk ☻ 21:02, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No evidence found that this self-published work satisfies any of the conditions in the specific notability guideline for books: Noyster (talk), 13:32, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 04:17, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jackson Ducasse[edit]

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

Non notable content creator. WP:GNG. All sources in the article do not even mention the person in question. Nothing salvageable, and can't find anything. --allthefoxes ^(Talk) 20:38, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Musa^Talk ☻ 21:03, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Musa^Talk ☻ 21:03, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Musa^Talk ☻ 21:03, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as still questionable for WP:CREATIVE. SwisterTwister talk 05:50, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; essentially no coverage demonstrating that the subject meets WP:CREATIVE, WP:BIO or WP:GNG. /wiae /tlk 18:10, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - run of the mill producer. Producers are not automatically notable as creative people. The sourcing is really terrible - blogs, self-created content, and YouTube. A stub would have to be started from scratch. Bearian (talk) 17:50, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The article's subject is found to lack notability. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 04:38, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Christopher Andrews[edit]

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

Non-notable actor and writer. I could not find anything about him on a Google search. Natg 19 (talk) 20:25, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Natg 19 (talk) 20:26, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Natg 19 (talk) 20:26, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Natg 19 (talk) 20:26, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Natg 19 (talk) 20:28, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as this is still questionable for the applicable notability. SwisterTwister talk 05:16, 30 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. MBisanz ^talk 00:26, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

87.9 Pride FM[edit]

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

Article about an unlicensed radio station, broadcasting only by Part 15 rules and online, which is sourced only to its own self-published content about itself and is the subject of no reliable source coverage that I'm able to locate. Wikipedia's notability standards for radio stations only grant a presumption of notability to radio stations that have a full FCC license — a Part 15 or online startup can still get into Wikipedia if it's the subject of enough coverage to satisfy WP:GNG, but is not automatically entitled to an article just because it exists, if its existence can be verified only to itself. Also there's a direct conflict of interest, as the creator's username matches the name of one of the two guys named on the website as the station's operators. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 16:38, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Update: two additional sources have been added, but neither of them assists at all — one only supports the existence of an unrelated but similar radio service while not mentioning this one at all, and the other sources the general details of the FCC's Part 15 rules while again not containing any information about this Part 15 station. So the quality of referencing needed to make this station eligible for a Wikipedia article still is not there. Bearcat (talk) 19:53, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 19:54, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As much as support of an LGBTQ station in South Carolina is sorely needed, this is a limited station with no FCC backing, which we generally require for an article here. Nate • (chatter) 14:40, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Problem so a keep? TV episodes are notable but the radio station is not. This is maddening. It exist. It is not a fake article. Therefore, a keep. It is notable because it is a real station. I kNow abOut bankS (talk) 01:17, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Note. Above user has been blocked indefinitely. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 15:42, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Part 15 stations, which this one is, do not enjoy the same notability under WP:NMEDIA, as full power AM/FM/HD stations do. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 14:03, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as not yet better convincing for the applicable notability. SwisterTwister talk 03:16, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The article's subject is found to lack notability. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 04:39, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You Broadband[edit]

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

No indication of notability, no significant coverage in reliable sources, tagged for over a year without improvement. Unduly promotional tone. The article was deleted via WP:PROD but the prod was contested; it was restored, but not improved. Huon (talk) 19:11, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Musa^Talk ☻ 21:04, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Musa^Talk ☻ 21:04, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Musa^Talk ☻ 21:05, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as this certainly questionably solid for the applicable notability. SwisterTwister talk 05:26, 30 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) 04:16, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Muslim supremacy[edit]

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

No assertion of notability by reliable sources. Also WP:FRINGE. Only sources given are an opinion piece from WSJ (note that Best of the Web is under their Opinion category) ([6]) and a source from Frontpage Magazine ([7]) which is generally considered a non-reliable source per discussions on WP:RSN. Please see discussions on RSN at 1, 2, 3. In the spirit of WP:BEFORE, I have looked for other sources. The only other sources I can find are blogs like wordpress, citizenwarrior, jihadwatch, tundratabloids, and clashdaily. I found one self-published book ([8]). The topic of this article appears to be part of fringe right-wing rhetoric and not covered by any secondary reliable sources. I propose deletion per WP:DEL6. EvergreenFir (talk) Please ((re)) 19:03, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please note I had some difficulty with Twinkle. This article has only been nominated once. EvergreenFir (talk) Please ((re)) 19:04, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've moved the page back to the original title accordingly. For a purely technical issue like this, we don't actually need to keep the blank error page or leave the actual discussion at the "(2nd nomination)" title. Bearcat (talk) 19:59, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not a notable concept, a single source and no demonstration of notability.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 19:20, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Whatever is worth covering here is already covered better elsewhere, and whatever's left over is just badly sourced WP:FRINGE. The religion is not a race in any meaningful sense. Even the Frontpage mag source, (not usable) doesn't support the use of 'racism', and is just broadly ranting against the "Conditions of Omar", (presumably the Pact of Umar) which seems to be the author's pet bugaboo. That article fails to establish "Muslim supremacy" as being a legitimate term or cohesive concept. Is this ignorantly conflating Arab with Islam? If so, we already have racism in the Arab world. Is this about Islam and other religions? How about Islamism? Is this an attempted neologism created by detractors, like Islamofascism? Both seem to have some connection to David Horowitz, but this one doesn't seem to have been consistently used or commented on. There are no usable sources here and there is no obvious central topic. Grayfell (talk) 20:30, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --Seduisant (talk) 04:53, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above and not likely to develop beyond a WP:DICDEF. - HyperGaruda (talk) 10:40, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The concept being described, in short: something of a theocratic absolutism whereby a clique of fanatical, ideological elites rule over the populace with an iron fist, is a very real one, of course, and we've long had an article about it: Islamism. This page here is completely superfluous and unnecessary. There's nothing that could possibly work as a truly reliable citation for this page that wouldn't have a much better fit over at Islamism. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 03:48, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Then merge with Islamism? --Article editor (talk) 02:03, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Still lacks any reliable sources. Does not belong in any article without RS. EvergreenFir (talk) Please ((re)) 18:44, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 04:32, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

List of most Billboard Hot 100 Top 10 hits by artist[edit]

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

Just another indiscriminate collection of information. There's already List of artists by number of Billboard Hot 100 number-one singles, so I don't think there's a need to add to the endless trivia of music chart facts in Wikipedia by taking it to top tens. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 00:28, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - as per nom and this is just a repetition of already existing lists. Kansiime (talk) 03:03, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. sst ✈ 05:12, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. sst ✈ 05:12, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 05:25, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to List of Billboard Hot 100 chart achievements and milestones or keep. Useful list, it's been mentioned in secondary sources , but it would fit in nicely with List of Billboard Hot 100 chart achievements and milestones as well. FuriouslySerene (talk) 15:24, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, plus comment – I agree it's WP:IINFO. About merging it into List of Billboard Hot 100 chart achievements and milestones, that article is already pretty large as it is (even with our limiting a lot of the categories in that article to the top 10 artists, songs, producers, writers, etc.), so adding what is in this article will not improve anything, and it still would be WP:IINFO. MPFitz1968 (talk) 08:27, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 18:30, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep If its being mentioned in secondary sources it should be kept Atlantic306 (talk) 01:03, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Is it? --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 04:47, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) ansh 666 07:16, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hubertus, Hereditary Prince of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha[edit]

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

Since 2013 comments on the talk page question the notability and really poor sourcing of this bio. Germany does not recognize noble titles, and this person has not done anything to warrant an article on his own. Perhaps his name belongs on some list per WP:NOPAGE Legacypac (talk) 22:07, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. sst ✈ 01:51, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, notability is not inherited, and Saxe-Coburg-Gotha has not existed for quite a long time now. —Kusma (t·c) 15:21, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: highly notable. Not only as heir to the head of the royal dynasty that is the second most notable in Germany, but because of the British connection as well, given Saxe-Coburg-Gotha was the name of its ruling house until WW1. No, it's not a reigning house, but the dynasty retains enormous prestige, wealth, and estates, including Schloss Callenburg and Schloss Greinburg which are major tourist attractions. Surprisingly that deletion was even mooted. What next: the Hohenzollerns? http://www.sachsen-coburg-gotha.de/ http://www.schloss-callenberg.com/englisch/history/ Engleham (talk) 20:16, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
If there are no proper independent sources showing that a random Hohenzollern "prince" meets WP:GNG, of course their article should be deleted. —Kusma (t·c) 12:14, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

However, Hubertus is not some random prince. He's the heir to the head of the Saxe-Coburg-Gotha dynasty. I can think of several reasons why the page is valuable even for those who would generally hold no interest in royalty per se. e.g. Tourists visiting the castles wishing to know about the dynasty heirs; or readers of the two recently published studies on German royalty-nazi collaboration wishing to know more about how their descendants are tracking today. etc etc. I also checked the edit history of this page and count at least 50 authenticated editors alone who have worked on it. So that is evidence that it is of interest to quite a wide circle. The content I find eye-glazing and can be improved, but Wikipedia allows unlimited pages, and unless an entry is totally irrelevant, one should always err on the side of caution and retention, as it's the equivalent of bookburning. Also, Wikipedia relies on good will, so dumping the hard work of many editors (how many cumulative manhours went into this?) should be especially avoided whenever possible. And as the edits indicate, the topic clearly matters to many. I also believe the comment of Mr Wales at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alexander Gordon, 7th Marquess of Aberdeen and Temair is relevant for royals: "There is usefulness in having a compete set of entries on hereditary peers, even if some peers are less prominent or noteworthy than others, even when the article must of necessity remain something of a stub. Considering these articles in isolation, i.e. not noting that they are part of a wider series, is mistaken." Engleham (talk) 13:39, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, notability is not inherited and fails WP:GNG.--Donniediamond (talk) 17:24, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable person without even a proper claim to any title at all. Note, moreover, that there is possible canvassing going on regarding this AfD (sigh). And I am not fully convinced his dad is all that notable either. S-C-G basically ended after WW I and the end of the German monarchy and formal titles, and renunciation of the S-C-G name by the current Windsors of the UK. About as important as the current "Stuart claimants" to the UK throne. Collect (talk) 18:29, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as head of a defunct or deposed dynasty. Such articles become a target for redirects and mergers, per WP:CHEAP. Bearian (talk) 22:04, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A look at the title of the article and a double-check that there are references to the topic confirms that this topic is significant within the encyclopedia. The deletion argument that the topic "has not done anything" is not referenced to a Wikipedia guideline or essay. Unscintillating (talk) 00:45, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with House of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha - all the votes above seem to be based more on gut feeling than an actual hard look at sources, so I think this is the best compromise. The notability guidelines for people don't say anything on royalty, even though this chap is a direct descendant of Prince Albert. The only substantial source I unearthed outside the numerous ones confirming his name, date of birth and peerage, is a Hello Magazine piece on his wedding, and I wouldn't stoop to using that as a source even in these desparate times. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 09:27, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, possibly merge. Holds a fake title – Germany has no nobility any more – which makes the article essentially fictional. He is not otherwise notable, judging by the coverage cited. Sandstein 11:19, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- His title has a historic background and can be used as a courtesy title. He also has title Prinz von Sachsen-Coburg und Gotha (Prince of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha) as his legal surname. Fake title is more a title that is self-invented and without any legitimate historic background. --Editor FIN (talk) 06:29, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- No, a fake title would be one he'd awarded himself or had made up. His title is very much not a fake and not fictional. Just because Germany has "decided" (without, let's remember, any popular vote on the issue) it wants to be a republic doesn't invalidate historic titles held by its aristocrats. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:37, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I did a 3 second Google for some recent news about him. Here's the stories. He's been hosting ERII. To suggest he's not notable when he can draw media attention in SIX countries, clearly has no basis in the reality Google is bringing up – whatever you might wish to call him. https://www.google.de/#q=hubertus+%2B+%22saxe-coburg&tbm=nws Engleham (talk) 11:36, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 17:35, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I have no time for royalty whether they are reigning or claimants, but there is no question that this one is notable. He has attracted interest and as others have said tourists may want to know about him. --Bduke (Discussion) 04:28, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as prominent German royal and future Head of very important House. --Editor FIN (talk) 06:49, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. A prominent royal who heads an important house. It is utterly irrelevant whether Germany officially recognises noble titles or not; it doesn't mean they don't exist or are not commonly used. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:37, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Spartaz ^Humbug! 08:16, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Harsh and Payal Hada Foundation[edit]

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

Wikipedia does not meet the style, the style of errors, etc. I'm Lukas! --Talk 10:42, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. sst ✈ 14:24, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. sst ✈ 14:24, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The nomination doesn't make sense? Theroadislong (talk) 17:46, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 17:30, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The article needs a complete head-to-toe rewrite. This is one of the most poorly-written articles I've yet seen on Wikipedia (and believe me, it has plenty of competition). The article can't even decide whether its subject is the foundation, the person who founded it, or that person's past business activities. But none of that is a reason to delete it. The article does seem to establish notability as it has received coverage in local media sources. If it is a topic that is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia, the solution is to rewrite, not to delete. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 18:59, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and I would've said keep if not for the current article and it simply being best to restart it with better information and sources overall. SwisterTwister talk 06:23, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The kernal is the section The_Harsh_and_Payal_Hada_Foundation#Harsh_.26_Payal_Hada_Foundation: everything else is off-topic or coatracking. I am tempted to be bold and prune to just that section, which would mean that the article rests on the primary source and the half-page article in Kolkata Gives, an Issuu publication which describes itself as a newsletter. AllyD (talk) 18:43, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I have now simplified the article to remove most of the extraneous material which didn't relate to its subject matter. A search for further sources turned up a passing mention of this Foundation's grant-giving in this 2013 newspaper article but that is too slight to add to the article itself. That leaves the reference to the Foundation's own website and the unsigned piece in the Kolkata Gives newsletter. A WP:WORTHYCAUSE but I am not seeing anything to demonstrate encyclopaedic notability at this point, either WP:ORGDEPTH or WP:GNG AllyD (talk) 08:28, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not all charities are notable, and to be blunt, this one appears to be run of the mill, and the sourcing is terrible. Bearian (talk) 17:54, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Can be restored, I guess, if somebody really wants to merge or transwiki a lot of buscruft. Sandstein 10:42, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

University Transport System 428[edit]

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

These kinds of pages should be on the CPTDB wiki or something similar (maybe even the Davis wiki), but are not appropriate for a general-purpose wiki like Wikipedia. <<< SOME GADGET GEEK >>> (talk) 15:02, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. sst ✈ 17:07, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. sst ✈ 17:07, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all Not suitable for their own articles here. Rcsprinter¹²³ (spout) 17:38, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge whatever information is useful and sourced into Unitrans (possibly creating a new "Fleet" section?) and redirect there. --Regards, James(^talk/_contribs) 00:21, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 17:30, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I thought I AFD'd all these about 18 months ago? NordicDragon Talkpage 08:36, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No you didn't; you tagged them with ((notable)) - that is different from AfD. <<< SOME GADGET GEEK >>> (talk) 20:55, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Errr... No I didn't... I didn't tag any of them as that .. I AfD'd a whole load in August 2013 (under the pseudonym Tommie the Tomato) but they were all merged into Unitrans. NordicDragon Talkpage 08:00, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 23:24, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hypothetical mood[edit]

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

WP:NOTDICT Prisencolin (talk) 23:03, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. sst ✈ 02:14, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I don't quite understand how this article is a dictionary entry. It sure could do with expansion, but it gives a definition of "what the subject is" (i.e. indicating a statement that could have been true) in accordance with the nutshell on WP:NOTDICT. Are you referring to a specific section of that policy? --ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 09:44, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 17:29, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The nomination could have provided an argument for deletion instead of a vague wave. Andrew D. (talk) 17:44, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep - This seems like an ideal merge candidate so that the good information is put somewhere else such that we have a nice set of different linguistic moods defined one after the other in the same place, but I'm not at all familiar with the various articles on linguistics. The merge target... I have no idea. As for right now, this is something more than a mere dictionary entry as stated above. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 03:22, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment seems like there isn't much information I could find about this, although maybe it's due a lack of English language sources on this seeing as English doesn't have a hypothetical mood.--Prisencolin (talk) 23:43, 31 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 keep. Spartaz ^Humbug! 08:17, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Michael K. Lee[edit]

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)).

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

Non-notable actor, fails WP:NACTOR, citations provided are not significant enough to prove notability JMHamo (talk) 22:33, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Michael K. Lee is a notable actor, having starred in numerous productions on Broadway. How can I assist to clarify this issue?— Preceding unsigned comment added by Eric Ingram (talk • contribs) 22:45, 22 January 2016‎

Delete Fails WP:GNG and WP:NACTOR. Joseph2302 (talk) 23:07, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A working actor, but a notable one, yet. Also, this isn't a WP article, it's a Playbill listing, so it's probably a copyvio. --Calton | Talk 02:08, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. sst ✈ 02:15, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Referenced lists of information are not a copy vio,otherwise about half of wikipedia would be deleted.Atlantic306 (talk) 12:43, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - First, regarding copyvio issue, using the earwig tool, does not appear to be the case. Second, regarding notability, he's had significant roles in 3 Broadway productions: Allegiance, and the revivals of Pacific Overtures and Jesus Christ Superstar. He also had a significant role in Miss Saigon. Third, there appears to be enough in-depth coverage to warrant inclusion under WP:GNG: Korea Times, Korea Herald, Seattle Weekly, and if not, the literally hundreds of mentions of him in articles from LA, to Philly, to NYC, would appear to meet the requirements of WP:BASIC. While I know it's not a valid argument, I'm sure there's more coverage of him in Korean sources, and would like to see a Korean editor do some research on that. But as it is, I think he passes under at least three criteria: WP:GNG, WP:BASIC, and WP:NACTOR. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:27, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Tentative Keep perhaps if it can actually be better improved. SwisterTwister talk 06:04, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Added several citations to the article. Anything it needs? Eric Ingram (talk) 16:03, 27 January 2016 (UTC)Eric[reply]
KeepThe actor has had prominent roles in notable Broadway productions as well as many in Korea. Reliable sources have been found so I think WP:GNG is passed.Atlantic306 (talk) 16:29, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Pinging Joseph2302 and Calton to comment on the new information presented above. Esquivalience ^t 01:59, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 17:29, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep due to the sources provided but also the small article length. Speaking of Jesus Christ Superstar, I'll give the subject this, at least it's a lot more notable then Bob Bingham (and I still can't get over that article being kept) edtiorEهեইдအီးËეεઈדוארई電子ಇអ៊ី전자ഇī😎😎😎😎😎😎😎😎😎😎😎😎 02:32, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Spartaz ^Humbug! 08:18, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Kelly Pryce[edit]

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

Not much in the way of secondary sources; she's a comic who performs, but not much that I can find has been written about her. superβεεcat 22:33, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. She's got local coverage: [9] from KMAX-TV, [10] from Sacramento, and [11] and [12] from News & Review. It's difficult to find non-local sources. Consensus has often been that local coverage by itself is not good enough. If someone can find a solid article in a national magazine, I think that would help show notability. I can't really find any sources that care about her writing career on Lopez Tonight besides the local ones. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 14:28, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Can't find enough in-depth coverage to show she passes WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:31, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This is my first time really being an active member of Wikipedia. I'm very excited. This is where I'm not sure about the policies. I've read over the deletion reasons. From what I can tell, I've cited a lot of notable, reliable sources to confirm that Kelly Pryce is worth having a Wikipedia page...two being from major television networks in the USA. In response to NinjaRobotPirate, becoming a member in the WGA is a very prestigious thing in the entertainment writing community. This accomplishment doesn't mean that an article will be written about getting in, but I can assure you that it's not an easy process. We also live in a digital age, so with the internet, there is no longer a thing called local media; If it's online, anyone in the world can view it. She's also been mentioned on the Wiki page for 106.5 KWOD, which I've linked back to this page. Mrs. Pryce is mentioned on numerous comedy club websites, but to spare the people of Wikipedia, I did not link all of them as they all say the same thing about her and her career. I understand that the Wiki community is trying to prevent randoms from posting on this site, but she has a career in the entertainment industry. Thank you for your time. Misflix (talk) 21:38, 26 January 2016 (UTC)Misflix[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 17:29, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Musa^Talk ☻ 21:07, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Musa^Talk ☻ 21:07, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as unlikely better for WP:CREATIVE. SwisterTwister talk 05:29, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Spartaz ^Humbug! 08:18, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew Paskoff[edit]

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

A production executive without a lot of independent coverage. I found one article in the Hollywood Reporter and a mention in Variety. But there was more substantial coverage of his marriage online than his career and most of what I found were online directory listings which are not reliable sources. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:11, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew is a respected executive in the TV industry with a strong background at some of the industries top content providers, namely MTV and SONY. Scott Paskoff too. These guys are both pioneers of reality TV.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Charlottegatsby (talk • contribs) 22:22, 22 January 2016‎

Delete The only sources I can find are a Hollywood insider stating that he had been given a position with "light-hearted entertainment" and the NY Times wedding announcement (which I assumed is a paid announcement, but anyway, getting married isn't notable). He's still young, and may become notable in the future. LaMona (talk) 23:39, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Why is this such a big deal to you and who are you to determine what or who is considered notable?and my wedding announcement in the NYTimes was NOT paid for. You can't pay for that you have to be selected and it's not easy. In fact being chosen to be listed in the NYTimes wedding announcements is a prestigious distinction which actually makes it, and me, notable. Also, you can check all the article links on my Wikipedia page, which are publications and accurate sources that also make me notable! I have worked hard to achieve in my career and such achievements are considered notable, whether you choose to believe it or not. I feel as if this page deserves to remain and I don't think you, whoever you think you are, have any reason to think otherwise.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Andrewpaskoff (talk • contribs) 07:17, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest you read Wikipedia:Notability (people) for examples of what reliable sources and achievements are considered notable by Wikipedia standards which is how we make decisions on whether or not an article should be kept. If you have more independent coverage of your career from reliable sources that you can add to your article, please mention them on the article talk page as you have an inherent conflict-of-interest here. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:48, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This page was not started by me so there is no conflict of interest. It seems to be a witch hunt and not sure why it means so much to you or anyone to spend any time trying to get this page deleted. And again, what is considered notable is subjective. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Andrewpaskoff (talk • contribs) 21:12, 23 January 2016

"This page was not started by me so there is no conflict of interest." -- who knows? Your comments have created the impression of COI even if inadvertent. Quis separabit? 23:19, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 17:29, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Musa^Talk ☻ 21:09, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Musa^Talk ☻ 21:09, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Musa^Talk ☻ 21:09, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I cannot find the kind of significant independent coverage that is required. In fact, I cannot find sources to even verify many of the claims made in the article. It has been extensively edited by IPs who clearly have personal knowledge of the subject. Andrew, you have an inherent conflict of interest here because you are the subject of the article. Who created it is immaterial. Both you and Charlottegatsby (who created the article and has commented above) are confusing "accomplishment", "respect", or personal "achievement" with "notability" as used on Wikipedia. "Notability" on Wikipedia has a very specific meaning. It means that the subject has been covered in depth and generally in multiple published sources, all of which are entirely independent of the subject. If Andrew (and Scott) Paskoff are considered "pioneers" in their field, then you should be able to find an independent published source that describes them as such. I can't. Voceditenore (talk) 14:57, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No signs of better applicable notability. SwisterTwister talk 05:40, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Uncontested, the argument that the subject does not meet Wikipedia:Notability has not been refuted. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 06:34, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Kadri Alia[edit]

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

Lack of WP:N. Creator did onfuse WP with a resume posting of profile publishing engine. Would make more sense to build an article about the Orphans Organization rather that its director. Mondiad (talk) 22:01, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 17:28, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Musa^Talk ☻ 21:11, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albania-related deletion discussions. Musa^Talk ☻ 21:13, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete:As per strong reasons given by editor Mondiad regarding the issue.Resnjari (talk) 03:45, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As per nom Gbawden (talk) 09:45, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - May be notable but may need to be deleted and restarted at best. SwisterTwister talk 05:37, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:20, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Lesley Demetriades[edit]

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

Non-notable, fails WP:BIO JMHamo (talk) 21:55, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 17:28, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

delete fails notability guidelines CerealKillerYum (talk) 17:30, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Musa^Talk ☻ 21:14, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Musa^Talk ☻ 21:14, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions. Musa^Talk ☻ 21:14, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as certainly questionable for WP:CREATIVE. SwisterTwister talk 05:52, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
'Delete no independent/non-routine coverage. IgnorantArmies (talk) 04:57, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 04:46, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Decimal birthday[edit]

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

Nonnotable invention of a holiday Staszek Lem (talk) 21:33, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or Merge in East_Asian_age_reckoning#Korean. Not entirely sure what this article is about, but if it's a part of Korean culture than it's worth keeping in some way. The term "decimal birthday" is likely a mistranslation or machine translation of some other term, information about which likely already exists on the wiki.--Prisencolin (talk) 22:31, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, we cannot merge unreferenced stuff. We can only delete it. 01:13, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Delete The article does not include adequate refs to support notability.One site about the TKday" is a dead link. Another is someone's l website and says "AsianInfo.org does not guarantee the complete accuracy of the information provided on this site or links. Do your own research and get a professional's opinion before adhering to advice or information contained herein. Use of the information contained herein provided by AsianInfo.org and any mistakes contained within are at the individual risk of the user." The page there which serves as a ref just says that 100 days after birth is culturally important in Korea,since in eras of high infant mortality it is a promising achievement and that the 60th birthday is also culturally important since in former times it represented old age. 60 is not especially "decimal." Checking the internet, I also found a Toronto Star article about how some millenials have judged their 10000th day to be a milestone in addition to turning 18 or 21, since they are 27 and a bit and might be having a midlife quandary. Lump this all together and you have WP:synthesis which is not a good basis for an article. The specific topic "decimal birthday" seems ill-defined and nonnotable. Edison (talk) 23:47, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:39, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The intended topic here gets more comprehensible by looking at an older version, [13], which states, "A decimal birthday is celebrated using the decimal (base ten) numeral system...Decimal birthdays can be celebrated using any time unit (years, months, days, hours, minutes, seconds), however the most common form of celebration uses days. The main form of celebration falls on the occurrence of every 1000th day of a person's life." The 1000 days calculation can be found in Google searches, but I'm not aware of a reliable secondary source. Compare with Google books, Practical Endocrinology and Diabetes in Children, which identifies decimal birthday as the birthdate stated as [(year-1900) plus <the day converted to fractions of a year>], so a decimal birthday for someone born on 2 July 1999 is 99.501. Unscintillating (talk) 23:35, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I can imagine an article about certain birth days being celebrated more (e.g. 40 years old, 50 years old), or those calculated in days. But there is no indication this is called "decimal birthday", nor is their any source. If someone want to write about the subject, with a citable-title and sources, they can always re-start from scratch... L.tak (talk) 15:39, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment [14] quotes from a professor, but I think that a careful reading yields that it is a reliable source for an article called 10k Day with an alternate name of Tkday, but doesn't stand on its own to define "decimal birthday". Unscintillating (talk) 17:00, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 17:25, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I tried googling for this but I found next to nothing. And in addition to the East Asian age reckoning article, there exists a separate Korean one as well: Korean birthday celebrations. --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 04:49, 31 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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 08:19, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Cameron Deas[edit]

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

Doesn't meet WP:MUSICBIO or WP:GNG. Boleyn (talk) 21:07, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 17:24, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

delete fails GNG CerealKillerYum (talk) 17:31, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Musa^Talk ☻ 21:19, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Musa^Talk ☻ 21:19, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Musicians-related deletion discussions. Musa^Talk ☻ 21:19, 29 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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 09:31, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Patrick DeRemer[edit]

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

Doesn't meet WP:MUSICBIO or WP:GNG Boleyn (talk) 20:58, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 17:23, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Musa^Talk ☻ 21:20, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete.--Musa^Talk ☻ 21:21, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:18, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Withdrawn by nominator. (non-admin closure) | Uncle Milty | talk | 23:56, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Bukas, Babaha ng Dugo[edit]

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

~~Film with questionable notability, see also: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hari Ng Sablay Wgolf (talk) 20:52, 22 January 2016 (UTC)~~withdrawn Wgolf (talk) 22:15, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Wgolf: You linked to an AFD that resulted in a keep? That your wish here too?

Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 23:21, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 17:23, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. Musa^Talk ☻ 21:23, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Musa^Talk ☻ 21:23, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

expanded alts:

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

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

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

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

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

Keep per meeting WP:NF. While yes, the nominated article was in poor shape, but a little WP:BEFORE showed available sourcing and allowed it to be easily improved. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 00:33, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Withdrawn-also I put a link to the other AFD as I wanted them to be merged into one afd was why, but too late now. Wgolf (talk) 22:15, 31 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. joe decker ^talk 00:38, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Crazy Anglos[edit]

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

Doesn't meet WP:BAND or WP:GNG Boleyn (talk) 20:51, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete can't find any reliable coverage of this band, and article doesn't have anything better. Doesn't meet GNG or BAND. FuriouslySerene (talk) 21:45, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 17:23, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Musa^Talk ☻ 21:24, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Musa^Talk ☻ 21:24, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as this could be better notable and improvable but there are simply no obvious and convincing signs of it. SwisterTwister talk 06:51, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Spartaz ^Humbug! 08:20, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A Hopeless Motive[edit]

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

Fails WP:NBAND. MySpace is not a reliable source. There are not any WP:SECONDARY sources on the web, only list entries, self-published stuff and the band's own promotion. Nothing has been written in depth about the band by third parties. Binksternet (talk) 19:39, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 17:22, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Musa^Talk ☻ 21:25, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Musa^Talk ☻ 21:25, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Clearly none of this suggests even minimally better notability and coverage. SwisterTwister talk 01:12, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I authored this page, and I can guarantee you it is not an advertisement as we have not been active since 2007. I maintained it as a memoir. I plead that you give me a chance to find more relevant articles to support our history, as they are out there, but unfortunately most of them were in print rather than on the internet. This would satisfy WP:NBAND and establish WP:SECONDARY sources, but will take me a bit of time as I am a working father of three. Again, this is a factual article of historical events, and deleting it from Wikipedia would only decrease the amount of historical knowledge available to its users. Monumentalbasser talk 12:21, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You used MySpace to support the statement that a particular performance is "commonly known" as the band's greatest. You need WP:SECONDARY sources for that, and more than one if you want to keep the article. Binksternet (talk) 05:15, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, and in that message I pleaded for time to gather those WP:SECONDARY sources so the page may be kept, but instead someone went ahead and deleted it, so oh well. Thanks... Monumentalbasser (talk) 18:44, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per the lack of significant coverage in Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources. The article contains two unreliable sources: http://www.myspace.com/ahopelessmotiveband and http://www.fm99.com/Homegrown/2868834.
There is insufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow A Hopeless Motive to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 06:19, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Spartaz ^Humbug! 09:32, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

We-Sport[edit]

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

Article seems to be WP:PROMO of a very small company. Main contributor appears to be the creator of the company, Marco Ivaldi. Creator of the page also appears to be an SPA, likely another one of the company founders. Lots of references on the page but they all seem to be trivial or non-reliable. FuriouslySerene (talk) 19:04, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It was hard to figure this out because the prose is so poor. I did some work on it just trying to make sense of the article. There are newspaper articles about the network as a startup, but if you go the company's site their list of upcoming events is empty, and they haven't tweeted about events since late October 2015. I also couldn't find any recent articles about it in the local newspaper (Turin, Italy) and it definitely seems that is the only place with activities. So it's local only, wanting to be world-wide, but apparently not even making it locally. LaMona (talk) 22:53, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 17:22, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Musa^Talk ☻ 21:27, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. Musa^Talk ☻ 21:28, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Musa^Talk ☻ 21:29, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Plus, article contains no English-language citations. sixtynine ^{• speak up •} 05:10, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as none of this better satisfies the applicable notability, there is some coverage but questionably enough. SwisterTwister talk 03:13, 31 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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 09:32, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sandhya (TV Serial Actress)[edit]

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

Actress with questionable notability with no reliable references either Wgolf (talk) 18:38, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As a note-the first ref is to Facebook which is unreliable and the 2nd has nothing to do with her. Wgolf (talk) 18:38, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I should add all the google results I get for Sandhya Jagarlamudi (which is apparently her real name) are for either Facebook, LinkedIn, Twitter or Instagram it seems! Wgolf (talk) 18:52, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, no significant coverage in reliable soruces. --Nick⁠—⁠^Contact/_Contribs 18:53, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 17:21, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Musa^Talk ☻ 21:29, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Musa^Talk ☻ 21:29, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Musa^Talk ☻ 21:30, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as certainly questionable for WP:CREATIVE. SwisterTwister talk 05:52, 30 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 no consensus. (WP:NPASR). North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:35, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Femina Miss India 2016[edit]

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

Notability can not be determined from this article. Looks like a crystal ball, but article claims that the pageant was already held. The Banner talk 19:10, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:41, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:41, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:41, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:41, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 17:06, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Page will develop over the coming months once the results are out for pageants. Daan0001 (talk) 16:40, 31 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 Binibining Pilipinas . Don't spin out again until there is proper sourcing and detail to add Spartaz ^Humbug! 11:35, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Binibining Pilipinas 2016[edit]

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

Crystal ball, not even the date is known... The Banner talk 19:05, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. sst ✈ 19:10, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. sst ✈ 19:10, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete who knows if it will even happen. Legacypac (talk) 20:29, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep it generally passes WP:GNG as for an upcoming event. ApprenticeFan ^work 00:45, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

How does it pass WP:GNG? (WP:ATA) Mkdw ^talk 07:37, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment well like Miss America and Miss USA, this Philippine pageant competition involves with Big Four international beauty pageants and makes a bit notable simply its a event held once a year. ApprenticeFan ^work 12:57, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

But we don't work on guesswork, we work on sources. And the only source given is just a passing mention... The Banner talk 11:47, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:38, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I guess a redirect to Binibining Pilipinas until more details are announced would be a reasonable option? Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 13:38, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 17:05, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I agree it is the WP:GNG passed in the upcoming event the sourced was officially announced on tempo news flash from Binibining Pilipinas 2016 [15]. Oripaypaykim (talk) 09:50, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- That official announcement is not more than a passing mention. The Banner talk 11:48, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Draft and userfy as there's no better information here and it's until April, a few months away. SwisterTwister talk 05:42, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Binibining Pilipinas until more details are announced per Narutolovehinata5. I agree with The Banner that the source provided by Oripaypaykim is a passing mention. Cunard (talk) 06:43, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. (WP:NPASR). North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:34, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Self Record[edit]

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

Like Hazeltons, this is a non-notable release on almost every measure. The Sputnikmusic page are a series of user opinions. 和DITOR E tails 18:17, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Dat Guy^Talk_Contribs 18:38, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:23, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 17:05, 29 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 no consensus. (WP:NPASR). North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:32, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hazeltons[edit]

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

I'm having almost every notablity concern in the book with this topic. I was not able to find anything but only a passing mention in this Pitchfork interview. The sputnikmusic review that I removed from this page was a user review, making this a completely non-notable album. 和DITOR E tails 18:15, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Dat Guy^Talk_Contribs 18:39, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:23, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 17:05, 29 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 no consensus. The first part of the debate discussed this version of the article. Subsequently, the article was reverted back to being a disambiguation page, which the second part of the debate discussed. The delete !votes centered around the incoherence of the original article, the keep !votes centered around the fact that a coherent disambiguation page once existed, and one redirect !vote disagreed with the usefulness of the disambiguation page. Three separate arguments, but little substantive discussion for each. Thus, I see no viable outcome other than "no consensus." (non-admin closure) Mz7 (talk) 04:52, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Swaminarayan Gadi[edit]

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

I am not sure of this article's purpose. And its talk page is tagged with WikiProject Disambiguation? I don't think this page benefits Wikipedia. --Another Believer _(Talk) 16:15, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The page appears to be talking about a religious prophet, which religion this person is related to, I do not know. Seasider91 (talk) 16:45, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment After doing a little research it appears this page is a duplicate of Swaminarayan. I highly doubt a redirect would be beneficial in this case, or maybe it could? Seasider91 (talk) 16:51, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Revert It seems there was a somewhat useful disambig at one point. It is possible the faction could meet notability for an article but this is not that article. Page may need protection Yasth (talk) 17:05, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep and trout Reverted back to normal disambig. Page has been vandalised severely. Dat Guy^Talk_Contribs 18:42, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. Dat Guy^Talk_Contribs 18:43, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Yasth and DatGuy. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 18:58, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Swaminarayan Sampraday#Breakaway groups and disputes. Not a useful dab, neither linked article contains a mention of 'Swaminarayan Gadi'. The link in the intro, repeated to or three times below that, is the link to the only article which mentions this term, and readers should be directed straight there. Boleyn (talk) 12:24, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. clpo13_(talk) 17:46, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:23, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 17:04, 29 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. The article's subject is found to lack notability. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 04:25, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Lavita raynor[edit]

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

Non-notable artist, fails WP:MUSICBIO JMHamo (talk) 22:48, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 22:52, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. sst ✈ 23:59, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Questionable including for both notability, better sourcing and a better article overall. SwisterTwister talk 06:57, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete The lack of a claim of notability and support for that claim is the issue here. Need for "better sourcing" is an argument to improve the article and the claim that "a better article overall" is desired is not a justification for deletion. If the sourcing can be provided, the article should be retained no matter how much work is needed to improve the article. Alansohn (talk) 16:57, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I keep finding an actress named LaVita Raynor. Is she the same person? short mention, [16]. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 17:56, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 06:42, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 17:04, 29 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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 08:21, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ozone County[edit]

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

Article is for a non-notable subdivision in India. n It is not a census designated population centre as far as I can tell. There is no coverage about this place in reliable sources. One of the previous redirects was to Moga, Punjab. However, I removed its mention there as it was simply advertising, and part of what was essentially a trivia / promotion section. Whpq (talk) 21:36, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:35, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:49, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Doesn't appear to be a legally recognized place, doesn't have coverage in multiple reliable sources. Fails WP:NGEO and WP:GNG. —UY Scuti ^Talk 17:01, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 17:04, 29 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. Given problems with npov this could be as much a TNT job as a GNG. There is no objection to someone trying to write a clean correctly sourced non promotional and npov article but given problems here I'm salting so that the draft gets reviewed before going into mainspace. Spartaz ^Humbug! 08:05, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Greg Brockman[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Since the last deletion discussion in November the article has changed significantly, but the basic problem - the lack of significant coverage of Brockman in reliable third-party sources - remains unaddressed. Instead, the article subtly misrepresents the passing mentions it is largely based on and inflates Brockman's role. Huon (talk) 09:43, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. sst ✈ 14:27, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Huon (talk), please provide evidence before deletion nomination. Deletion aggression seems to be a trend now in technology entrepreneur articles, so I'm going to take the time to debunk it in the case of this particular article. Your vague claims are not supported by the citations in this article. For one, Brockman is the exclusive subject of interview here^[1] and here.^[2] That's BusinessInsider, which Alexa ranks as the 250th most-trafficked site.^[3] Please tell me how that's not of significant noteworthiness. Second, I couldn't find one citation in this article that over-inflated Brockman's involvement or position. Please show me one that does. Finally, you mention "reliable" third-party sources. Scroll down to the References section of this article: Wired, Breitbart, WSJ, SFGate, FastCompany, Seattle Times, NY Times, The Guardian, New Yorker, Slate. Please show me which aren't credible. Executionary (talk) 18:43, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment For example:
- "At Stripe, Brockman shaped portions of the company's organization and technology while helping the company raise over $190 million in funding." - of the two references, one is written by Brockman himself and not a suitable source for arguably promotional content; the other does not mention him at all. Neither mentions Brockman's role in securing the funding, if any. Response from Executionary: I agree. The citations here are weak. Just updated to remove fundraising claim.
- "He co-founded the company alongside technology entrepreneurs Elon Musk and Sam Altman." - two references, neither says Brockman was a co-founder. / Response from Executionary: He's listed as the co-founder here^[4]. I've swapped this citation in.
- "Brockman is responsible for designing the team's operating structure and recruiting researchers from the field, including former Google scientist and neural network pioneer Ilya Sutskever as Research Director and Durk Kingma (inventor of the variational autoencoder) as a scientist." - two references, neither of which mentions Brockman; those sources which do mention both Brockman and Sutskever mention them side-by-side and give no indication that one was responsible for hiring the other. / Response from Executionary: His BusinessInsider interview here^[5] states he "He says, OpenAI's focus was on making sure that it had the right organizational structure and recruiting the right people to give it a solid foundation for its future research over a span of years and decades." Seems clear he's describing what he's in charge of as the CTO — the person who makes technical and therefore technical recruiting decisions. More concretely, however, is this: "Greg came in from nowhere and scooped up the top people to do something great and make something new."^[6] I've swapped the citations in.
- "Brockman introduced an "open by default" email policy to Stripe's internal communications, which was cited in the technology and business press as a novel approach to fostering company culture." - four references, not one of them crediting Brockman with introducing the policy - all they say is he wrote a blog post about it. / Response from Executionary: GigaOM covers his policy here,^[7] and he announces it in his own blog post on Stripe, as you mentioned.

Does that list of examples suffice to give an idea of how the article inflates what the citations say (or don't say) about Brockman? The Guardian and The New Yorker do not mention Brockman at all. Slate and NYT do, but only in passing without providing any details. In fact, The New York Times is cited for two sentences that are not about Brockman in the first place and should be removed even if Brockman were notable enough for an article. Huon (talk) 19:25, 22 January 2016 (UTC) / Response from Executionary: Nearly all the links I look at mention Greg Brockman directly or quote from him. A few that are being cited for supporting evidence do not.[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage from multiple independent reliable sources. The subject passes WP:BASIC: ^[8], ^[9], ^[10], ^[11], ^[12]. He is cited by name by in all of them, and directly interviewed/quoted by most. Numericality 22 January 2016

Delete I'm finding disturbing disconnect between what is said in some sources and what is in the article. This source says that the founders of OpenAI were Musk and Altman. Brockman is said to be CTO, but is not named as a founder. Yet the text says that Brockman founded the company ... with Musk and Altman, making it sound like Brockman was the main founder, or at least one of the main founders. It does the same thing in another part of the article. Here are two bits of text:

article: "serves as the CTO of the artificial intelligence non-profit OpenAI, which he co-founded with technology entrepreneurs Elon Musk (of Tesla and SpaceX) and Sam Altman (of Y Combinator)"

source: "OpenAI, the new company cofounded by Tesla CEO Elon Musk and Y Combinator President Sam Altman, took a long time to come to fruition, says CTO Greg Brockman."

I removed a few promotional statements, and when I started checking references many did not support the statements they follow. It turned out to be a big job to go through it all, but when I saw the part about founding the company I concluded that nothing in the article could be trusted. Also, the article has been WP:REFBOMBed with four or five cites for a single statement of fact. Taken together, I am concluding that this article violates WP:PROMO and WP:NPOV. It is quite possible that a non-promotional article could show notability, but this isn't that. LaMona (talk) 23:34, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now as questionably solid despite some links here and there, restart if better later at best. SwisterTwister talk 07:32, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: as per Numericality's rationale. No proper reason given to delete this article. --Fixuture (talk) 19:26, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 17:04, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. He has not gotten substantially more notable since the first AfD. Claim such as "shaped portions of the company's organization and technology" or while "helping the company raise XXX million" are vague; every executive in the firm at the time could probably say that. "Founder" is often claimed, but needs to be documented--many new companies list quite a number of people as co-founder, but that doesn't necessarily indicate a role. Ref 4, a Huffington Post article not substantially about him, lists him as founder, but all other sources name only Musk and Altman. I agree with LaMona that this is pretty close to G11 territory . Borderline notability combined with clear promotionalism is an good reason for deletion. DGG ( talk ) 21:54, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) ansh 666 07:19, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Korn Kovers[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

The album was never released. Fails WP:NALBUMS. Koala15 (talk) 16:43, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. clpo13_(talk) 17:18, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Being released is not a criteria for a subject having its own article. Meeting the WP:GNG through significant coverage in reliable, third party sources, is. With coverage from websites like Billboard, aka, one of the biggest, most influential music-related reliable sources in the United States, dedicate entire articles about the subject, that's an indication of meeting the notability requirements. Sergecross73 msg me 16:50, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy deleted. by author request Beeblebrox (talk) 22:48, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Aremu Philip[edit]

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

Contested PROD. Concern was Article about a footballer who fails WP:GNG and who has not played in a fully pro league. PROD was contested without a reason being provided. Sir Sputnik (talk) 15:48, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 15:48, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NFOOTY as not played in FPL, nothing to suggest that he meets GNG any other way. Seasider91 (talk) 17:00, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 18:14, 29 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. Sam Walton (talk) 00:14, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Phil Smeeton[edit]

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

Non-notable actor and musician who fails WP:CREATIVE. Searches for his name show pretty much nothing but cast lists. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 15:47, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: agree with nom. The guy has been in a few things, but not notable. ubiquity (talk) 17:58, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as fails WP:GNG, WP:NMUSIC, and WP:NACTOR Scr★pIron^IV 20:34, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Musa^Talk ☻ 21:35, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Musa^Talk ☻ 21:35, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Musicians-related deletion discussions. Musa^Talk ☻ 21:35, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Musa^Talk ☻ 21:35, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Unlikely better satisfying WP:CREATIVE. SwisterTwister talk 01:17, 30 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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 11:30, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dita Field Hockey[edit]

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

Almost no coverage of the company in secondary sources, so fails WP:CORP. A search in Google web/News/Newspaper archive/Books/Bing web doesn't turn up anything more than one-off name-checks or sites selling their products. (For example, here—just one brief mention.) Highbeam has a few hits, but nothing that meets WP:CORP. (There's a one-off mention in the Washington Post and this laudatory piece in the Sunday Herald, but it seems to be an outright advertisement for Dita's products.) /wiae /tlk 15:35, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I should mention that they are occasionally named in sources like this one, in that they seem to have sponsored a field hockey tournament, but that's again not coverage of the company. /wiae /tlk 15:37, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as the current article has no conceivable signs of better satisfying the applicable notability guidelines. WP:TNT at best, SwisterTwister talk 23:57, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 23:57, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 23:57, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 23:57, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 23:57, 29 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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:30, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Pallett Valo LLP[edit]

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

Only source on this article is a LinkedIn page. Just a typical mid-sized law firm, and I don't see any indication of what makes it notable. My searches turned up no reliable coverage of the firm. Firm doesn't appear to meet WP:GNG or WP:CORP. FuriouslySerene (talk) 14:58, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep - I would really love t =o give this one a strong keep but since the author has not cited the source that states It is the largest law firm in Peel I will go for a weak keep. Aha... (talk) 15:29, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Even if there was a reliable source for the claim, I don't think being the largest law firm of one of the many regions outside of Toronto confers inherent notability (see WP:ORGSIG). FuriouslySerene (talk) 18:45, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no indication of notability. Neither WP:NCORP nor WP:GNG is met, and being the largest law firm in a municipality is not even a credible claim to notability. --bonadea contributions talk
Delete While the firm is briefly mentioned in a variety of sources, the in-depth coverage isn't there. Nwlaw63 (talk) 16:04, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - just not seeing the amount of significant (rather than trivial) sources required by WP:NCORP to show notability. JMWt (talk) 16:20, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Musa^Talk ☻ 21:36, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:00, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:01, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and I may've simply PRODed this as it's easily applicable, no signs of any better for a local law company. SwisterTwister talk 06:52, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Spartaz ^Humbug! 09:37, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Inania[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. I can't even verify that this community exists. A previous PROD was removed. Sitush (talk) 08:30, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:10, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:10, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:10, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:10, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, since it's been tagged as having no references since September 2011 and a quick search doesn't reveal any possible sources. Cordless Larry (talk) 12:14, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, seems a hopeless case with no notability. Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:27, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, it is a misnomer to expect that all references especially to such old cultural names to be found online.I think the bar of having online refs even for old material like this is raising the bar a bit too high and this would essentially delete out important topics. Kwisha (talk) 15:34, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- The sources don't need to be online, Kwisha, but we do require details of those sources. If you know of any offline sources, please add them to the article. Cordless Larry (talk) 16:02, 29 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 keep. (non-admin closure) ansh 666 07:20, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Felino Corporation[edit]

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

A small manufacturer of cars. No attempt to show notability. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 10:59, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:35, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:35, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:35, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - as well as the two sources I added to the article there is also coverage in Top Gear Magazine and New York Daily News, plus some other French sources. Not a lot, but given the amount of capital and industry expertise you need to even launch a production racing car on the Circuit Gilles Villeneuve, I'd say this is far more than a run of the mill glorified MOT test centre. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 12:38, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Draft and userfy at best because the best my searches found were also a few links here but nothing solidly convincing enough to suggest a solid article yet. SwisterTwister talk 06:50, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:22, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:08, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Manufacturers of street automobiles are considered to be notable. In addition a quick gNews check shows sufficent coverage for independent notability; what's needed here is an article on the car as well, not the deletion of the company. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 09:57, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Soft delete Spartaz ^Humbug! 08:10, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Helen Ward (solicitor)[edit]

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

She is a non-notable lawyer, fails WP:BIO. UI1990 (talk) 07:29, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non-notable. Legally representing a few notable people (Ian McEwan and the second Countess Spencer) does not confer notability, any more than being their chauffeur does. Emeraude (talk) 13:23, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:04, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Musa^Talk ☻ 21:38, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Musa^Talk ☻ 21:38, 29 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) 05:04, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Gourock Park Bowling Club[edit]

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

Clearly doesn't meet WP:ORG or WP:GNG Boleyn (talk) 06:52, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:01, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:01, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:01, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:04, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as questionably notable local club. SwisterTwister talk 06:23, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom – no indication of satisfying the standard set forth by WP:ORG. My searches turned up little. Additionally, parts of this article appear to have been directly lifted off of [17] and [18]. Mz7 (talk) 02:47, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sam Walton (talk) 00:24, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Swati Patankar[edit]

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

Non notable scientist. See also Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Molecular_and_Cell_Biology#Swati_Patankar --Dweller (talk) 09:34, 15 January 2016 (UTC) Dweller (talk) 09:34, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. sst ✈ 10:03, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. sst ✈ 10:03, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. Citation counts on Google scholar are respectable but not quite enough to convince me of a pass of WP:PROF#C1 in the absence of anything else. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:30, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:51, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:04, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

~~Redirect as suggested. Simplest solution. DGG ( talk ) 19:09, 29 January 2016 (UTC)~~ (this comment was accidentally pasted here; it was meant for a different discussion). DGG ( talk ) 17:36, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The two most highly cited papers are from when she wa a postdoctoral fellow in a very notable laboratory; no major work since then. DGG ( talk ) 17:38, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as this is questionable for the applicable notability, delete for now. SwisterTwister talk 18:02, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. (WP:NPASR). North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:29, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mithun Ramesh[edit]

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

Questionably notable for WP:CREATIVE as there's nothing solid, aside from the claims of Guinness World Records, to suggest a solidly notable and acceptable article; the best my searches found was only this (News), this (browsers links) and this (WP:INDAFD) and none of it seems convincing enough. SwisterTwister talk 07:12, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 07:13, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 07:13, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 07:13, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:49, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:03, 29 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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 09:40, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Boy howdy (idiom)[edit]

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

WP:DICDEF, sources are only spouting definitions in circles. No hint of notability as a phrase. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 06:34, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:08, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:08, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Boy howdy, I'd keep it. It's more than a dicdef; if you move it over to Wiktionary, you'll have to toss out most of it, and what's the value of throwing away good info? It has sufficient refs already, but instead of tossing it out let's add to it and keep this piece of American linguistic culture. (Full disclosure: I wrote the article so naturally I have a personal attachment to it). Herostratus (talk) 13:30, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Expanding on this... I've written several articles in Category:American English idioms which has 35 articles. All of these are useful for a couple reasons: 1) providing a quick definition and source for the casual user who runs across the idiom in literature and 2) preserving info and references on these idioms, some of which are obscure and vanishing, for future years. Some of the articles also provide paragraphs if more in-depth info about the idiom, but some don't, because I don't have it, which doesn't prove it doesn't exist and mightn't be added later. Sure, you can take Category:American English idioms and pick off a few articles which are (currently) weak, but why? Hey the refs for this article are better than those for Say Uncle and a bunch of others. You want to remove reader's ability to find out what those mean too? Why? I'd like to see a strong argument and consensus accepting "Keeping the reader in ignorance regarding this idiom helps fulfill our mission because ______________", where the blank is hella more than a robotic citing of WP:DICDEF. Herostratus (talk) 19:52, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – While the article has reasonable prose, it still covers only definition, usage (which is a subset of definition), and etymology – making it a WP:DICDEF written in long-form, not an encyclopedic topic. Aspirex (talk) 23:33, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Boy howdy, not enough input for consensus to be determined, so relisting. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:52, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:52, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – On Wikipedia, the standard for inclusion is notability, which is satisfied through evidence of significant coverage in reliable sources; the relevant section of DICDEF is WP:WORDISSUBJECT: As with any subject, articles on words must contain encyclopedic information. That is, articles must go beyond what would be found in a dictionary entry [...] and include information on the social or historical significance of the term. Unfortunately, I do not believe this standard is met. The Word Detective appears to be a WordPress blog (possibly WP:USERGENERATED)—however, it appears some entires may have been published in newspapers. It's not clear whether the "boy howdy" article specifically has been published in that fashion. The Shelby County Today source is local, online-publication-only, with presumably limited readership. I'm doubtful as to whether it contributes much to the subject's notability. Most of the other references provided in the article appear to only mention the idiom in passing, some of them only show examples of usage. I can't find any other reliable sources that discuss this subject in-depth. Perhaps information about this phrase has a place on another project like Wiktionary, or on a broader list of idioms, but it appears there's simply not enough coverage available to write a standalone encyclopedia article about it. Mz7 (talk) 02:24, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and draft & userfy instead as this actually has potential for an article but perhaps not now, at least until better is available. SwisterTwister talk 05:54, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 23:26, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wolf Bickel[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

While I admire Mr. Bickel's achievements, this unsourced BLP merely lists his discoveries of minor planets. It withstood a previous AfD nomination in 2005, but despite that, I cannot find any significant coverage by reliable, independent secondary sources (WP:GNG). Moreover, the article does not establish Mr. Bickel's notability. Considering that over 700,000 minor planets were known as of late 2015 [19], I respectfully submit that the discovery of 0.1% of these should not be considered automatically notable in the absence of reliable sources asserting his notability. Astro4686 (talk) 06:08, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Astronomy-related deletion discussions. Astro4686 (talk) 06:08, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Astro4686 (talk) 06:08, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

keep sometimes we may bend our rules. To discover 600 asteroids is clearly a feat. - üser:Altenmann >t 06:42, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Hi Altenmann, thank you for your comment. While I agree that Mr. Bickel's accomplishment is a feat, my concern is that Wikipedia's notability guideline requires more than just an impressive achievement without context. If the article stated why his work has been notable and provided appropriate attribution, I would likely be persuaded to withdraw the nomination. Unfortunately, in its current form, I don't think that it meets the bare minimum requirements of WP:NBIO and WP:VERIFIABILITY.Astro4686 (talk) 09:37, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep When we evaluate notability for academics, WP:PROF says that academics whose work shows a significant impact on their field are considered notable. I would make an analogy to this case, and say that his position as among the most prolific discovers of small planets perhaps renders him notable. I'm not entirely convinced, though. Oh, and that table needs to be taken out of the article, it is quite ridiculous having a table with ~600 redlinks in a Bio. Vanamonde93 (talk) 07:32, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Hi Vanamonde93, thank you for your input. While I generally agree with your analysis, I think that the problem is that the article doesn't actually establish his impact within astronomy. It presumes that the discovery of that many minor planets is intrinsically notable, but I think that that's an assumption that requires attribution. For example, with your analogy, if a professor published hundreds of articles, that fact in isolation would not establish the person's impact. Astro4686 (talk) 09:37, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:46, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, but the article needs to be improved. His achievements are impressive, but the article itself is weak, and as the nominator has said, needs to clearly establish the significance of the subject. A request for article improvement should be posted to the relevant projects, and if it hasn't improved in that time, let it be nominated again. Since the original AfD was for verifiability, which was disproved, I think this solution is acceptable. 8bitW (talk) 17:47, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Spartaz ^Humbug! 09:40, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's Me, Matthew![edit]

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

Non-notable film appearing to fail WP:NOTFILM. Played at a few festivals and won a single small award, but lacks in-depth support. reddogsix (talk) 05:43, 22 January 2016 (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)).

Comment - The article is supported by notable third party sources and follows all WP guidelines. If anyone wants to add to it or edit they can feel free. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Susanmac50 (talk • contribs) 05:48, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The article fails to be supported by in-depth WP:SECONDARY independent articles. reddogsix (talk) 06:22, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Reddog, If you would like you may feel free to edit this. I can point out film articles on WP that have never won an award and have less notable references.At this point you have made this a personal attack to keep flagging this titled article. If you want you can feel free to add to it or edit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Susanmac50 (talk • contribs) 05:52, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Other articles have no bearing on this article. See WP:WAX. There is no personal attack and frankly how you can make this statement is beyond me. I am questioning the inclusion of the article, not you. I suggest you read WP:AGF before you make any similar comments. reddogsix (talk) 06:22, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Reddog, i did not mean anything by my statement. This is a very profound film that was based on a true story, that you should see to understand why I am adding it to WP. Moreover, I have supported all statements made on WP with notable third party references as WP's guidelines. No copyright is violated and everything is supported by newspaper, magazine, and third party websites noting the short film. If you would like to help out and add to it or edit. Please feel free. Any feedback is appreciated. Susan — Preceding unsigned comment added by Susanmac50 (talk • contribs) 06:56, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. sst ✈ 17:14, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I am the producer and I have a big scrapbook full of reviews that were published in the media. As I understand it, this will help with notability. HX magazine and festivals (talk) 14:23, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

All the refernces I have added when creating this page are from notable sources: magazines, newspaper, and festivals. All the statements have been backed up with reliable third party sources.

If reddog or anyone else cares to add to the page, that would be great. But all my references follow the notability guidelines set forth in WPSusanmac50 (talk) 04:37, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Reddog, please stop flagging and removing the photo I added to this page. It is my own copyright and I have donated it through WP donation to the public, 3.0 commons guidelines. I have signed and authorized it to WP upload to use it for the public donation use. I own the rights to the photo and image and have donated it to WP. ] (talk) 05:09, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - If you wish to donate material to Wikipedia, please read and follow the instructions in WP:DCM. Until you do so, the images will most likely be removed as copyright violations. reddogsix (talk) 14:59, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

weak delete - seemingly failing GNG as well as NOTFILM (I can't find anything that isn't a one-sentence mention or an un-RS), this not-feature-length film does not seem to meet the criteria for inclusion. That being said, there are a lot of one-sentence mentions... Primefac (talk) 05:31, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with the comment above. The truth is this not being a feature film has nothing to do with it. WP has categories on here for Short films and other short films are on WP. There are enough third part sources about the film's credability including festivals it has been in. Also, you can see on those articles the dates they were written and that the short film is legit and notable. Rodsena37 (talk) 06:07, 24 January 2016 (UTC)Rodsena37Rodsena37 (talk) 06:07, 24 January 2016 (UTC)Rodsena37 (talk) 05:57, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I will add the full info in the articles if that help Thank you Rod, but yes WP has categories here for short films, so this not being a feature film is irrelevant. Moreover, I will add the full citation of the magazines and news papers which are more then just one line. Susanmac50 (talk) 06:05, 24 January 2016 (UTC)Susanmac50Susanmac50 (talk) 06:05, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Based on the wrong way Susanmac50 (talk · contribs) and Rodsena37 (talk · contribs) have signed their comments on this page, they may be the same person. 64.134.64.190 (talk) 06:30, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, yes Rod and I are the same person, right Rod?. I love how people throw allegations without support. Isn't that against the whole WP website to cite things without support? That's like me stating, Reddog and you are the same person?! You know at this point, lets just it keep it professional behavior to WP guidelines. I think that would be the best thing for everyone. Susanmac50 (talk) 07:18, 24 January 2016 (UTC)Susanmac50Susanmac50 (talk) 07:18, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well... unfortunately the way that you sign things is fairly distinctive and not the common way most would sign their comments, even as a new, inexperienced user. It's possible that you might be the same person, but I think that it's more likely that the two of you happen to know one another IRL and as such, mimick each other's signature styles because you see the other doing this. If this is the case then it's understandable, however it would be best if you confirmed how you relate to one another to dispel sockpuppetry concerns. The situation is slightly more complicated than that so I would recommend reading over WP:MTPPT. It's not entirely against the rules per se to ask people to come and help, but you need to be very careful about what you say and how the other people argue for inclusion. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 07:35, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: We'd need to be able to verify some of the sources that aren't on the Internet. For example, the article asserts that the film was reviewed by the Herald Sun, but the news source's title is "68 films to be shown at gay film festival". The title implies that these are films that have yet to be screened at the festival and that the news source is a list of films with brief synopses that are possibly based on press releases or information provided by the festival. In other words, this type of article is unlikely to be a review since most of these are articles written before the author has had a chance to review the film. The sources that can be verified just show that it screened at various film festivals, which is almost never something that would assert notability. It's assumed that the average film would screen at various festivals, so this isn't something that would give notability at Wikipedia. Also, sources like this one are considered to be predominantly routine notifications of events since it looks to be heavily based on a press release. The award from the WHIFF wouldn't be considered one that would give notability because as far as Wikipedia is concerned, the film festival and its awards are too minor for its purposes. It's harsh, but there are so many film festivals out there that give awards that WP has had to limit things to awards ceremonies that have received heavy enough coverage to where the ceremony/award/festival would warrant an article, which doesn't seem to be the case here. This link is just a passing mention so it'd be considered WP:TRIVIAL.

Now when it comes to Cinema Without Borders, this is slightly tricky. The main website itself would be considered a reliable source because it's listed in several academic sources as a WP:RS. However a look at the source in the article shows that it's a blog and a quick search shows that they accepted user submitted content. The page says that the submissions are reviewed, but it doesn't say how much editorial oversight goes into these submissions. It could be that they're reviewed thoroughly or they're given a cursory glance to ensure that it isn't comprised of objectionable material such as hate speech, threats, and the like. The heading on the site is "express your opinion on international & independent cinema" gives off the strong impression that it's the latter, as most user submitted content sites do not monitor for much beyond obvious issues that most forums would screen for. As such, I'm forced to assume that this would not be usable as a reliable source.

This leaves us with only a few sources that might be usable. If the HX Magazine sources are in-depth and not reliant on PR or just notifications of events, those would be usable. The same thing goes for the LusAmericano and Herald-Sun sources. My recommendation, since there are people on here that are clearly associated with the production itself, would be for you to upload clippings of these articles to your website. You could e-mail them to us, but scanning them and putting them on your website would be the fastest and easiest way to do this. Just make sure that you put in something that would show the paper/magazine and the date when it was published. If these are usable, then these would help the film pass NFILM. On a side note, is LusAmericano the paper LusoAmericano? If so, this looks like it would be a RS offhand. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 07:27, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Now as far as stuff about short vs feature length goes, the reason why some have mentioned this is because short films tend to be passed over by most media unless they happen to turn into media darlings or become controversial. It stinks, but it's unfortunately the common fate of most short films, regardless of their merit. Again though, if the off-line sources are usable then those should be able to assert notability. I'm just concerned that the HS source (or some of the others) is just a notification of an upcoming event, though. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 07:30, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Tokyogirl79[ You can verify by emailing Mr. Cliff Bellamy at Herald Sun and verify that he did review the film. We spoke to Mr. Bellamy, and he said he received screeners before the festival that he watched and that they were reviews. If you do not believe me, then you can call him or email him verify for yourself. --Susanmac50 (talk) 01:23, 3 February 2016 (UTC)--Susanmac50 (talk) 07:01, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As to answer your following questions.

The Herald Sun, was a review of haven seen the film because it clearly states that, "Ferreira skillful use of the flashback technique". You can verify by emailing Mr. Cliff Bellamy at Herald Sun, and verify that he did review the film. We spoke to Mr. Bellamy, and he said he received screeners before the festival that he watched and that they were reviews. If you do not believe me, then you can call or email yourself to verify.--Susanmac50 (talk) 07:06, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I can upload the Luso_ Americano newspaper article. It is in Portuguese text. Mr. Ferreira got part of cover page and entire page 11. The article was based on his past work in television and the making the film, It's Me, Matthew!. I can upload that for your review.
HX Magazine was at more then one screening of It's Me, Matthew! they gave Michael Musto a review on his performance. Again they saw the film and were in attendance at more then just one event since they cover gay community events in New York City, and being that Mr. Musto is celebrated highly and respected in the New York City community. Also, you can find a picture of Hedda lettuce and Michael Ferreira on IMDB It's Me, Matthew page, taken by HX Magazine.. How shall I upload you the Luso Americano article for your review? Susanmac50 (talk) 08:07, 24 January 2016 (UTC)Susanmac50Susanmac50 (talk) 08:07, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Also, Mr. Ferreira was asked to host the 2009 Rhode island International Film Festival in drag that year. He is pictured on IMDB with Doris Roberts for that event as his drag persona, Carmella Cann, while his film was being screened there that year. there links online to support that. Susanmac50 (talk) 08:17, 24 January 2016 (UTC)Susanmac50Susanmac50 (talk) 08:17, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.film-festival.org/Podcasts.phpSusanmac50 (talk) 08:18, 24 January 2016 (UTC)SusanSusanmac50 (talk) 08:18, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This is a link to an uploaded Luso-Americano Article about Mr Ferreira and It's Me, Matthew! Sorry if i uploaded under the wrong linkSusanmac50 (talk) 08:26, 24 January 2016 (UTC)Susanmac50Susanmac50 (talk) 08:26, 24 January 2016 (UTC) [20] Susanmac50 (talk) 08:27, 24 January 2016 (UTC)susan50Susanmac50 (talk) 08:27, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Also, while I recognize that youtube is not a credible source for WP, off the record for everyone here reviewing my credibility and for that record, here is a link to confirm that Mr. McDerman aka Michael Ferreira was in attendance for his film screening at North Carolina for the screening: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Newpaper_article,_It%27s_me,_matthew.jpg Susanmac50 (talk) 08:29, 24 January 2016 (UTC)Susanmac50Susanmac50 (talk) 08:29, 24 January 2016 (UTC),[21]Susanmac50 (talk) 08:58, 24 January 2016 (UTC)susan50Susanmac50 (talk) 08:58, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Can you provide scans of the reviews for the HS or HX Magazine? We just need to be able to verify these sources. This sounds awful and it's not meant to sound awful, but we can't accept things on the say-so of others. This is because unfortunately we've had things misrepresented in the past, sometimes intentionally, sometimes not, and the side effect of that is that offline sourcing is very easily challenged unless some sort of proof (images, etc) can be provided. The Luso Americano source is perfect, so that's one source that we can say is absolutely usable to establish notability. All we need now is to verify the other two sources that are supposed to be reviews and if they're in-depth, the article should pass NFILM. Now as far as the general pictures and videos of people at events, those can't really do anything for notability or verify that a source is indepth - only an image of the source itself, like the Luso Americano source can do that. They can be fun things that you can upload to Wikimedia Commons if you own the copyrights for the images (and I highly recommend that you do, since they sound like they'd be cool to have). Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 09:44, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

While going through my computer files I found these two additional clippings about the private screening in June 2008. Published in Next magazine June 13, 2008, page 7 issue # 15.50 top discusses private screening of It's Me, Matthew. PUBLISHED IN HX MAGAZINE JUNE 20, 2008 PAGE 18

Also, this was another one in HX I just found with a picture that is my copyright. [22]Susanmac50 (talk) 11:42, 24 January 2016 (UTC)SusanmacSusanmac50 (talk) 11:42, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Tokyogirl79: i want to send you a carbon copy of the articles to resolve this issue about the It's Me, Matthew! page.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/It%27s_Me,_Matthew! I have carbon copy's of my citation and wanted to send them to you and don't know what is the best method? Do you have a personaal email I can send it to to expedite this process? Thanks and I look forward to hearing back from you. ~ Susanmac50 Susanmac50 (talk) 22:13, 24 January 2016 (UTC~ Susanmac50Susanmac50 (talk) 22:17, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Susanmac50: You can e-mail me here. That will send a link to my email I used to sign up with Wikipedia and we can go from there. Offhand I think that you should be OK to upload news clippings to the film's website - most news organizations are OK with that as long as you credit them accordingly. Now as far as this goes, it's just a captioned image so it'd be seen as a WP:TRIVIAL source and wouldn't be able to back up the claims of the review itself, unfortunately. It's kind of tricky. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 06:33, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I dealt with these editors while getting article Michael McDerman into shape. They appear to be separate people and mean well, but they are both very new to wikitext, including signatures, refs, and Special:EmailUser. I await a copy of the Luso-Americano article, as I could not find it online, and the deleted image referred to above. If this article does not pass here at AfD, I hope it can be userfied or merged into the Michael McDerman article. — Jeff G. ツ (talk) 04:50, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have gotten multiple images via email:

http://i.imgur.com/HVyiQUf.jpg from LusoAmericano, in Portuguese, which I do not read. "Luis- Americano, June 27, 2008 Cover photo and page 11" My previous cite: Mano, Henrique. Actor Launches Semi-Autobiographical Short-Film. LusAmericano (USA) 27 June 2008, Iss. 3515, pg. 11. Retrieved 2016-01-19. My new cite: Mano, Henrique. MICHAEL FERREIRA TEMS ORIGENS EM MANGUALDE - Luso-americano que faz carreira como actor aventura-se agora an realização - É semi-autobiográfica a primeira curta-metragem que assina como realizador de cinema (MICHAEL FERREIRA HAVE CHANGES IN MANGUALDE - Portuguese-American who is acting career adventure is now an achievement - is semi-autobiographical short film first signing as film director). Luso-Americano (USA) 27 June 2008, Iss. 3515, pp. 1, 11. Retrieved 2016-01-19.
http://i.imgur.com/bKq3a7Q.jpg from Next Magazine, June 13, 2008 issue 15.50 page 7
http://i.imgur.com/3T5N7yJ.jpg from HX Magazine, June 20, 2008 page 18
http://i.imgur.com/LCxtYRl.jpg from Rhode Island International Fiim Festival clipping
http://i.imgur.com/4hFYsHE.jpg "a photo clip from HX magazine as well tconfirming Hedda Lettuce and Chelsea Cinema." similar to the captioned image http://www.imdb.com/media/rm906683136/tt1261421 addressed above.

I only cited #1 per Primefac below. — Jeff G. ツ (talk) 18:37, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to number these, just to make it easier. I haven't translated #1, but 2-4 are all just one-paragraph mentions. Nothing to demonstrate passing GNG. Primefac (talk) 18:52, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as passing GNG per #1. — Jeff G. ツ (talk) 19:58, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:44, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:44, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've reviewed the sources suggested above, and I don't believe they meet WP:GNG, as they're trivial mentions. An award at the West Hollywood International Film Festival seems like a stronger claim to notability, but unfortunately I'm not seeing much to suggest that this film festival is particularly notable either. I don't know about HX magazine or how extensive the mention was there. I'd like to say that this film was notable, but I'm just not seeing anything which seems to me to meet the WP:GNG. JMWt (talk) 16:49, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Alts:

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

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

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

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

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

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

http://cinemawithoutborders.com/userblogs/blog/2008/07/30/beholdthe-power-of-short-films/ Cinema Without Boarders--Susanmac50 (talk) 09:40, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Also, speaking of Next Magazine it is here on WP as a source. Second, Anyone who lives in downtown scene on New York City knows HX Magazine. Here are 3 links to HX Credibility:
1. http://www.edgemedianetwork.com/news///186165
2. http://www.villagevoice.com/blogs/hx-magazine-in-crisis-6371475--Susanmac50 (talk) 09:29, 30 January 2016 (UTC)http://djparis.com/hx-magazine.html j--Susanmac50 (talk) 09:41, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Also, Michael Musto , who wrote this article I am quoting in the Village Voice. Maybe, you never heard of the (Village Voice), a very well known New York City Newspaper. Michael Musto, has been noted in the New York Post http://nypost.com/2008/06/05/starr-report-kathie-lee/--Susanmac50 (talk) 09:23, 30 January 2016 (UTC) as co-starring in the film It's Me, Matthew! Paul Anothony Stewart , a very well known American Soap Opera Actor for 25 years was mentioned in Luso_Americano as an actor in the film It's Me, Matthew! Feel free to google both of them on notability. I have a sent a clip of Luso Americano to Jeff G. which mentioned It's Me, Matthew!! Michael Ferreira , Paul Anthony Stewart, Michael Musto, and the film festivals. @Jeff G.:[reply]

--Susanmac50 (talk) 03:34, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

First, I have sent Jeff G. newspaper article, magazine mention, and Rhode Island International Film Festival Clipping showing the film played there. Second, the image that was put up on this page has been in the press many times and Jeff can confirm that because in two of the things I sent him and is under commons 4.0 to use. Please stop taking down the photo's they are not copyright violations. and Jeff G. has a copy to prove it in an email I sent him. Third, the Rhode Island International film festival is a very recognizable Oscar Award Winning Film Festival.. . . showing It's Me, Matthew! played there and at many other festivals. Moreover, West Hollywood International Film Festival, there is a third party link to the festival's website. If you do not recognize that then any film on WP that has played at a smaller festival and it is mentioned should not have not? Moreover, weather this film won an award or not is not what makes it notable. I can mention at least 15 films on WP that have never been nominated nor won anything. Plus there are three notable actors in this film, as on WP. confirmation is at at least 4 different sources. --Susanmac50 (talk) 02:47, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Unfortunately, as stated before, other articles have no bearing on this article - but I would venture to guess they have adequate coverage. See WP:WAX. reddogsix (talk) 15:35, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Ferreira has been and mentions and associated with the film at Rhode Island International Film Festival, Luso Americano, Cinema Without Boarders, HX Magazine, Herald Sun, and Next magazine. Michael Musto has been associated with film in NY Post --Susanmac50 (talk) 09:01, 30 January 2016 (UTC)http://nypost.com/2008/06/05/starr-report-kathie-lee/, HX Magazine., and Luso-Americano. Neil Stephens has been mentioned as the director in a clip for Rhode Island international film Festival, Paul Anthony Stewart has been mentioned in Luso-Amerciano and Next magazine. I think all four people above have been cited in various sources associated with this film. --Susanmac50 (talk) 02:53, 30 January 2016 (UTC) --66.65.176.212 (talk) 17:36, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- None of the (immediately) above are very helpful. Short and one line local media mentions are not enough to give notability. JMWt (talk) 14:23, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ You can verify by emailing Mr. Cliff Bellamy at Herald Sun and verify that he did review the film. We spoke to Mr. Bellamy, and he said he received screeners before the festival that he watched and that they were reviews. If you do not believe me, then you can call him or email him verify for yourself.--Susanmac50 (talk) 07:12, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Irrelevant OTHERSTUFFEXISTS discussion
Comment - I am sorry but I am finding it difficult to understand, why a gay film like this https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slutty_Summer has notability to be on WP and It's Me, Matthew! does not? I can reference at least 10 other films on WP I have found just like this one. --Rodsena37 (talk) 15:35, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply] Comment - Unfortunately, as stated before, other articles have no bearing on this article (AfD). See WP:WAX. On occasion other stuff is included that does not meet the requirements for inclusion. Regardless, that article has no bearing on this AfD. reddogsix (talk) 15:35, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply] Comment You know (reddogsix) you should really start hunting down some of those other films on WP that have one and two sources. Because you are really focused a lot on this film, It's Me, Matthew! from the first day this page was put up you have been flagging it.. Also, please do not undue my comments. Here is another https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Violet_Tendencies --Rodsena37 (talk) 15:46, 31 January 2016 (UTC)--Rodsena37 (talk) 15:54, 31 January 2016 (UTC)--Rodsena37 (talk) 15:56, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply] Comment - Why should I look at other films? Also I have not changed your comments, the only thing I have done was reset the format to allow for easier reading. With the exception of changes to Mmcderman comments, there have been no changes - the Mmcderman comments were removed because they redacted your comments. Are you saying you and Mmcderman are the same person and by changing their comments I have changed yours? reddogsix (talk) 16:21, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply] Comment - I am finding so many films on WP that have much less sources then this film does. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Swimmer_%282013_film%29 and a lot of then have imdb as a source. If Imdb is being used a source for these films, then why can it not be used as a source for this one? All these films have Imdb noted as source with only one or two festival clips. Susan Mac has cited: Cienma Without Boarders, Luso-Americano, NY Post, HX Magazine, Rhode island International Film Festival source, Herald Sun, IMDB, Next Magazine. at least 8 different sources which is at least double the amount of many of these short films i am finding on WP--Rodsena37 (talk) 16:08, 31 January 2016 (UTC) --Rodsena37 (talk) 16:03, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply] Comment - Maybe you should look at the other films since you have been very focused on trying to flag this one. It took me less then 5 min. to find over 10 other films that have way less citations then Susan has presented for It's Me, Matthew!. Also, No, I am not Mmcderman, but I noticed one of the comments I left was taken down right after you put up yours. Which is why I stated that. Maybe I should start doing what you do and start flagging all these films I find on WP to be taken down lacking proper citation?--Rodsena37 (talk) 16:27, 31 January 2016 (UTC)--Rodsena37 (talk) 16:27, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply] Friend, imdb is not to be used as a reliable source see WP:CITINGIMDB. I can appreciate that it is hard to understand this process, but as others have explained to you above, the fact that other pages exist is not something we can consider when determining the merits of this page. That's just how these things work, and nothing about you. I thank you for flagging other pages and will set in motion the consideration for deletion for any of these that also do not appear to meet the notability standard. JMWt (talk) 16:31, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply] Susan did not use IMDB as a source. I happen to notice when looking at some other short films and independent films on WP, in less then 5 min. I found over 10 films on here that have only one or two citations. This film does not even have any, lol https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slutty_Summer I still feel Susan has shown between Cinema Without Boarders, Luso-Americano, and the other clips that It's Me, Matthew! is notable short film.--Rodsena37 (talk) 16:40, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply] OK, so flag them for deletion. This doesn't change the fact that the film we are discussing here is only mentioned very briefly in all of the references suggested above. That isn't enough to show notability for inclusion in wikipedia. JMWt (talk) 16:49, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply] No, I will not flag other films for deletion. I was just pointing out what I found when surfing through other films on WP. Also, I don't think the article in "Luso-Americano" and "Cinema Without Boarders" is small. A whole page article is small? Also, the NY Post is a major newspaper to be mentioned in. --Rodsena37 (talk) 16:54, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply] OK, you are going to have to step away from the keyboard and start talking to me civilly as per WP:AFDEQ. I appreciate that this topic is important to you, but I am not "out to sabotage others", I am simply part of a community trying to help with the implementation of the inclusion policy of this encyclopedia. JMWt (talk) 17:07, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply] I was actually not refereeing to you as the other user. Moreover, "Luso-Americano" and "Cinema Without Boarders" look pretty extensive for a mention. --Rodsena37 (talk) 17:13, 31 January 2016 (UTC)--Rodsena37 (talk) 17:43, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply] Just some examples of stuff I found in 5 min: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Everybody's_Gone \| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Express:_Aisle_to_Glory \| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bad_Company_%281992_film%29 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minka_%28film%29 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jimmy_Zip https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Next_%281990_film%29 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wind_Echoing_in_My_Being https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nonnie_%26_Alex --Rodsena37 (talk) 18:17, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply] Just a few more things I found This one has one reference: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hole_in_the_Paper_Sky This one has none: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Day_Out IMDB ONly https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Capsule IMDB ONLY https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semne_%C3%AEn_pustiu Only One notable reference: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Everything_Goes_%28film%29 Only one reference as well: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Most_%282003_film%29 No reference. Just won 1 award at the same film festival It's Me, Matthew! played at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taps_%282006_film%29 No reference https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boys_Life_6 No References https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cutlass_%28film%29 --Rodsena37 (talk) 18:33, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply] Comment - For the third time, other articles have no bearing on this article. See WP:WAX. I suggest you try to focus on the task at hand - to show this article meets the criteria for inclusion. Continuing to try to convince everyone there are other articles that do not meet the criteria will accomplish nothing. reddogsix (talk) 18:52, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply] Comment I was just pointing out what I found in 5 min. Imagine how many more I would find if I spent an hour or two. Just bringing it to everyone's attention how this is a huge double standard on WP and maybe an issue that really needs to be addressed. This is not just one or two films. I have found over 40 films on here with the same issue in just a few min. (Reddogsix) you should really take sometime to look at them since you are SUPER concerned with articles meeting WP guild-lines. Back to the subject on had, Susan has fulfilled the criteria with how many citations she presented. At least 2 or more have extensive coverage, along with others supporting mentions in major publications. Especially for a short film subjects, which many shorts never even get any coverage at all, as you can see based on how many show up on WP with no references. Just something to keep in mind when reviewing this. --Rodsena37 (talk) 19:13, 31 January 2016 (UTC) 19:10, 31 January 2016 (UTC)--Rodsena37 (talk) 19:29, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply] Comment - I do not see a "double standard" on Wikipedia, I only see a large job that everyone of us volunteers tries to reduce by each of us trying to doing just a little bit. You may feel it my job to right all the ills of the world within Wikipedia, but for goodness sake, this is only Wikipedia, not the ending of world hunger. If you have time to do this more power to you - unfortunately I do not. Unfortunately, not everyone agrees with you that the article meets the criteria for inclusion. It is not up to you or me, but to the community. You need to understand this is a community effort not run or decided by you, me, or anyone else, but rather by the community. reddogsix (talk) 19:37, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply] I agree it is a community effort. I am just shedding some light on the subject for people to see how many short films are on WP that do not meet there guild line. Especially when it comes to short film subjects. That's all! I m just pointing out an important observation for the community to consider when evaluating this article. --Rodsena37 (talk) 20:07, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply] Comment - For the last time, other articles have no bearing on this article and have no relevance when ascertaining if this article meets the criterial for inclusion. See WP:WAX. reddogsix (talk) 18:52, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Irrelevant OTHERSTUFFEXISTS discussion

Comment - I am sorry but I am finding it difficult to understand, why a gay film like this https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slutty_Summer has notability to be on WP and It's Me, Matthew! does not? I can reference at least 10 other films on WP I have found just like this one. --Rodsena37 (talk) 15:35, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Unfortunately, as stated before, other articles have no bearing on this article (AfD). See WP:WAX. On occasion other stuff is included that does not meet the requirements for inclusion. Regardless, that article has no bearing on this AfD. reddogsix (talk) 15:35, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment You know (reddogsix) you should really start hunting down some of those other films on WP that have one and two sources. Because you are really focused a lot on this film, It's Me, Matthew! from the first day this page was put up you have been flagging it.. Also, please do not undue my comments. Here is another https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Violet_Tendencies --Rodsena37 (talk) 15:46, 31 January 2016 (UTC)--Rodsena37 (talk) 15:54, 31 January 2016 (UTC)--Rodsena37 (talk) 15:56, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Why should I look at other films? Also I have not changed your comments, the only thing I have done was reset the format to allow for easier reading. With the exception of changes to Mmcderman comments, there have been no changes - the Mmcderman comments were removed because they redacted your comments. Are you saying you and Mmcderman are the same person and by changing their comments I have changed yours? reddogsix (talk) 16:21, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I am finding so many films on WP that have much less sources then this film does. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Swimmer_%282013_film%29 and a lot of then have imdb as a source. If Imdb is being used a source for these films, then why can it not be used as a source for this one? All these films have Imdb noted as source with only one or two festival clips. Susan Mac has cited: Cienma Without Boarders, Luso-Americano, NY Post, HX Magazine, Rhode island International Film Festival source, Herald Sun, IMDB, Next Magazine. at least 8 different sources which is at least double the amount of many of these short films i am finding on WP--Rodsena37 (talk) 16:08, 31 January 2016 (UTC) --Rodsena37 (talk) 16:03, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Maybe you should look at the other films since you have been very focused on trying to flag this one. It took me less then 5 min. to find over 10 other films that have way less citations then Susan has presented for It's Me, Matthew!. Also, No, I am not Mmcderman, but I noticed one of the comments I left was taken down right after you put up yours. Which is why I stated that.

Maybe I should start doing what you do and start flagging all these films I find on WP to be taken down lacking proper citation?--Rodsena37 (talk) 16:27, 31 January 2016 (UTC)--Rodsena37 (talk) 16:27, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Friend, imdb is not to be used as a reliable source see WP:CITINGIMDB. I can appreciate that it is hard to understand this process, but as others have explained to you above, the fact that other pages exist is not something we can consider when determining the merits of this page. That's just how these things work, and nothing about you. I thank you for flagging other pages and will set in motion the consideration for deletion for any of these that also do not appear to meet the notability standard. JMWt (talk) 16:31, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Susan did not use IMDB as a source. I happen to notice when looking at some other short films and independent films on WP, in less then 5 min. I found over 10 films on here that have only one or two citations. This film does not even have any, lol https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slutty_Summer I still feel Susan has shown between Cinema Without Boarders, Luso-Americano, and the other clips that It's Me, Matthew! is notable short film.--Rodsena37 (talk) 16:40, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

OK, so flag them for deletion. This doesn't change the fact that the film we are discussing here is only mentioned very briefly in all of the references suggested above. That isn't enough to show notability for inclusion in wikipedia. JMWt (talk) 16:49, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No, I will not flag other films for deletion. I was just pointing out what I found when surfing through other films on WP. Also, I don't think the article in "Luso-Americano" and "Cinema Without Boarders" is small. A whole page article is small? Also, the NY Post is a major newspaper to be mentioned in. --Rodsena37 (talk) 16:54, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

OK, you are going to have to step away from the keyboard and start talking to me civilly as per WP:AFDEQ. I appreciate that this topic is important to you, but I am not "out to sabotage others", I am simply part of a community trying to help with the implementation of the inclusion policy of this encyclopedia. JMWt (talk) 17:07, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I was actually not refereeing to you as the other user. Moreover, "Luso-Americano" and "Cinema Without Boarders" look pretty extensive for a mention. --Rodsena37 (talk) 17:13, 31 January 2016 (UTC)--Rodsena37 (talk) 17:43, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Just some examples of stuff I found in 5 min:

--Rodsena37 (talk) 18:17, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Just a few more things I found

This one has one reference: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hole_in_the_Paper_Sky
This one has none: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Day_Out
IMDB ONly https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Capsule
IMDB ONLY https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semne_%C3%AEn_pustiu
Only One notable reference: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Everything_Goes_%28film%29
Only one reference as well: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Most_%282003_film%29
No reference. Just won 1 award at the same film festival It's Me, Matthew! played at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taps_%282006_film%29
No reference https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boys_Life_6
No References https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cutlass_%28film%29

--Rodsena37 (talk) 18:33, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - For the third time, other articles have no bearing on this article. See WP:WAX. I suggest you try to focus on the task at hand - to show this article meets the criteria for inclusion. Continuing to try to convince everyone there are other articles that do not meet the criteria will accomplish nothing. reddogsix (talk) 18:52, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I was just pointing out what I found in 5 min. Imagine how many more I would find if I spent an hour or two. Just bringing it to everyone's attention how this is a huge double standard on WP and maybe an issue that really needs to be addressed. This is not just one or two films. I have found over 40 films on here with the same issue in just a few min. (Reddogsix) you should really take sometime to look at them since you are SUPER concerned with articles meeting WP guild-lines.

Back to the subject on had, Susan has fulfilled the criteria with how many citations she presented. At least 2 or more have extensive coverage, along with others supporting mentions in major publications. Especially for a short film subjects, which many shorts never even get any coverage at all, as you can see based on how many show up on WP with no references. Just something to keep in mind when reviewing this. --Rodsena37 (talk) 19:13, 31 January 2016 (UTC) 19:10, 31 January 2016 (UTC)--Rodsena37 (talk) 19:29, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I do not see a "double standard" on Wikipedia, I only see a large job that everyone of us volunteers tries to reduce by each of us trying to doing just a little bit. You may feel it my job to right all the ills of the world within Wikipedia, but for goodness sake, this is only Wikipedia, not the ending of world hunger. If you have time to do this more power to you - unfortunately I do not.

Unfortunately, not everyone agrees with you that the article meets the criteria for inclusion. It is not up to you or me, but to the community. You need to understand this is a community effort not run or decided by you, me, or anyone else, but rather by the community. reddogsix (talk) 19:37, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I agree it is a community effort. I am just shedding some light on the subject for people to see how many short films are on WP that do not meet there guild line. Especially when it comes to short film subjects. That's all! I m just pointing out an important observation for the community to consider when evaluating this article. --Rodsena37 (talk) 20:07, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - For the last time, other articles have no bearing on this article and have no relevance when ascertaining if this article meets the criterial for inclusion. See WP:WAX. reddogsix (talk) 18:52, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I feel that the article subject is notable, just barely. While the film festivals have been mostly small, and the coverage not pervasive, it's still there. A suggestion to susanmac50 and Rodsena37: Let the discussion play out and leave it be for now. Talking about flagging lots of other articles and getting frustrated won't help anything. Be patient and let the process take it's due course, please. Chrisw80 (talk) 08:27, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep at best as it seems there's enough for an article. SwisterTwister talk 05:46, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) ansh 666 07:20, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ultrasonic Broadcasting System[edit]

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

Delete. Non-notable radio network; search results do not provide reliable sources. Additionally, the article just exists for someone to vandalize it. Sixth o f March 05:37, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:20, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:20, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:20, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Then revert the vandalism or ask for semi-protection. National radio network with known radio stations; AfD is not a solution to nuke an article just because you hate RVV'ing it. Nate • (chatter) 07:55, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Is it notable just because it owns multiple stations? Can't find any reliable sources whatsoever. Sixth o f March 15:06, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:38, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep-Reliable source added.--Jondel (talk) 13:52, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep With the source added it looks like this easily meets being notable. RickinBaltimore (talk) 13:53, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Jondel and RickinBaltimore, I'm not convinced with the reference added. It's not enough. Sixth o f March 06:18, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  Huh? Why? How 'enough' does it have to be?! --Jondel (talk) 11:08, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Spartaz ^Humbug! 09:42, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Rudolf Groner[edit]

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

All references given in this article lack independence from the subject. Article requires citations to sources that are independent and that cover the subject non-trivially. If there are English sources, I could not find them. These German ones do not appear to qualify the subject as notable. KDS4444^Talk 01:45, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Switzerland-related deletion discussions. sst ✈ 02:36, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please wait with deletion. I'll try to improve references over the weekend. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Trace72 (talk • contribs) 12:32, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Let's give this new editor a little time, even some help and advice, in seeing if this article can be brought up to snuff.E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:35, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I guess the research life referres to reliable sources now. I'll fix some formal errors the next days. Trace72 (talk) 13:12, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:02, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:04, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:26, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:38, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep -- major improvements by Trace72 in writing and in citations of work. It's still a bit under sourced on impact/awards/etc. that would make WP:PROF#C1 a clear keep, but there are definitely many well cited articles online (and earlier articles from the 60s and 70s would be less likely to be online). Does this improve the encyclopedia? Yes, it seems clearly. -- Michael Scott Cuthbert (talk) 02:13, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Whereas he has contributed to his field of research, however based on the citation index on WOS, RG and GS he is not among highly cited scholars nor meets the other criteria for a living scientist. Perhaps the article can be developed with more reliable references to indicate his major contribution to the science (i.e. a paradigm shift in his research area). Otherwise it should be deleted. Arashtitan 15:40, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete at best as this is questionable for the applicable notability. I hope this can be opened enough time for DGG who is familiar with this topic area so he can comment with his analysis. SwisterTwister talk 05:47, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Definite Keep. Adequate citation record to shown him an expert in his subject: Google Scholar shows 228, 137, 122, 109..... Anyone in any field with two or more papers with over 100 citations is almost always here considered to meet WP:PROF as an expert -- in his case, on eye movement research. . He has 4, all in either major commercial or society journals and is also one of the three editor of a major conference proceedings that is in 343 Worldcat libraries, & founder of a specialized journal and society in that field,. I cannot see why Arashtitan thinks the citation record insufficient--the requirement is notable not famous. The article still needs rewriting, mainly because we normally list only the 4 or 5 most cited papers. DGG ( talk ) 06:50, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sam Walton (talk) 00:30, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Firozpur Road[edit]

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

Subject has been tagged with ((notability)) since April 2009. Unable to locate evidence of non-trivial coverage of this particular road, please do not hesitate to contact me should said coverage be located during the course of this discussion. Regards, Yamaguchi先生 (talk) 01:12, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. sst ✈ 02:40, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. sst ✈ 02:40, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

delete is there actual coverage, otherwise there are verifiability concerns. LibStar (talk) 14:41, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It has been brought to my attention that a redirect from Ferozpur Road to Firozpur Road was forked into a redundant article during the course of this discussion. [23] I have included it here for consideration, as the same concerns apply to either spelling. Regards, Yamaguchi先生 (talk) 20:22, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:17, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:38, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete both—the same notability concerns apply to both articles as written. If "significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject" can be found, per WP:GNG, then I would re-evaluate my position, but at this time, these articles do not merit inclusion. Imzadi 1979 → 12:59, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete both Notability appears to be a bit of a problem, both articles also appear to centre around the transit system that uses the road. Nothing significant if note. NordicDragon Talkpage 08:14, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete and redirect to List of journalists killed in Russia#Viktor_Pimenov. Spartaz ^Humbug! 09:43, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Viktor Pimenov[edit]

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

There's no indication that this cameraman is notable. I can't find out anything else about him. A Google search turns up mostly Wikipedia mirrors, or short blurbs clearly derived from Wikipedia. One book seemed to refer to him several times, but on closer inspection, it turns out to be a novel with a character who coincidentally carries the same name.

One potential indicium of notability is that he did posthumously receive a Rory Peck award, given to "camera operators who have risked their lives to report on newsworthy events"; [24]. But I don't think that's sufficient to convey notability.

While a tragedy, the only basis for notability here is that he was killed in a war zone and then memorialized for it.

The article was PRODded in 2006 with the comment "Wikipedia is not a memorial; no claim to notability other than the circumstance of his death". The PROD was removed by an IP editor with no comment indicating why. (I initially PRODded it myself before discovering the prior PROD, so have reverted that and brought it to AFD.)

It has been tagged for notability for more than five years. TJRC (talk) 00:45, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. sst ✈ 02:41, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. sst ✈ 02:41, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. sst ✈ 02:41, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of journalists killed in Russia#Viktor_Pimenov. A search for "Виктор+Пименов"+"вайнах" doesn't appear to show anything more detailed about him, and WP:ONEEVENT applies. ^~~Hydronium^~Hydroxide^~(Talk)~~ 02:07, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No objection to that from me as the nom. TJRC (talk) 00:00, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:16, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:37, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect as not independently notable. SwisterTwister talk 05:45, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. (WP:NPASR). North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:25, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Shyam Bhat[edit]

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

Does not meet GNG or BLP. No other sources available. Delta13C (talk) 00:04, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. sst ✈ 02:44, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:14, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:37, 29 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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 09:43, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jonathan W. Emord[edit]

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

Article fails GNG and BLP. There are no reliable sources cited or available that cover the guy in-depth. He may be a sucessful lawyer, but he doesn't have notability. Delta13C (talk) 00:03, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. sst ✈ 02:45, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:13, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:37, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, WP:RESUME. I see no indication of notability. He's written a few books, but having a book or books published does not itself convey notability, not without some indication that he's a notable author, rather than just another author. He's gotten a couple awards, but they don't impart any whiff of notability: "Pure Encapsulations [whoever they are] bestowed upon him its 'First Amendment Champion' award"; and "he was awarded the title 'Honorary Nutrition Specialist' by the [Certification Board for Nutrition Specialists]" (an apparently non-notable organization).

And while I know AFD is not for clean-up, the whole style of the article is a promotional puff piece for the subject. In the unlikely event it's kept, it really needs an overhaul. TJRC (talk) 21:50, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Questionable for the applicable notability. WP:TNT at best. NOTE: Please see also User:Fritzer17/Jonathan W. Emord. SwisterTwister talk 05:04, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. joe decker ^talk 00:34, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

List of Webkinz World games[edit]

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

Doesn't seem to meet notability guidelines / Based entirely on one source (the Webkinz website itself) and original research. Alphius (talk) 04:17, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:22, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:22, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Hmm, perhaps questionably notable for its own page. SwisterTwister talk 06:27, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:35, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable. If this content were in the main article, I'd likely remove it as failing WP:VGSCOPE as well. -- ferret (talk) 18:30, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Spartaz ^Humbug! 08:09, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Californias (region)[edit]

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

This page is about the same region covered by The Californias, only after the Californias were divided between two sovereign countries. It is a short article that has never had a reference in it. There is no reason [whatever this article is supposed to be about] can't be covered at The Californias. I don't even know if this usage of "Californias" for a region is notable: I haven't bothered to check and nobody since the article was created in 2013 apparently has either. Srnec (talk) 04:24, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about the physical region. The Californias is about a historic political entity that no longer exists. They are entirely separate subjects. I was in the middle of adding content and sourcing to the article when blocked by this hastily-added deletion nomination. Standard WP practice is to discuss these things on the Talk page before unilaterally taking such drastic action. The article's content, plus my blocked edits, can be found on the page Talk:The Californias (region). WCCasey (talk) 04:47, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@WCCasey: The deletion notice doesn't block any editing. Improving the article while a deletion discussion is ongoing is definitely allowed. -Niceguyedc ^{Go Huskies!} 05:00, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@WCCasey:You could still add your edits to the article if you want. I looked at the timing in the revision histories of the page and the talk page, and I think the deletion nomination just happened to be added while you were in the middle of editing the article (so it was just an edit conflict - your edits weren't actively being blocked). Alphius (talk) 05:03, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. sst ✈ 17:14, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. sst ✈ 17:14, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Clarification: I wasn't accusing anyone of blocking my edit. As Alphius said, the deletion notice was posted while I was editing, so that I got sent to the "edit conflict" page when I tried to save it. When I tried to do the normal copy-paste-save to resolve the conflict, however, I was not allowed to save it. I just went back to the article page, however, tried the edit again in the normal manner, and had no problems. Thanks to all for the help. WCCasey (talk) 07:24, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep on the basis that Srnec's comment I don't even know if this usage of "Californias" for a region is notable: I haven't bothered to check suggests they haven't read WP:BEFORE. clpo13_(talk) 16:40, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Even if notable, it can be covered at The Californias, which was a fluid thing anyway. I did not argue that it should be deleted because it wasn't notable, but a "merger" was out of the question since it had never been sourced. Srnec (talk) 04:15, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable synthesis. --Regards, James(^talk/_contribs) 00:13, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:33, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

One more clarification: the geographical boundaries of the "region" are far different from the boundaries of the old Spanish province. WCCasey (talk) 22:56, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The whole idea seems to boil down to the one sourced sentence in the article: "The term may be used when discussing areas along both sides of the border between the United States and Mexico." This can be covered at The Californias. —Srnec (talk) 04:15, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and merge anything if needed afterwards, unlikely needed for two articles. SwisterTwister talk 05:44, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:16, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Perth and Tattersalls Bowling and Recreation Club[edit]

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

Non-notable, one article in a reliable source about their celebrating a milestone does not notability make. The Drover's Wife (talk) 03:02, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. sst ✈ 17:11, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. sst ✈ 17:11, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

*delete despite its age it lacks significant coverage to meet WP:ORG. LibStar (talk) 08:03, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Change to keep article now satisfies WP:GNG. LibStar (talk) 00:03, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article has been expanded and the required coverage is being identified. AtHomeIn神戸 (talk) 08:20, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:32, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per comment above. Hughesdarren (talk) 12:57, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, agreed looks ok now as per above. Aeonx (talk) 21:26, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Article expanded, needs more work but should remain - I'll edit where I can. Anzmibu (talk) 01:09, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above passes WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 17:55, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Spartaz ^Humbug! 09:44, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Santhoshgovin[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG upcoming a case of WP:TOOSOON and clearly lacks third party WP:RS and autobiographical article meant to promote the subject Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 02:11, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India related deletion discussions.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 10:13, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:24, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete considering everything especially the current sourcing is which not even minimally convincingly better. SwisterTwister talk 03:41, 31 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 Night of the Living Dead. Spartaz ^Humbug! 09:46, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Judith Ridley[edit]

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

Another actor only known for Night of the Living Dead. Barely any sources about this woman. edtiorEهեইдအီးËეεઈדוארई電子ಇអ៊ី전자ഇī 01:41, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. sst ✈ 01:58, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect~~Delete~~ - Unlikely better notable for WP:CREATIVE. SwisterTwister talk 06:09, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:23, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Night of the Living Dead (with the history preserved under the redirect) because this is the subject's best-known work. I recommend preserving the history so the redirect can be easily undone if sources are found. SwisterTwister (talk · contribs), you supported a redirect to Night of the Living Dead at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Marilyn Eastman for another person related to the film. Would you support a redirect in this case too? Cunard (talk) 07:13, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

SwisterTwister, thank you for your change here and at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Karl Hardman! Cunard (talk) 07:17, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Night of the Living Dead. Spartaz ^Humbug! 09:46, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Karl Hardman[edit]

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

Subject lacks notability. There are very few reliable sources to be found and they are only about his, he's only known for Night of the Living Dead, and his notability is barely above Marilyn Eastman's. edtiorEهեইдအီးËეεઈדוארई電子ಇអ៊ី전자ഇī 01:38, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. sst ✈ 01:59, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect~~Delete~~ as this seems obvious, nothing to suggest better satisfying WP:CREATIVE. SwisterTwister talk 06:20, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:23, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Night of the Living Dead (with the history preserved under the redirect) because this is the subject's best-known work. I recommend preserving the history so the redirect can be easily undone if sources are found. SwisterTwister (talk · contribs), you supported a redirect to Night of the Living Dead at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Marilyn Eastman for another person related to the film. Would you support a redirect in this case too? Cunard (talk) 07:14, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

SwisterTwister, thank you for your change here and at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Judith Ridley! Cunard (talk) 07:17, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Spartaz ^Humbug! 09:46, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Lift-Off Film Festival Network[edit]

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

Alleged to be a csd-eligable article, G7 has been turned down. History shows COI issues and at least one confirmed copyvio image which was removed from the commons repository. Listing here for community input. TomStar81 (Talk) 09:15, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. COI and using copyvio images are not grounds for deletion. But lack of notability certainly is. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 11:09, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. clpo13_(talk) 18:17, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. clpo13_(talk) 18:17, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as there are no signs of better satisfying the applicable notability and the listed coverage is also not noticeably satisfying. SwisterTwister talk 00:59, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I still think that it gets enough mention to be notable enough to not get deleted. Jjjjjjdddddd (talk) 23:06, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The keep !votes do not address the argument that there is a lack of significant coverage of the subject in independent, reliable sources. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 03:53, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Rupert Myers (journalist)[edit]

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

WP:BLP of a journalist, without the level of reliable source coverage needed to support a BLP. More than half of the "references" here are to content for which he's the bylined author, not the subject — and once you discount those, not a single one of the remaining references is substantively about him, but rather every last one of them merely namechecks his existence in an article about some other topic. This is not what it takes to get a journalist into Wikipedia: it takes media coverage in which he's substantively the subject of the reference, in a volume sufficient to satisfy WP:GNG. Delete, without prejudice against recreation in the future if it can be sourced better than this. Bearcat (talk) 20:18, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. sst ✈ 01:54, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. sst ✈ 01:54, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:32, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:32, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep meets notability with recent work on Jeremy Corbyn and known in UK press and as sky news presenter. Benjamin moores (talk) 16:41, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Notability is a factor of the reliable sourcing you can provide to properly support the claim — none of Wikipedia's notability criteria can ever be passed simply by asserting that it's passed but not sourcing the fact properly. If this had proper sourcing in it, that would be perfectly acceptable as a claim of notability — but it's not a claim of notability that entitles him to keep an article that's sourced this way. Bearcat (talk) 16:48, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

See recent edits. You can help sourcing it better. No one else would vote to delete this. Benjamin moores (talk) 17:21, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I did look at the "recent edits". Of the two new sources you added, one was just a reduplication of a primary source that was already present in the article, and the other one isn't substantively about him, but merely features him giving soundbite in an article whose subject is the play — and even if we give that latter source the benefit of the doubt as to whether it contributes GNG points or not, one source still isn't enough to pass GNG if all the rest of the sourcing around it is bad. And no, I can't help source this better myself — I have access to Canadian media databases, not UK ones, so for a British topic I can only assist in direct referencing improvement if their sourceability crosses The Pond somehow. Bearcat (talk) 17:44, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and draft & userfy for now at best until a better solid article is available. SwisterTwister talk 06:10, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:39, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep notable and known throughout British media.Funkygishh (talk) 13:28, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I can find neither sources that cover him an sufficient depth, although there is this : [25], and he could become notable if the musical hits. At present, I find no evidence of a sufficiently notable body of work to justify an article.E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:23, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. userfy where? Applications to my talk page Spartaz ^Humbug! 11:32, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thoppil Joppan[edit]

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

Unconfirmed and insufficient reliable sources. Production not yet started, too early to create an article about a rumoured film. See WP:NFF and WP:TOOSOON. Charles Turing (talk) 18:48, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Human3015^{It will rain} 19:49, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Human3015^{It will rain} 19:49, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

alts per WP:BEFORE:

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

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

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

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

WP:INDAFD: "Thoppil Joppan" "Johny Antony" "Mammootty" "Andrea Jeremiah" "Deepti Sati" "Vidyasagar"

Userfy until we have confirmation of filming. The topic is getting coverage and Mammootty and Johny Antony projects almost always are notable. We simply need to wait a short while. And yes... whatever is returned will need to be better sourced to show an indisputable notability even to those who doubt. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 11:10, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Its not about notability, the film has not yet started production. If notability of actors and director and it coverage is considered for the criteria of "film" article creation, then there should have articles for upcoming Fast and Furious 8, Aquaman starring Jason Mamoa etc. The WP:ATD is meant for different case, there are other criteria for film articles. It definitely fails WP:NFF. Charles Turing (talk) 09:06, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Userfy per a future WP:POTENTIAL is not a "keep"... which is why I opined for userfication and not a keep. Sheesh. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 19:44, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This is an unconfirmed film, it should be deleted. --Charles Turing (talk) 07:19, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong You may desire it gone, but our inclusion criteria are determined by policy and guideline, not by opinion. As an example of something "unconfirmed" that did not happen... the world did not end in 2012, but the topic was discussed in enough sources to be written of on Wikipedia. But before you get all apoplectic... and again, I am not promoting a keep. I simply feel that the sourcable work-in-progress film article can be userfied out of mainspace until notability criteria are met. Deletion is the last resort and only for violations of policy. Kind of simple really. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 23:03, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Don't relate 2012 phenomenon to a film, the world end was a universally discussed topic and has notability not like this unconfirmed rumoured film. Films has other criteria for inclusion. This article is promotional. No doubt. Still you want to userfy it, go on. Charles Turing (talk) 14:39, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:27, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - nothing in search engines to show it passes notability criteria. Two brief mentions on News, zip on Newspapers, Books, Highbeams, or Highbeam. You could userfy, but what would be the point, there's so little there. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:39, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Unopposed. Sandstein 10:44, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Conference software[edit]

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

PROD tag removed by creator without explanation. Wikipedia is not a dictionary - the definition should go there. Also not a technical guide defining what the software should do Gbawden (talk) 08:49, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:02, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:02, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as this is questionably improvable and also for the applicable guidelines. SwisterTwister talk 03:10, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:15, 29 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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 08:11, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Mandrake (1975 film)[edit]

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

Article reads in its entirety: "The Mandrake (Persian: Mehre giah) is a 1975 black-and-white Iranian film."

No sources, no improvements to the single sentence, and pretty much no info suggests this is not a notable film. Page was created by Neelix in the middle of his effort to create a block of inappropriate redirects to an Italian film that shares the same translated title as this film, which does not inspire me to believe this page was created with normal attention to WP:N See [26] for some of the related redirects. Legacypac (talk) 08:46, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:02, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:02, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Redirect for now and allow a recreation. While sad that the improvable stub has sat WP:NEGLECTED for so long, BEFORE shows we have enough at the minimum for a redirect to its filmmaker Fereydun Gole. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 14:55, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
TNT delete. Such a minimal page is simply too short to be useful, and having this as a redirect avoids one benefit of red links, as noted by WP:REDDEAL: Red links serve the purpose of notifying readers that a need exists in Wikipedia for creation of a new article with at least minimal information content; the creation of minimalist marker stubs simply to get rid of a red link destroys this useful mechanism. Let's wait until someone's ready to write a good stub before we have an article here. Of course, if someone feels like expanding this page to a good stub before this AFD ends, my vote should be viewed as "keep". Nyttend (talk) 04:11, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:12, 29 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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 11:32, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

VJ Books[edit]

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

Don't see any independent notability, only notable authors. TheLongTone (talk) 08:36, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:03, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:03, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:03, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oregon-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:03, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, as a book ~~hoarder~~ erm, collector, this looks very interesting, not relevent for notability, but how does this company compare to the Folio Society, another publisher of limited edition collectable books? Nevertheless, without any reviews/news articles popping up in a gsearch, this is probably heading for delete. Coolabahapple (talk) 09:50, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:05, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete at best and draft & userfy for now as none of this better satisfies the applicable notability with the current coverage seeming thin for the notability also. SwisterTwister talk 03:21, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I was able to find only one source about the subject:
1. Valeri, John (2009-06-05). "Limited-time only book bargains for the collector". Hartford Books Examiner. Archived from the original on 2016-01-06. Retrieved 2016-01-06.
  The article notes:
  Another stellar resource is VJ Books, reputed to be “the internet’s most well-known, well-respected source for signed and collectible books.” Currently, they are hosting a 50% Off Super Sale featuring titles by Michael Connelly, Tom Clancy, and Clive Cussler, among others. Eligible books can be viewed here.
  Founded 12 years ago, VJ Books provides more than 35 years of book collecting experience, with a specialty in signed, first edition, and limited edition books. Currently, they are taking pre-orders for upcoming releases by the likes of James Patterson, Lisa Gardner, and W.E.B. Griffin. A complete list of future releases can be viewed here. VJ Books also maintains an eBay store with both auction and “Buy It Now” options.
  Hartford Books Examiner is published by Examiner.com based on http://www.examiner.com/books-in-hartford/john-valeri. There is a strong consensus that Examiner.com generally is not a reliable source.
There is insufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow VJ Books to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 06:40, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. joe decker ^talk 00:35, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

UK Toremet[edit]

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

Unremarkable organisation, no independent sources except short mentions in a few fundraising ads in niche magazines. Google returns 163 search results with only a single substantial third-party source that, conversely, issues a warning about this company [27] (doubtful impartiality of the source aside). The number of hits is anyway incredibly low for an online fundraising service that makes claims to Wikipedia notability. Inclusion borders WP:PROMO — kashmiri ^TALK 16:38, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Dat Guy^Talk_Contribs 18:43, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:14, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This organisation is active and partners with many, many orgs and appears on their website as their tool to give to them via UK donors. They are a partner on the Jewish Charity Guide and of "Israel Gives" in the UK. Happy138 (talk) 14:58, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (comment) 12:36, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:24, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:04, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - while laudable, and Happy138's comments are appreciated, they are not backed up with sources, so it doesn't pass WP:GNG or WP:NORG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:23, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Spartaz ^Humbug! 11:32, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Subiksha[edit]

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

Doesn't seem to have had significant coverage in multiple reliable sources, fails WP:GNG. Also doesn't seem to have passed WP:NACTOR. Ref JackTracker (talk) 14:28, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. — Sanskari ^Hangout 15:58, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. — Sanskari ^Hangout 15:58, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Questionably notable and better for WP:CREATIVE as the current article is not convincing enough. SwisterTwister talk 06:49, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This article meets WP:ENTERTAINER as she has done many films including as leading actress roles. I will be adding more references as well. George Mohan George Mohan 11:52, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:24, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ Qualifies as WP:ENTERTAINER and I have added another important reference [28] George Mohan George Mohan 06:13, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - I have struck the duplicate !vote above. George Mohan, while you of course are welcome to comment again in the discussion, please mark only one remark as "Keep" or "Delete" (or whatever else you may propose in the specific discussion) to simplify the closing administrator's task. Huon (talk) 18:18, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - surely notable, quick Google search led to several The Times of India, The Hindu, Deccan Chronicle articles (have been added) and she has already appeared in starring roles in a couple of notable films. (Note: Her name's spelling can be varied to "Subhiksha" as well, so more articles can be found when searched for "Subhiksha actress" for instance.) Veera Dheera Sooran (talk) 17:27, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nick (talk) 00:19, 29 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. joe decker ^talk 00:35, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wayne Hector songwriting discography[edit]

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

Vanity list created by COI/SPA. Subject is not sufficiently notable to have a list-dump of all their work on a separate page. Created and used for promotional purposes (as evidenced by history and activity on only major contributor). Rayman60 (talk) 13:49, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. sst ✈ 14:07, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. sst ✈ 14:07, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. sst ✈ 14:07, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. sst ✈ 14:07, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:24, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as perhaps not explicitly needed, not as if it's large enough to suggest a separate article. SwisterTwister talk 23:28, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:45, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as list needlessly exaggerates his role by not listing co-writers for the singles, and by making it seem as if he wrote an entire album or soundtrack (ex: Poseidon, where he was one of six writers on one song in the movie). Recommend simply summarizing accurately as part of main article. Netrogeractor (talk) 08:46, 29 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. Sam Walton (talk) 00:31, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Krishna Ramachandra[edit]

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

Appears to fail Google test. I dream of horses (My talk page) (My edits) @ 07:41, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. I dream of horses (My talk page) (My edits) @ 07:42, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. I dream of horses (My talk page) (My edits) @ 07:42, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete there is no evidence of true notability - more like a promotional piece. Dan arndt (talk) 15:42, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. promotional biography. DGG ( talk ) 03:59, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Searches turned up nothing to show they pass WP:GNG, also could be deleted under WP:DEL4 due to its promotion aspect. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:21, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Balika Vadhu. (non-admin closure) ansh 666 07:21, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mann Vasanai (TV series)[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Redundant page as it has own article namespace Balika Vadhu. Dubbed shows doesn't have its own page. Better getting deleted. SuperHero ● 👊 ● ★ 13:28, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. SuperHero ● 👊 ● ★ 13:31, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. SuperHero ● 👊 ● ★ 13:31, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge or Redirect to Balika Vadhu Original Show. Mann Vasanai (TV series) is a Tamil Dubbed show of Balika Vadhu. Cast Section & Awards Section is a same but Balika Vadhu page need update.--Bongan^® →TalkToMe← 14:46, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Balika Vadhu Original Show as Mann Vasanai (TV series) is a Tamil Dubbed show of Balika Vadhu. Pearll's Sun^TALK 07:45, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:24, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:35, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect obviously. SwisterTwister talk 07:46, 29 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. joe decker ^talk 00:36, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Rich Piana[edit]

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

Relies solely on one primary reference, does not pass WP:GNG - company which apparently makes him notable does not have a Wikipedia article. -- samtar ^whisper 13:19, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. sst ✈ 14:10, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bodybuilding-related deletion discussions. sst ✈ 14:10, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. sst ✈ 14:10, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Rich Piana is really a famous bodybuilding personality but I can't find any sources (besides the one I already added) to prove that. 64.134.64.190 (talk) 00:06, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete Best material I could find is a decent-quality blog post that's better than what's currently in the article. Still not enough to meet notability standards IMHO, but he seems "famous" enough in bodybuilding circles that you'd think there'd be more out there on him. Perfectly willing to change my !vote if someone finds better sources. --Finngall ^talk 18:49, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Found some primary sources on Piana:

His competitive body building results from the most reputable body building site online - http://contest.bodybuilding.com/bio/176941/

Editorial ranking Piana as "One of the top 8 bosses in bodybuilding: http://www.likeaboss.com/news/top-8-bosses-of-bodybuilding/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.127.68.69 (talk) 05:16, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:23, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

His Youtube channel has around 600,000 subscribers. Probably proof that he's noteworthy: https://www.youtube.com/user/1DAYUMAY. I think the article should stay. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 110.175.159.167 (talk • contribs) 11:28, 24 January 2016‎

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:34, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as not convincingly satisfying the notability guidelines. SwisterTwister talk 07:47, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Searches did not turn up anything to show this passes WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:19, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Spartaz ^Humbug! 08:13, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sofija Skoric[edit]

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

WP:BLP — galloping headlong toward the edge of an outright public relations advertisement — of a writer, without a shred of reliable source coverage to support it: the "references" here are two primary sources and a library directory, and a Google News search brings up just six hits all of which are just glancing namechecks rather than substantive coverage. All of which puts her at exactly zero on the WP:GNG scale. No writer ever gets an inclusion freebie on Wikipedia just because she exists; RS coverage must be present to support one. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 02:04, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Nom is overstated. This is an emeritus or retired librarian, editor, writer, founder and president of an a significant-sounding organization, and an award-winner, not a self-promoting writer wannabe. Perhaps tag for some more references? But seems notable on her own. And the organization also seems notable. It is a combo article; if either is notable then the article is to be kept, though a rename could be suggested. (Take note, user:Orthodox2014, what do you think?) do ncr am 04:54, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The article has a decidedly advertorial tone (not quite enough to be speediable on sight as a G11, but definitely enough that it's not neutral and most certainly does need a significant rewrite), and is parked on exactly zero reliable sources — and I did more than enough WP:BEFORE to determine that there aren't solidly better sources out there. No writer ever gets an exemption from having to be properly sourced just because the article makes impressive-sounding claims, especially if it's a WP:BLP. Bearcat (talk) 07:00, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. sst ✈ 05:10, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Serbia-related deletion discussions. sst ✈ 05:10, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. sst ✈ 05:10, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It is not promotional! There is no product or service or religion or anything available to be sold. "Advertorial" does not apply.
I am sure you'd like to find some negativity to express...perhaps some library users who hate her because she found them stealing library materials? Or a former colleague who has a grudge because she was promoted over them 30 or 40 years ago? Do you know that she has some evil side that must be exposed? There really do exist near-retirement persons who are beloved by all that know them. In such a case, an article should not gush with adjectives, but insubstantial/made-up controversy should not be included either.
She is near retirement and is not in Google news. RS sources would be dead-tree and/or specialized and behind paywalls. Tag it and provide explanation at the Talk page about what kind of sourcing is desirable, and wait at least a year. Don't expect an immediate substantial reply to rant that could well seem offensive to non-regular editors. Avoid driving potential editors away just because they won't dive into angry mudslinging culture. :) -do ncr am 13:34, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"Promotional" does not require the subject to be a product or service; it is entirely possible to write a promotionally toned article about a person, and several parts of this article do cross over that line. POV-toned language is not given a pass just because the article topic is a person rather than a company. And a WP:BLP does not get a year of "allowed to exist on purely primary and directory sourcing just to see if better sourcing becomes possible", either — a BLP has to have reliable sources in it right off the bat, gets no period of even temporary exemption from that, and is a candidate for AFD or prod if it isn't fixed immediately. And I didn't say anything about the necessity of including controversy or negativity whatsoever — your entire point #2 is a strawman that you made up in your own head, not a thing I said or implied or thought or suggested in any way whatsoever. I talked about the necessity of including reliable sourcing, and the necessity of toning down the places where the article is already gushing with POV adjectives — nowhere in this entire discussion have I ever suggested that her includability was in any way dependent on finding evidence of criticism or unpopularity. Notability on Wikipedia is a factor of sourcing, not a factor of how beloved a person is or isn't in her personal life. Bearcat (talk) 16:10, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you're both kind of right. The article does read like a puff piece at places, but I've seen worse, and yes, sourcing is currently way below BLP standard. However, WP has this odd practice that AFD is not cleanup (that I'm not a fan of, I try to follow WP:HEY when I'm marginally interested in it), so we in 99% cases assess only the subject's worthiness of an article (and I think it's here), even if the article itself is unadulterated crap; WP:TNT is, unfortunately, applied much less often that it should. However, this one is not that bad, at least if we incorporate some of sources I dug up and tone down the puffery. I must notice we've wasted more time & bytes in this debate than it would take to improve it... No such user (talk) 22:21, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, find sources says otherwise. --Zoupan 14:53, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"Find sources" brings up a lot of namechecks of her existence in sources that can't support notability in a WP:BLP, like primary sources and simple directories — it does not bring up a lot, or even really any at all, of the reliable source coverage about her that it would take to carry the referencing in an encyclopedia article. Bearcat (talk) 16:25, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I investigated a little, including sources in Serbian. She is active in Serbian diaspora organizations, and she is the founder and president of Serbian Heritage Academy of Canada [29] (founded in 1981, so likely pretty promenent), and a member of board of Serbian Unity congress [30]. She has been interviewed several times in those roles, 2003. 2006 2001. In 2015 she authored an exhibition in Belgrade on Canadian medicinal missions in Serbia during WWI [31]. However, I can't find much sources about her. I'm undecided if she passes the GNG bar, but on retrospect probably yes. No such user (talk) 15:38, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete at best as this is currently questionable for the applicable notability. SwisterTwister talk 07:16, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Thank you No such user for your sources including in Serbian language. From reading in them I see there will further be Canadian and Serbian news articles (deadtree) about her and her work. For just one newsworthy example: in 1984 for an exhibit and presentation she created, and awards received for doing so, including in person from the Premier of Ontario and, presumably also in person from the President of Serbia. Some points:
- President of SHA, one of 5 founding members, achievements described here.
- She was the one who created an academic exhibit and presentation about Canadian medical volunteers in Serbia during World War I. The project was "officially supported by both states, Yugoslavia and Canada". The exhibit opened at the University of Toronto on November 11, 1984, Remembrance Day..... "SHA was awarded a special Citation from Bill Davis, the Premier of Ontario, for this endeavour." Skoric presented the exhibit in Serbia along with outgoing and incoming Canadian ambassadors James Bissett, at the National Library in Belgrade, and then traveling to many cities. "After completing the tour, the exhibit was gifted to the Serbian Medical Society’s Museum of Serbian Medicine in Belgrade and at that time another “Thank you Canadians” plaque was unveiled at the Museum. Special recognition and medals were awarded to the organizers as symbols of gratitude by the Society of the Descendants of the Salonika Veterans."([32]) ))
- She won awards: "For her work in promoting Serbian culture she received awards: Charter of the government of Ontario government in 1984, the Order of the Association of Solunci, Order of the President of Serbia Vuk Karadžić and Order of the Foundation Braća Karić." "When she retired she was bestowed with the honorary title of Librarian Emeritus."
- She established the Slavic Research Center at Robarts Library, University of Toronto.
- editor and founder of the publishing house Serbian Literary Company
- "past vice-president of Serbian Unity Congress." Serbian Unity Congress is second-listed of "Serbian diaspora organizations" in our Serbian diaspora article. From Google translation I can't tell if she is "in charge of culture" or not for the Serbian Unity Congress, but that is the largest organization of its type and she was vice president of it.
  Sofija Skoric [obtained] a master's degree in Russian studies in Toronto and [is] a specialist in Slavic studies at the local university library..... [She is a] Member of the Management Board of the Serbian Unity Congress, ... [the] largest organization of Serbs in the Diaspora, which includes about 100,000 of our compatriots in the United States and Canada. ...The nineties were [a] black decade for tens of thousands of young and educated people who were trying to find their second life in Canada . In Toronto there are about 30,000 Serbs.... Sofija Skoric [is] concerned about keeping their links with the homeland: "For me it is a painful problem. They reached here disgust at everything that happening in Serbia, ucaurili[sic] are in their new homes, are not included in the work of the church, Serbian clubs, our cultural and humanitarian organizations".... (edited from Google translation of srpskadijaspora.info page)
- Google scholar "Find sources AFD" search link above yields her masters thesis and a number (6-10?) of academic articles by her covered in Google scholar, besides library collection/curatorial works (which might or might not be important too). Other hits include academic citations of her works. She turns out to have been President (1988-1990) of the North American Society for Serbian Studies, also, publisher of Serbian Studies academic journal (an issue is here ).
- I !voted Keep above already; I believe her notability is significant and that there is more coverage (including Canadian and Serbian newspapers) not turned up by searching so far. It seems to me that she is a significant person in connection with the Serbian diaspora, and the only such person covered in Wikipedia at all, AFAIK. --do ncr am 05:15, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:08, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, found these reviews which add to Skoric's notableness - review of Return to Hilandar (Povratak u Hilandar) by Aleksander B. Lakovic, translated by Sofija Skoric from Slavic and East European Journal, listed by ebsco, [33], part of the review found here, [34] - "As for Sofija Skoric's translation, she is to be highly commended for bringing this English version before the public. Her translation is accurate - although I would disagree with a few of her intrpretations." review of Russian Reference Aids in the University of Toronto Library by Skoric, from Papers of the Bibliographical Society of Canada, [35] - "a welcome addition to Canadian initiatives in this field. .. All in all, this bibliography is an excellent contributions to Slavic teaching aids in Canada.". Coolabahapple (talk) 13:29, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:32, 29 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 Birmingham Conservatoire. Redirected - please merge as necessary. Seems the right outcome based om struggling to pass notability and being a clear part of the Conservatorie Spartaz ^Humbug! 11:34, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thallein Ensemble[edit]

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

Article, tagged as unreferenced since 2007 with no improvement, about a classical music ensemble. While there are claims here that would probably pass WP:NMUSIC if they were referenced, no NMUSIC criterion can ever be fulfilled just by asserting that it's passed — NMUSIC is not passed until reliable source coverage is present to verify the accuracy of the claim to passage. But if the closest thing to referencing that's ever been added to the article in nine full years of existence is the primary source webpage of the group's organizer, then it doesn't get to stick around. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 03:53, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. sst ✈ 05:03, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. sst ✈ 05:03, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as none of this suggests better satisfying the notability guidelines. SwisterTwister talk 05:54, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep, verging on keep - I was able to find three articles on the ensemble in the Birmingham Post without much work. (Birmingham has a well-known reputation for being a centre for contemporary classical music that dates back to Rattle.) They seem to often do concerts to mark presentations of composers with honorary doctorates. All three articles are by the same author but over a period of over a decade. They seem to be a well-known if irregularly playing student ensemble in the local area. What does concern me is the lack of a permanent website, but still, my position is weak keep to keep. Blythwood (talk) 08:18, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 05:43, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Birmingham Conservatoire and redirect. They're a group of students from the Conservatoire, co-ordinated by a Professor (according to the Conservatoire's website, anyway) Neiltonks (talk) 14:08, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:27, 29 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. The delete arguments are persuasive. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 03:38, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Werley Nortreus (Musical Artist)[edit]

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

I don't think the sources listed in the article (top40-charts.com and digitaljournal.com) could be considered reliable, and I don't see any other way this could pass WP:MUSICBIO. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 07:04, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - His book was self-published on CreateSpace, his record was self-published by the company he founded. All sources are self-promotion sites repeating the biography from his book. This doesn't come close to meeting any of the 12 criteria for WP:MUSICBIO. Netrogeractor (talk) 08:29, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I review this, i voted to keep this because don't forget that top40-charts.com is Major Music Charts, he also made it there, i think it's necessary, he also published a book with Create Space, this guy is on all over radio talk show, and he's a well known in the Caribbean also, i did some research and i found out all the facts.--Ceenterts (talk) 17:32, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please note the following regarding previous comment:

1. Ceenterts is the user who created the article, which is their only Wikipedia contribution, and thus may be the user name for the article's subject. Please refer to WP:COI.

2. Nothing in this comment indicates that the article's subject meets any of the 12 criteria for WP:MUSICBIO. Netrogeractor (talk) 02:08, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I think he's a real musician, look him on Google, i don't think y'all are right. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.203.92.63 (talk) 18:16, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, he is a real musician. But he does not meet the Wikipedia guidelines for notability. All Google links are to websites that allow musicians to submit their own biographies. Netrogeractor (talk) 18:31, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Searches did not turn up anything to show they pass either WP:GNG or WP:MUSICBIO. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:15, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sam Walton (talk) 00:32, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nixxes[edit]

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

Article is not supported by any sources. The article does not currently prove why it is notable. Anarchyte (work | talk) 07:02, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Anarchyte (work | talk) 07:04, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Anarchyte (work | talk) 07:04, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. As noted by the nominator, the article doesn't make any credible claim to notability. The company isn't the developer of any of the games listed in the article's table; it simply translates existing code from one computer platform to another. NewYorkActuary (talk) 01:20, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as questionable for solid independent notability. SwisterTwister talk 05:27, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as I have added content and even a reference to the article to make it obtain enough notability for a to-be-expanded stub. Lordtobi (✉) 20:26, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. Like SwisterTwiser said, I can't imagine notability by themselves. A developer porting games from one system to another can't be notable in reliable sources either. --Soetermans. T / C 21:58, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Contest Abstraction Games seeks the same kind of priority and still seemed to have received enough content for an article. Lordtobi (✉) 22:15, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No, it just means that no one got around to nominating that article for deletion. Based on my reading of that page, I believe that all of the commenters here would express the same opinions on Abstraction Games. NewYorkActuary (talk) 22:29, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm with NewYorkActuary on this. Abstraction Games uses Metacritic a lot as a source of unnecessary praise, while they just port games. --Soetermans. T / C 22:37, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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. Michig (talk) 08:32, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Kozaz records[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. No WP:SECONDARY sources have discussed this record company. Binksternet (talk) 03:54, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. sst ✈ 05:03, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. sst ✈ 05:03, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. sst ✈ 05:03, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. sst ✈ 05:03, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. sst ✈ 05:03, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and that's not surprising because it's unlikely this would've gotten the considerable sourcing which was needed for a better solid article. SwisterTwister talk 05:52, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
keep the article because all sources are real and you should search about it in Persian language to find more sources. As a PR for the company I am going to write the article in Russian and Persian languages during this month. Persiangreat (talk) 14:36, 14 Janaury 2016(UTC)

As public relations agent for the company, you have a conflict of interest. That is, you want to help the company prosper more than you want to help Wikipedia be relevant. Please read WP:COI for the guideline on the limited manner in which you may participate here. Binksternet (talk) 00:29, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

*keep the article ] I help to Wikipedia as well because most of article are not exist about Russian and Persian or only are in Persian or Russian Language or even though only in English. Persiangreat (talk) 12:06, 19 Janaury 2016(UTC)

While you're welcome to add additional comments, you are only allowed to !vote once. --| Uncle Milty | talk | 02:39, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 05:41, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar 06:35, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The recording label lacks the adequate notability both in English and Persian. Apart from the above mentioned conflict of interests of the comments from company's PR, its vocalist's page is subject to deletion as well. Arashtitan 15:04, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete, because there may be sources in Persian (which I cannot read) that discuss the topic, but if they're not presented and we can't find them, they might as well not exist. Would be willing to change my position if a Persian-speaker can come up with something and vouch for their reliability. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 05:22, 6 February 2016 (UTC).[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. joe decker ^talk 00:36, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Bent Leaf LLC[edit]

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

I honestly have no idea whether or not this organization is notable. I dream of horses (My talk page) (My edits) @ 06:05, 29 January 2016 (UTC) And yes, I've googled the company. --I dream of horses (My talk page) (My edits) @ 06:07, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Few changes made to the page. The deletion may be removed now. And Google search also shows the company. (Bonhishika (talk))

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. I dream of horses (My talk page) (My edits) @ 06:06, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. I dream of horses (My talk page) (My edits) @ 06:06, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Doesn't look particularly notable to me. --Quadraxis (talk) 02:37, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per WP:GNG and WP:NCORP. I couldn't find any sources that meet the standards required of WP:RS (and hence WP:GNG). The sources provided in the article are either homepages to websites, or make one simple reference to the company itself - they don't provide in-depth coverage of the article subject at all. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 02:46, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as I can confirm this is not a locally notable company, nothing else to suggest convincing better coverage and notability. SwisterTwister talk 06:14, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- Searches don't turn up enough to show that it passes either WP:GNG or WP:CORPDEPTH. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:09, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Insufficient coverage in WP:RS to meet WP:CORP. /wiae /tlk 14:00, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep as this seems clear and there are no serious concerns for AfD at this time (NAC). SwisterTwister talk 18:31, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yven[edit]

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

No reliable sources are found with a Google search. This article was deprodded by Geschichte. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 02:39, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 04:34, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, per WP:NGEO. Easily sourced. --Soman (talk) 14:54, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, geographical location. Geschichte (talk) 16:43, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Reliable sources found with google seaerch. Verified population center as per WP:NGEO. --Oakshade (talk) 07:31, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep passes WP:NGEO.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 17:51, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Spirit of Eagle (talk) 06:23, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Lying in wait[edit]

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

Move to Wikitionary. 333 -blue 02:12, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~: Wiktionary already has lie in wait, with almost the same definition. ubiquity (talk) 02:28, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: OK, now it's a well-documented article about a legal concept, not just a dup of a dictionary entry. It seems useful. --ubiquity (talk) 10:13, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A rewrite demonstrates that an encyclopedic treatment is possible. —teb728 t c 03:19, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep. I re-wrote the article per WP:TNT. The concept of lying in wait has received considerable attention in legal scholarship (see e.g. this article and this article). I'll return to this article over the next few days to expand it further. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 03:36, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep or Merge somewhere. While an AFD may have not been necessary to rewrite the article less dictionary-esque, this is a very small article. edtiorEهեইдအီးËეεઈדוארई電子ಇអ៊ី전자ഇī 04:21, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

EditorE, being a small article is not a valid reason for deletion (see WP:TOOLITTLE). It just means we need to improve the article with the abundant soures that have been written about this topic. Feel free to lend a helping hand :-) Best, -- Notecardforfree (talk) 05:54, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't say the article should be deleted because it was too little. I said that my vote was a Weak keep or Merge because of how small the small article, not a strong keep. I do forgive your misunderstanding of my comment, though. :) edtiorEهեইдအီးËეεઈדוארई電子ಇអ៊ី전자ഇī 05:57, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

EditorE, my apologies, my comment was a bit of a knee-jerk response. In retrospect, I realize that I should not have implied that you favored deletion. Hopefully, I'll have a chance to expand this article over the next few days, but considering the growth potential of this article, I still think a standalone article is appropriate (per WP:PAGEDECIDE). Best, -- Notecardforfree (talk) 07:30, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Clearly keep: encyclopedic enough, provides valuable information of the kind that people expect to find on WP—WinTakeAll 💬 06:49, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep We allow topics to be freely copied and so deletion is not required to replicate this information elsewhere. Andrew D. (talk) 18:01, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep after rewrite, well done Notecardforfree! Crow^Caw 22:55, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. clpo13_(talk) 18:18, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I agree with the nom given the state of the article at time of nomination, but Notecardforfree has commendably revised the article to put it into a state worthy of retention. TJRC (talk) 21:39, 30 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 keep. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 05:20, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Zid (1976 film)[edit]

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

Another Rajeshbieee/Gantlet related article, with similar issues with sourcing that had been dePRODed. A search for sourcing using the India WP's search engine doesn't bring up much of anything. The same issues as the other AfDs applies here. G5 doesn't apply to this article.

A note to anyone searching: there are multiple films by this name and as far as I can tell, they seem to be unrelated to this movie. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 08:33, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Same case with about 5 others. The only source here is eBay, which is obviously not reliable. Dat Guy^Talk_Contribs 10:35, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I appreciate that many (most?) of the movies in this bunch may turn out to have no apparent online sourcing at all, but this one has some online presence, albeit in barely visible snippets. A GBooks search for <Zid Nutan> produces glimpses of reviews such as [36] [37]. Unless someone knows how to magically expand the snippets, it's probably not enough to sustain an article, but I can see why the deprodder might have thought it was worthy of attention. --Arxiloxos (talk) 17:15, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:20, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:20, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Thanks to Arxiloxos, I could add the two print references in the reference section.--Dwaipayan (talk) 15:14, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 20:25, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:35, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. Esquivalience ^t 02:07, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Esquivalience ^t 02:07, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per sources added. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 08:04, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - barely passes notability criteria with the added references. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:06, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. A clear consensus to delete following relisting. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 12:11, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Arif Rind Baloch[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:POLITICIAN is only a member of the Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf and yet to hold office in Provincial or national legislature. Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 12:24, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. sst ✈ 13:08, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. sst ✈ 13:08, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Being an organizer for a political party does not confer an automatic presumption of notability under WP:NPOL — political parties typically have thousands of organizers and volunteers working for them, so they can't all be automatically notable on that basis in and of itself — but this article makes no claim that he's held any office which would clear the bar. And the sourcing here is dependent almost entirely on primary source confirmation of his existence on the websites of directly affiliated organizations, with virtually no reliable source coverage of the type it would take to pass WP:GNG. Also, straight WP:AUTOBIO if you check the creator's username — but people aren't allowed to get into Wikipedia by writing about themselves. No prejudice against recreation in the future — by somebody other than the subject himself — if he ever actually wins election to a notable office, but Wikipedia is not a public relations platform or a LinkedIn clone. Bearcat (talk) 18:32, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Esquivalience ^t 02:05, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per Nom and Bearcat.E.M.Gregory (talk) 12:13, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Does not meet WP:NPOL, and is insufficient coverage for WP:BIO/WP:GNG. /wiae /tlk 18:15, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as currently questionable for the applicable notability. SwisterTwister talk 18:28, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Uncontested. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 12:17, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mahdar[edit]

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

Non-notable musician. The article has no WP:SECONDARY sources discussing the artist, and none were found on the web. Looks like promotion. Binksternet (talk) 03:46, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. sst ✈ 05:05, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. sst ✈ 05:05, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. sst ✈ 05:05, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as there's not yet enough sourcing to suggest better solid notability. SwisterTwister talk 05:56, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 05:39, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, sst✈ ^(speak now) 01:59, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Lack of the adequate notability. In addition, his band (Kozaz) is also subject to deletion on Wikipedia. Arashtitan 14:45, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. joe decker ^talk 00:36, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Gregory T.S. Walker[edit]

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

Creator WP:COI, refs are primary sources superβεεcat 01:52, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. sst ✈ 01:58, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP: The COI disclosure has been included. The included references are actually secondary sources:

A secondary source provides an author's own thinking based on primary sources, generally at least one step removed from an event. It contains an author's interpretation, analysis, or evaluation of the facts, evidence, concepts, and ideas taken from primary sources. Secondary sources are not necessarily independent or third-party sources. They rely on primary sources for their material, making analytic or evaluative claims about them. A book review too can be an opinion, summary or scholarly review.[7]Policy: Wikipedia articles usually rely on material from reliable secondary sources. Articles may make an analytic, evaluative, interpretive, or synthetic claim only if that has been published by a reliable secondary source.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Gtswalker (talk • contribs) 19:36, 23 January 2016‎

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Esquivalience ^t 01:56, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Searches found nothing better than a few expected mentions at Books and browsers. SwisterTwister talk 01:05, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom Fails WP:SIGCOV and notability is WP:NOTINHERITED and his being the son of George Walker (composer). Sources are largely primary sources.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 18:23, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 18:29, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

delete fails WP:CREATIVE.E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:12, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete, snowball clause. Given the state of the article and the lack of any sourcing or otherwise useful material for an article, I don't see how this article, in its current form, will be improved. —C.Fred (talk) 21:40, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Translation of Genesis (Jewish Version)[edit]

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

I'm not sure there's a CSD for this. Wikipedia isn't Wikisource. I dream of horses (My talk page) (My edits) @ 01:55, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. I dream of horses (My talk page) (My edits) @ 01:56, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I have always argued that there should be a speedy deletion criterion for pages that clearly were not intended to be an encyclopedia article. Maybe you could say that this was created in error? -- Notecardforfree (talk) 03:40, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not WikiSource, and the title doesn't really make sense. There is no "Jewish Version" of Genesis, although there are of course Jewish (as opposed to Christian) translations of it, i.e. translations carried out by Jewish translators and informed by Jewish theology. SJK (talk) 10:32, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete - Would WP:G2 for test edit apply here? There definitely should be a CSD for obviously not encyclopedic pages like this. FuriouslySerene (talk) 14:34, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This has no citations. Among other problems. TomS TDotO (talk) 05:39, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - this article is unnecessary. -BobKilcoyne (talk) 07:32, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes there is a Jewish version I mean by not christian but jewish genesis and it it is an english translation — Preceding unsigned comment added by Awesomedjh (talk • contribs) 16:58, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There isn't a separate "Jewish version" of Genesis per se. Many Christians accept the Masoretic Text of Genesis, which is exactly the same Hebrew text as Jews use. Jewish and Christians translations may at times have somewhat different slants, but the underlying Hebrew text is identical. (The story gets more complicated when we consider other texts such as the Septuagint, but even then it remains the case that saying there is a "Jewish version" and a "Christian version" is a vast oversimplification.) SJK (talk) 10:53, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete This is not an encyclopedic article, but apparently, an amateurish attempt at a translation written from a non-neutral POV. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 00:17, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I've requested a block on the user's account. There's a history of disruptive edits, of which this article is just a piece. 2601:188:0:ABE6:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 20:22, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: There is insufficient content here to warrant a separate article and I don't see enough potential for sufficient content to be provided. If there is notable content, it would seem most appropriate to have it placed on the Book of Genesis article. As a side note, I removed a recently added "this page created by..." statement at the bottom per WP:OWN. Chrisw80 (talk) 20:37, 31 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. WP:MUSBIO and WP:COMPOSER indicate the possibility that a subject meets our notability requirement. However, the consensus here is that the subject does not. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 03:26, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

David Penn[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Subject is a DJ who does not appear to meet the WP:MUSBIO notability guidelines. First ref doesn't even mention subject, others provide only WP:TRIVIALMENTION coverage. Could find no reliable independent sources that discuss this person in any depth. As you consider your !vote to delete or keep, please consider that the notability guidelines given at WP:MUSICBIO and others are meant to be tools to help editors quickly assess whether or not a given subject is likely to be notable, not a measure of abstract notability (which, if questioned, must still be proven in the usual ways, whatever the guidelines may suggest). Thanks! KDS4444^Talk 19:44, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Although the previous nomination failed because it was noted the requirements for WP:MUSICBIO#C6 were met, it seems WP:HOLE is relevant to this discussion. Additionally, I can't find any significant coverage in any reliable sources. Babykitsune (talk) 06:12, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I've updated a ref and added another to help establish identity. Meets WP:NMUSIC by Criteria 2 for Musicians and Ensembles and Criteria 1 for Composers and Lyricists. --Pc13 (talk) 17:16, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 20:25, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:32, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:03, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:04, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. Esquivalience ^t 01:55, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Esquivalience ^t 01:55, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete at best and draft and userfy if needed, there is something for an article here but it's still questionable. SwisterTwister talk 02:56, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - some marginal notability, but not enough to show that they pass notability threshold. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:00, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete--Ymblanter (talk) 07:46, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Emir Alihodžić[edit]

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

Concern was that the article fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. PROD contested by articles creator without providing a reason. – Michael (talk) 01:35, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. – Michael (talk) 01:38, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - He has not played in a fully pro league or received significant coverage, meaning the article fails WP:NSPORT and WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik (talk) 15:49, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 18:15, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails NFOOTY as has not played senior international football nor played in a fully professional league. No indication that subject has garnered significant reliable coverage for any other achievements to satisfy GNG. Fenix down (talk) 13:06, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. joe decker ^talk 00:37, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Charles Mittelstadt[edit]

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

Non-notable investigator lacking non-trivial support. reddogsix (talk) 01:18, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - A handful of hits from searches, nothing significant to indicate notability. Aeonx (talk) 11:56, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Not notable.--DThomsen8 (talk) 12:42, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG, notability is not WP:INHERITED, completely promotional page in tone and content. Wikipedia is not LinkedIn. Scr★pIron^IV 02:34, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - searches did not turn up enough in-depth coverage from independent sources to show they meet notability criteria. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:57, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete--Ymblanter (talk) 07:41, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Owel[edit]

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

Potentially non-notable; slightly promotional tone. I dream of horses (My talk page) (My edits) @ 00:51, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. I dream of horses (My talk page) (My edits) @ 00:52, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. I dream of horses (My talk page) (My edits) @ 00:52, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable; fails WP:BAND. No third-party sources. sixtynine ^{• speak up •} 00:58, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as mentioned, none of this better convinces the applicable notability. SwisterTwister talk 01:09, 30 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 no consensus. (WP:NPASR). North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:12, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Waraich clan[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. It certainly exists as a last name but there appear to be no reliable sources that discuss this as a clan - they're mostly mirrors either of us or of unreliable British Raj sources. Sitush (talk) 04:07, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. sst ✈ 05:02, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. sst ✈ 05:02, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:35, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 05:44, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:38, 29 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--Ymblanter (talk) 07:31, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Aquadolls[edit]

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

Article, referenced almost entirely to the topic's own self-published social media presence, of a band with no strong claim to passing WP:NMUSIC. CMJ, the chart on which their single appeared, is not a chart which can fulfill NMUSIC #2, because it's not IFPI-certified — and nothing else here satisfies any other NMUSIC criterion in the absence of any reliable source coverage. The band probably would qualify to keep a properly sourced article, but no criterion in NMUSIC ever entitles a band to keep an article that parks its sourcing entirely on their own Bandcamp and Facebook profiles. Delete, without prejudice against recreation if real media coverage ever starts to materialize. Bearcat (talk) 03:44, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. sst ✈ 05:04, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 05:40, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:04, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:36, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The coverage of the topic comprises solely of short mentions. Fails WP:GNG. Esquivalience ^t 01:15, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom Fails WP:NMUSIC and WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 19:50, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Uncontested. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 12:20, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Duhan[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. This was a redirect to Duhoon, which was deleted under the PROD process on 20 September 2015 due to failure to meet GNG. Someone has recreated it this month and did so in a manner that makes me think they copy/pasted from a mirror (see the formatting here, with unlinked refs, garbled sections etc due to lack of wiki markup).

The subject matter still fails GNG, regardless of which way the name is spelled. Sitush (talk) 03:41, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. sst ✈ 05:06, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. sst ✈ 05:06, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. sst ✈ 05:06, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 05:39, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:36, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Doesn't meets the WP:GNG and fails WP:V. — Sanskari ^Hangout 16:53, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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