The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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 Fifth Harmony (non-admin closure) Snuggums (talk / edits) 22:00, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

From my experiences with the groups music, and being a low-key fan of theirs, Cabello does seem like the standout member of her group Fifth Harmony. However, at this point in time, I don't feel that she's notable enough for a stand-alone article. This is a sandbox I knocked up, and it contains what the article looks like if you remove all of the information associated with her group, things like the entire Tours section, or Commercials subsection of Filmography, that could easily be moved into the group article as it applies to all members. Things I also removed for the sandbox version of her article include unsourced BLP violations (The first three sentences of Personal life) and trivia, things like how she's friends with Taylor Swift (every current popstar seems to be), and supports LGBT rights (can anyone name a current teeny-bop female popstar with half a brain and a good PR manager who publicly doesn't?) I've also applied CN tags where relevant. Note that there is a Members section of Fifth Harmony's article, and her sub-section already pretty much sums up the sandbox version of her article, but any other tidbits worth noting could be moved there should consensus be to delete. Azealia911 _talk 23:52, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There is enough in your sandbox to pass WP:GNG.--Launchballer 00:28, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I know, but whats there could easily be compressed into the aforementioned members section, the majority of it already is. Azealia911 _talk 00:31, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I operate under the guideline that if in merging it would take up more than twice the size of the next largest section, then it shouldn't be merged. Once I get off college tomorrow I'm going to knock up a sandbox myself of what the members section would look like if fully merged!--Launchballer 00:41, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good to me Azealia911 _talk 00:42, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Try here. Cabello's section is 1332 characters and the next biggest, Kordei's, is 595.--Launchballer 12:24, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not really seeing anything visually astonishing after tweaking (which I hope you don't mind) Azealia911 _talk 16:14, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 03:05, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 03:05, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge/redirect to Fifth Harmony Launchballer, merging doesn't mean you need to include all, or even most, of this article in Fifth Harmony, it might be only a sentence or two that's added, or a simple redirect may suffice. She doesn't meet WP:NOTABILITY independent of the band. Boleyn (talk) 06:31, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge/redirect to Fifth Harmony Not notable by herself. She is only notable with the group. All of her accomplishments have been with Fifth Harmony. --Miss X-Factor (talk) 23:32, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Randykitty (talk) 15:26, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Pretty much an open and shut case that this never got third-party coverage and is not notable. Searches and current links are nothing but social media and other self-generated material. It's worth noting it was been somewhat heavily edited since May 23, 2006 but always had primary sources and no third-party. SwisterTwister talk 23:27, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 03:04, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 03:04, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, not enough third-party coverage. — Cirt (talk) 01:41, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. While the sourcing of the article as it stands looks likely not to be reliable by our standards, what I am seeing of the GNews (and to a lesser extent GBooks) results seems to contain quite a number of third-party sources, some substantial, some reliable and some quite possibly both (though I am not familiar enough with the status of any but the most visible Indian news sources to be certain of the last). The organisation still seems to exist (though probably on a smaller scale than around 2006), and there is also some verifiable controversy about the existence and extent of past connections between Arvind Kejriwal and this organisation. In brief, I suspect this is notable, but need to leave it to others to determine one way or the other. PWilkinson (talk) 11:50, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Delete per lack of apparent notability, though PWilkinson's comment was interesting, hence the weak delete.—Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 23:39, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:32, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

There's not a shred of good evidence this place exists, sure it's Africa so good sources may not be available. However, the simplest searches found nothing and the only links are the listed ones and the website no longer exists (probably a website of fabricated information as well). For a village apparently started in 1983 and the article started September 2009, it's interesting there's not a single link for it. SwisterTwister talk 23:15, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: I will defer to those with local expertise before declaring this a long-term hoax; but I will note that creating and editing this article six years ago represent the creator's only mainspace contributions. In my experience that is a major red flag in these situations. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:03, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 03:03, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. No reliable references exist for this village from sources inside or outside Congo. Google Maps and Google Earth indicate nothing. The idea of a village with "only 11 houses" but 900 inhabitants, before the supposed increase in 2008, is not totally inconceivable but dubious. The Education and Weather sections clearly have little substantive content. The only reference at all I've found for the "Barangala tribe" supposedly inhabiting this village comes from James George Frazer's 1910 work Totemism and Exogamy [1], but that refers to a group in Australia, not Congo. All of this seems to add up to a long-lived hoax. Calamondin12 (talk) 12:40, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete No coverage in independent, reliable sources to verify or sustian article or to even verify the existence of the place. I could not find it listed on GeoNames either. Jbh^Talk 17:44, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as no sources have been found that verify its existence. I can't find anything about the Barangala but apparently Bahangala is a subgroup of the Kongo people, and there's a place called Simouloukouni somewhere between Kindamba and Mindouli. IP 196.12.10.5 has edited several articles about places in Namibia and the Republic of the Congo, including some created by editors with few or no other contributions, and most are verifiable as places (exceptions are this and N'kosso). Peter James (talk) 23:02, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Per consensus, fails WP:GNG and quite possibly a WP:HOAX  Philg88 ^♦talk 06:49, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

I'm simply nominating this because it may be an unknown and obscure Indian food but all my searches (News, Books and browser) including the simplest searches found absolutely nothing apart from Wikipedia, or else I would've immediately tagged it as G3. I know there's a gap with foreign articles but this existing since May 2010 with no improvement or a shred of evidence is concerning. It's also worth noting images were "added" but never actually existed. @Calamondin12: is welcome to comment. SwisterTwister talk 23:08, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: Very possibly a long-term hoax. The only Google hits appear to be derived from our article. The article is its creator's only contribution, always a red flag in these situations. The reference to Paul Brennan was a later addition to the article (see [2]) but is clearly nonsense. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:09, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 03:02, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 03:02, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. This looks like a hoax: If this dish were indeed "popular in Western Europe," particularly fast food restaurants in the United Kingdom, we should be able to find thousands of reviews, menus, recipes, and similar mentions in various Western languages (it's not just a translation issue). And, as noted previously, the absence of other edits from the article's creator also points toward a hoax. Calamondin12 (talk) 12:29, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete No coverage in independent, reliable sources to verify or sustian article. Fails WP:GNG and as near as I can tell does not exist as an actual, well known, dish. Jbh^Talk 17:50, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was snowwwbally delete. Max Semenik (talk) 08:30, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

non notable campaign biography DGG ( talk ) 22:22, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• delete Fails WP:POLITICIAN - a perennial candidate who has never won elected office; no coverage in local media (Google search shows largely self-published results); his candidacy is covered in related articles of winning candidates. 32.218.32.146 (talk) 22:35, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: non-notable; using Wikipedia as webpage. Quis separabit? 22:43, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom - JohnInDC (talk) 00:39, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom-Thank you-RFD (talk) 07:43, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Comprehensively fails the guidelines at both WP:GNG and WP:POLITICIAN. Has never held elected office, and no significant independent coverage about him, apart from his mention in a local press article about bee-keeping where he is described as "a perennial candidate". Voceditenore (talk) 13:13, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wisconsin-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 03:00, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 03:00, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Looks like an attempt to create artificial notability. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:07, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I don't think it's "an attempt to create artificial notability". The article was created as a brief stub back in 2006 [3] by an editor who appears unrelated to the subject. In those days, before the notability criteria and BLP sourcing requirements were tightened up, it was fairly common for people to create articles for the candidates in US Senate elections regardless of whether they had previously held an elected office or were otherwise notable. There was quite a big debate about the issue around the time this article was created. See Wikipedia talk:Candidates and elections – Voceditenore (talk) 17:47, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It was probably under the radar for those 6 years. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:12, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

9 years, Bugs, it's 2015 :). I'm sure there are a lot of articles like this lying around from the 2006 US elections. They only show up on the radar when there's some sort of kerfuffle. Voceditenore (talk) 05:39, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Fails WP:POLITICIAN #3. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 15:36, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, I don't see any personal notability here. GregJackP Boomer! 15:43, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom; Google news is not offering up better sources. --Nat Gertler (talk) 16:33, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Fails WP:BEEKEEPING. Oh, and WP:POLITICIAN. Mr Potto (talk) 17:39, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. At this point close per WP:SNOW.4meter4 (talk) 17:51, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and close deletion per WP:SNOW. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NPOLITICIAN. Joseph2302 (talk) 20:20, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - per all above and WP:SNOW. MrScorch6200 (talk | ctrb) 22:44, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - nominee, candidate, never held office, not notable. BMK (talk) 00:26, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep (for this discussion, per the nominator's withdrawal). North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:14, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Update: The article was later speedy deleted by User:Jimfbleak per WP:A7, "Article about a real person, which does not credibly indicate the importance or significance of the subject". North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:43, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Vanity bio of non-notable YMCA employee. Fails WP:GNG. Someone removed A7. —teb728 t c 22:15, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Withdrawn I was mistaken about A7 being removed —teb728 t c 22:21, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Davewild (talk) 17:24, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The article fails WP:N, has no reliable sources (and has been tagged as such since December 2012), and appears to be purely self-promotion. -- Irn (talk) 22:00, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 02:57, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 02:57, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Only source I could find was here, and that might even be affiliated with him. Either way, definitely not enough to pass WP:GNG. ~ Rob^Talk 05:31, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete promo advert, lots of unverifiable claims, at two songs of the charting Joe Budden (album) a writer "Joseph Constantino" is mentioned, with a redirect to an otherwise unnamed Elementary (musician). Apparently you need a dozen or more producers to make a hip hop album... Kraxler (talk) 18:58, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:10, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

2015 Shuvat Rachel shooting (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

WP:NOTNEWS, no lasting impact, a straightforward news story Nableezy 20:39, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• nonsense search I named the article following the convention used in naming the 2015 Chattanooga shootings and copied the relevant subheads used on that page, frankly because I did not know what to call this horrifically violent incident, other than to call it a shooting and name it after the nearest town named in the sources. If the name should be moved, I'm open to that. But anyone wishing to do a good-faith search for notability will have to try several different keywords, and variant spellings.E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:07, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What is "nonsense search" supposed to mean? Per WP:AFDFORMAT, "Usually editors recommend a course of action in bold text" What course of action is "nonsense search"? Should I search for nonsense? (Found it already, further down) Should nonsense search for something? Is search nonsense? Please explain. Kraxler (talk) 19:24, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions.E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:00, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions.E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:09, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions.E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:09, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:37, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Palestine-related deletion discussions. Nableezy 15:09, 23 July 2015 (UTC) [reply]

• comment routine news? The mastermind of this terrorist attack was a convicted murderer, one of the imprisoned Islamist terrorists released in the Gilad Shalit prisoner exchange. Supposedly confined to Gaza, he entered Jordan and ran a terror cell targeting Israeli civilians.E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:45, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Well-researched and thoroughly documented article with nearly two dozen reliable and verifiable sources about the incident from publications on three continents. The article meets and exceeds the notability standard. Alansohn (talk) 14:16, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

How does that in any way address WP:NOTNEWS? And for reference, WP:NOT is Wikipedia policy, WP:N is a guideline, and then theres this. nableezy - 20:21, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOTNEWS is completely and totally irrelevant here. This article not 1) Journalism written as a primary reference; 2) routine news reporting on things like announcements, sports, or celebrities; 3) a Whos' Who; or 4) A diary. Alansohn (talk) 04:21, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That is not a complete list of what NOTNEWS covers, as made plain by its saying for example, not these are the only things that are covered. nableezy - 12:34, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Notable and supported by reliable sources. No reason to delete. 2601:240:CC02:E8D6:259E:B2FD:87BE:71D7 (talk) 03:01, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: this is this "brand new editor´s" first (of two edits), so far. Hmmm, Huldra (talk) 23:11, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:NOTNEWS and WP:NOTAMEMORIAL. — MShabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 10:57, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• comment I am a BIG advocate of WP:BEFORE. If nom had performed a proper WP:BEFORE he would have have understood how frivolous his decision to being this article to AFD is. He is, in fact, wasting the time and attention of WP editors. I do understand that terrorism is a controversial topic. However, it is routine for WP to have articles on terror attacks [4]Category:Terrorist incidents in 2015, and even on terror plots 2015 Boston beheading plot.E.M.Gregory (talk) 13:36, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Im a big advocate of not writing memorial articles for routine news. And yes, routine. Four people were shot, one died. Im from a city where that happens on a more than weekly basis. We have policy that says this is an encyclopedia, not a news repository. You want to write this on Wikinews by all means, its appropriate there. But this is not an encyclopedia article. nableezy - 16:06, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete No lasting impact. It come back if it is still in the news in a month or two. The fact that multiple news sources copy each other's stories for one or two days doesn't make it notable. Zero^talk 16:10, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  Note that has User:Zero0000 started AFD:Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shooting of Danny Gonen. If he is reading this, he should know that I also just started Saleh al-Arouri, about the terrorist mastermind of these two incidents, and of many other murderous terror attacks and kidnappings.E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:38, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, pr MShabazz, Huldra (talk) 20:33, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep As per WP:GNG the most important of the several policies that distinguish notable events from routine news and events. WP:GNG reads: "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article." I point you to in-depth articles on this terror murder in linked in the article. I remind editors raising WP:NOTNEWS that WP is WP:NOTCENSORED and WP:BATTLEGROUND, and that WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT is not a policy based argument. An event with this breadth and depth of coverage does not have to demonstrate ongoing impact to be WP notable. Under WP:EVENTCRIT an event has to meet WP:INDEPTH, which this event objectively does. Nevertheless, this shooting has had demonstrable impact (in article since the creation) on the Israeli conversation about whether to agree to a prisoner exchange that Hamas is requesting this summer (for the bodies of soldiers, or for the return of a mentally ill Israelis who crossed the border into Gaza). It is argued that since this was one of 6 recent terror murders carried out by convicted terrorists released in the Gilad Shalit prisoner exchange, a fresh exchange endangers the lives of Israelis and is, therefore, bad policy. Independent of that, it is making waves in diplomatic relations between Turkey and Israel (because Saleh al-Arouri) and between Israel and Jordan (because the operative directly in charge of this Hamas terror cell resides in Jordan).E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:35, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• comment While working on another AFD I came across this keep iVote [5]:

User:Libertarian12111971 argues "if this article is marked for deletion, then it honestly wouldn't make sense if the 2013 Santa Monica shooting, 2013 Hialeah shooting, 2012 College Station, Texas shooting, Clackamas Town Center shooting, Southern California Edison shooting, etc., etc. articles aren't." The article under debate was kept. From this and other recent AFDs I see that there has been a trend to keep shooting attacks as WP:NOTABLE.

There is, of course, also a clear tradition of keeping ideologically motivated terror attacks as notable.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:52, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about a killing where 1 person was killed, 3 wounded. In comparison: 2013 Santa Monica shooting: 6 killed, 4 injured; 2013 Hialeah shooting: 7 killed, 2012 College Station, Texas shooting: 3 killed, 4 wounded; Clackamas Town Center shooting: 3 killed, 1 wounded; Southern California Edison shooting: 3 killed, 2 wounded. How many fatal shootings are there in Chicago every year? Several hundred, I believe. We do not have an article on each of those. As for ideologically motivated, sure, I´ll vote "keep" on this article the day Wikipedia have an article called Shooting of Mohammed Ahmed Alauna. Cheers, Huldra (talk) 20:58, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OTHERSTUFF.E.M.Gregory (talk) 22:12, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep As per WP:GNG. The case received much int'l coverage and over a month later, there are still articles that mention it. The fact the murderer was released during Gil'ad Shalit exchange, makes this more notable. 06:41, 26 July 2015 (UTC) — 109.64.140.181 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
• Delete No lasting impact; Wikipedia is not a daily newspaper. Kierzek (talk) 21:02, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - editors write No lasting impact but the fact is, a over a month after it happens, it is still being mentioned in multiple news sources. The assertion it has no lasting impact isn't only premature but also inaccurate (to say the least). 21:25, 26 July 2015 (UTC) — 79.178.39.63 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
• Keep Like I already said at Shooting of Danny Gonen.SummerSchool55 (talk) 15:12, 27 July 2015 (UTC) — SummerSchool55 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
• Keep - it's still "in the news" much later. However, some brief factual analysis might be in order here. Can somebody neutral work on this article? Bearian (talk) 20:10, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:NOTNEWS # 2, the shooting was covered by the newsmedia, so what? All over the world, by reliable sources? That's WP:ROUTINE. Wikipedia is not a newspaper, it's an encyclopedia. I quote :"Wikipedia considers the enduring notability of persons and events. While news coverage can be useful source material for encyclopedic topics, most newsworthy events do not qualify for inclusion." User:E.M.Gregory, what is the lasting impact of this incident? Put up or shut up. And don't come again with WP:OTHERSTUFF, please. Kraxler (talk) 19:17, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per MShabazz. —  Cliftonian (talk)  10:17, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Withdrawn by nominator. (non-admin closure) --George Ho (talk) 22:16, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Conceding it has garnered some news coverage, article subject appears to be a run of the mill criminal case. It is tragic without doubt. But there is nothing exceptional here that is likely to have major ramifications and Wikipedia is not a newspaper. Further news coverage is not the sole determining factor when asserting notability for an event. Article fails WP:EVENT and WP:NOTNEWS. Ad Orientem (talk) 20:26, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawing nom When everyone is telling me I'm wrong, there is a pretty strong chance that I am. Suggest speedy close. -Ad Orientem (talk) 21:29, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose: Significant news coverage and follow-on effects, including federal scrutiny. This isn't a run-of-the-mill procedural crime story when it's getting play on front pages for more than a week and sparking an investigation into possible wrongdoing on the part of law enforcement. -Kudzu1 (talk) 20:58, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Thanks for your comment. You have a point though I am still unconvinced this rings the WP:N bell. But if other editors start saying the same thing I will consider withdrawing the nom. On a side note and just as a friendly FYI, in AfD discussion the usual way !votes are registered is as Delete - Keep - Merge or Redirect. I am treating your !vote as a Keep. -Ad Orientem (talk) 21:04, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Significant news coverage, upcoming murder investigation, in tandem with the Black Lives Matter movement suggests this is permanently notable. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:02, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - This is a significant development regarding the Black Lives Matter social movement, which Bland was an activist in. If it was an isolated incident, I would say WP:NOTNEWS applies, but there's a bigger (and more notable) context here. Kaldari (talk) 21:11, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - This tragedy could end up being as notable as the Shooting of Trayvon Martin, the Shooting of Michael Brown, or the Death of Eric Garner, depending on what the investigation uncovers, and how the events play out. We should allow more time before considering it for deletion. CuriousEric 21:24, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - WP:NOTNEWS does not apply per the biggest context. Unless someone owns a magical ball and can see into the future.. I say wait. This is notable right now.--BabbaQ (talk) 21:54, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Davewild (talk) 17:26, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Here's one of those articles that fills up its references section with links about tangential things in the hopes that you won't notice there aren't references to support what the article is actually about. References 4 through 8 (in the version current as of this writing) are about what a Super PAC is, and 9 is about how amending the U.S. Constitution works. 10 through 12 are about a memorial passed by the Florida state legislature on a subject the organization supports (but not about the organization itself), and it isn't even independent coverage of that memorial, it's just the state legislature's own website noting that the memorial exists and another website that lists state bills also noting that it exists. 14 and 15 are similar about a bill introduced in the House of Representatives last year that hasn't come to anything, again simply noting that it exists. 13, from the fringey WND, is about the issue the organization supports, but it doesn't even mention the organization (unless you want to count someone from the organization self-promoting in the comments section (!)). As for the first three, 1 is a promotional blurb in a state legislator newsletter, and 2 and 3 are from a local Florida paper so local, it isn't listed on List of newspapers in Florida. After checking Google, Google News, and Google Books, I've seen enough to be convinced this doesn't meet WP:GNG. Egsan Bacon (talk) 20:20, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 02:56, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 02:56, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 02:56, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Per nominator. Mostly original research, fails WP:GNG as well as WP:ORG.--Ddcm8991 (talk) 16:36, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:TNT because it is so badly written as to be nonsense. Bearian (talk) 20:17, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Yunshui ^雲_水 13:17, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Does not meet WP:GNG. Neither reference mentions the subject by name. Also see WP:NOTESSAY. ubiquity (talk) 19:39, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 02:55, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I couldn't find a mention of this concept in either reference. It reads as WP:OR to me. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 11:39, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Liz or redirect to intelligence amplification - 14:33, 23 July 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by David Gerard (talk • contribs)
• Delete This has a strong original research aroma as submitted to Wikipedia with multiple wikilinks from arguably unconnected articles. I follow the literature on intellect and on human and animal and artificial intelligence closely, and this is not an encyclopedic topic found in reliable sources or mentioned in any of the relevant WikiProjects. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 14:50, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Obvious WP:OR via synthesis of given sources. - LuckyLouie (talk) 15:17, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Agree with the others who have commented here. --Krelnik (talk) 17:50, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as WP:SYN and complete bollocks. Guy (Help!) 21:44, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I'm not sure there is even enough to warrant a redirect to Douglas Engelbart or Intelligence amplification#Douglas Engelbart: Augmenting Human Intellect. - Location (talk) 09:19, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and Redirect to Intelligence amplification, which this is, pretense or not, related to, and which is a natural search term for the same. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 22:04, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Really obviously non-notable crackpot theory - let's not waste any more time on this. --Salimfadhley (talk) 23:48, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy delete a7, no assertion of notability, no sources. NawlinWiki (talk) 19:14, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Insufficient sources Antrocent (♫♬) 19:14, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Davewild (talk) 19:56, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Seems to be one of a number of articles about the Grobman family and this one has a remarkably close resemblance to Yasha Grobman's college website profile. The claims of "numerous arcitecture prizes and competitions" is unsubstantiated and I'm unable to find independent proof. The one prize I was able to substantiate was for a building designed by another architecture company, it looks like Grobman-Axelrod Architects may have been only the site architects or something similar. At the moment this is simply a CV of someone who hasn't achieved individual notability. Sionk (talk) 18:09, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 02:53, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 02:54, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 02:54, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:36, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• While the Grobmans may be notable, this one is not. Delete. Bearian (talk) 20:18, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete promo advert, no indication in the article why he should be notable, no coverage in independent sources, web searches turn up social media, press releases and directories, only. Kraxler (talk) 19:32, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Yunshui ^雲_水 13:18, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

No content, only links to the college's website. Seemed a straightforward A3/G11 to me, but Hullaballoo Wolfowitz disagrees, so here we are... Bazj (talk) 18:05, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Bazj (talk) 18:07, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Bazj (talk) 18:08, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy keep, and smack the nominator with the largest available trout quite a few times. No reasonable, competent editor could call this "a straightforward A3". It's not "only links to the college's website". It's an infobox, albeit a not-quite-perfect one. WP:A3 says, plain as day, without any ambiguity, "this criterion does not cover a page having only an infobox". If Bazj doesn't understand that, they lack the basic WP:COMPETENCE to be applying speedy deletion tags. (And if they do understand it, why would they not only apply the tag but double down on the obvious error?) It's also clear that G11 doesn't apply; the infobox is standard form and its content appears entirely appropriate. Note also, very importantly, that this was the first attempt at article creation by an very inexperienced editor. All of their previous contributions were constructively and reasonably intended. So we have a well-intentioned, reasonably capable new editor who's just beginning to write their first article, does a pretty good job in their first step, and is inexplicably BITTEN by an experience editor who blithers in, tag-bombs the article with obviously inappropriate deletion tags without doing any of the most basic things that WP:BEFORE requires. And, unsurprisingly, the new editor is driven away. Fourteen minutes after beginning to write their first article, barely five minutes after their second edit of it, and for no reason other than the sheer carelessness and officiousness of an experienced editor who really should know better and is unwilling to admit and correct their most obvious error. The new editor ought to have a reasonable opportunity to return and complete their work. And that's much longer than the four whole goddam minutes Bazj so generously allowed after I posted to the article creator's talk page encouraging them to resume writing their first article. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 18:55, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Update. I've updated the article by adding intro part and programme section but still it lacks references but, one should make decision only after looking INDAFD. — CutestPenguin^Hangout 19:05, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as a degree-awarding institution per longstanding precedent and consensus. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:26, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 14:26, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Kudos to Hullaballoo Wolfowitz. Not sure what Nom was thinking...E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:16, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per above, although it could use some copyediting of Hinglish. Bearian (talk) 20:12, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Yunshui ^雲_水 13:18, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Non-notable teacher. Article is based around his having been David Cameron's favourite teacher and most of the references are the various printings of this memory. Nthep (talk) 17:58, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Hamish59 (talk) 21:30, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 02:52, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 02:52, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep I'm wary of inheriting notability from Cameron. Per the letter of WP:N it's an easy pass, with all those newspaper mentions, but that's not the spirit of it. Yet why did Cameron make all these mentions of him? He hasn't spoken publicly about other teachers, so he is making some specific distinction in favour of Kidson. Andy Dingley (talk) 09:36, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Teachers can be notable. If, for example, books and articles are written about their special qualities. But there is only one obituary (I searched). Beyond that, this assertion of notability is far too derivative. Shortly after this beloved teacher passes away and the obituary runs, Cameron mentions him in speeches, then a small spate of other articles mention the fact that Cameron mentioned him.E.M.Gregory (talk) 11:48, 22 July 2015 (UTC) Striking , as per User:Necrothesp. Did not realize that a lone obit was dispositive.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:00, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. A full obituary in a major national newspaper such as the Daily Telegraph equates to notability. This is a long-held Wikipedia principle. Their notability requirements are far more stringent than ours. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:44, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as per Necrothesp. Someone can close this discussion now.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:01, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Still Mine. (non-admin closure) Natg 19 (talk) 00:47, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Biography of a person whose only real claim of notability, under Wikipedia's inclusion rules, is the fact that somebody made a film about a specific incident from his life — essentially, he's just a WP:BIO1E, and the article about the film itself is about all the coverage of him that Wikipedia really needs. Delete (or redirect to Still Mine.) Bearcat (talk) 17:42, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Still Mine, indeed a BIO1E as nom notes but there is enough coverage of him to support a redirect to the thing he is known for. Everymorning talk 19:46, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 02:50, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 02:50, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Not notable. Redirection is pointless since the man's name was Craig Morrison and not Craig Morrison farmer - nobody will be searching for this. Consider a hatnote on Craig Morrison. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:41, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep.

Craig Morrison needs a disambiguation due to Craig_Morrison. The notability comes not only from the film but from the international press coverage on the events regarding him and his wife. Maybe create one article for the two of them or the events around them and the Royal District Planning Commission and theire 'Schildaesk' (english 'like Wise Men of Gotham' behaviour. The real people and events behind the film are IMHO notable by themselves. Unfortunately http://frsc.ca/minutes-3/ has no minutes from 2007 to 2012 online where this would be documented in detail. WolfgangFahl (talk) 19:52, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A person does not qualify for a Wikipedia article just because they got media coverage for a single event — kindly read the WP:BIO1E policy that I linked to above. To qualify for a standalone Wikipedia article, a person has to have sustained notability beyond one single burst of news coverage for one single event. Bearcat (talk) 22:39, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Still Mine. In the event the article is kept it should be renamed to Craig Morrison (farmer). The disambiguation can still be done with the link going to Still Mine.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:22, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Still Mine]. I searched, but he does not appear to have become a notable figure independent of the movie.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:13, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Swarm ^{we ♥ our hive} 05:43, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Rankings and achievements of Taylor Swift (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

This is simply listcruft. A bunch of these rankings (such as Askmen and 4Music) aren't particularly notable, and much of what is actually notable (such as Billboard and Forbes) can be covered within Swift's main article and/or her song articles (sales records, music video details, etc.). Snuggums (talk / edits) 12:43, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. The nomination effectively argues against deletion by by suggesting some of this content can be covered in other articles. If there's worthwhile sourced content here (which, among the less good stuff, there is) then it should at least be merged to other articles, which isn't going to happen if this is deleted. --Michig (talk) 12:47, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Some of it already is covered in other articles, so this doesn't necessarily argue against deletion. Besides, users can always move content to other articles before deletion. Snuggums (talk / edits) 12:53, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • If you think there's *anything* that could usefully be merged to another article you should withdraw the nomination and start a discussion on the article's talk page. --Michig (talk) 15:59, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • First of all, another user has already voted "delete", so too late to withdraw anyway. Secondly, pretty much all of the noteworthy content is already contained in other articles. Third, even if this was to be merged, I can't think of a good target for that. Snuggums (talk / edits) 16:09, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        • AskMen & 4Music aren't "particularly" notable? Then explain to us why it has its own Wikipedia article and why does Billboard make article about them? Mat 1997 (talk) 10:06, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
          • The reason those specific rankings aren't very notable (if at all) is because of questionable-at-best reliability. There is consensus that listings from unreliable sources are not notable and therefore should not be included in articles per WP:INDISCRIMINATE. Snuggums (talk / edits) 13:47, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
            • Snuggums, what sources are you referring to? most of the sources I see are from Billboard which is highly reliable. Yes, there was one source from Celebuzz (which I replaced), but that doesn't make the entire article unreliable. דיידרים (talk) 14:26, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
              • In terms of citations, things like Daily Mail, 4Music, and Huffington Post. Not sure what to say about Nova FM, Cutting the chai, "torontopics" or Frontier Touring. As for organizations themselves that listings are from, that would be Askmen (likely user-generated), 4Music, maybe Singapore FHM. Other listings are for trivial details like "Best Dressed" or "Celebs Gone Good". Snuggums (talk / edits) 14:48, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
                • Snuggums, it took some time, but I replaced all the problematic sources. Is it Okay now? thank you very much, דיידרים (talk) 19:33, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
                  • Commendable, but the bigger issues are A) the organizations themselves are dubious/questionable and therefore their listings shouldn't be included in the first place (i.e. Askmen and 4Music listings shouldn't be mentioned at all), B) All the noteworthy pieces are already included in other articles, making this page an unnecessary WP:CFORK to begin with. Snuggums (talk / edits) 20:47, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Any article about a person is mainly about that person's achievements. Borock (talk) 14:44, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

but if the article about the person gets too big we tend to split of content like this to a separate article. --Michig (talk) 15:59, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - there is already a List of awards and nominations received by Taylor Swift. If something is not notable enough to be on that list, it does not belong in an article on its own. —Мандичка^YO 😜 18:17, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete per Wikimandia. Awards and the like go on the award page. Calidum T|C 05:19, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Striking my vote. I'm no longer sure this should be deleted, per Liz's comment below. Calidum T|C 22:57, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. First of all, these were previously seen in the List of awards and nominations received by Taylor Swift page. But, FrB.TG believes that these entries should be in the parent article. However, the latter cannot accept the revision since it was too big. The former cannot have it back too since it is currently a featured list candidate and cannot go through inconsistencies. These are worthy achievements of Taylor Swift and "MOST" of these cannot be seen in the other articles. This page shall go under revision and not deletion. Just give the article a chance. Mat 1997 (talk) 12:03, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Obviously an exhaustive list would be overkill for either page. However, as I previously stated, just about all the notable stuff is already covered in other articles. Since Wikipedia is not an WP:INDISCRIMINATE collection of information, the non-notable listings have no benefit. Keep in mind that her some of this is already in her song articles. All in all, nothing beneficial about this list since it's a bloated WP:CFORK. Snuggums (talk / edits) 14:03, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• There was a prior discussion regarding the listing of her achievements in her awards page here. I suggested that these achievements should be in her parent article but it would be too big, and would not add value. Since this is records on charts and some other achievements of her work, I thought their respective articles would be the best place to add e.g. if "Bad Blood" has set a record, it should be in the "Bad Blood" article, not in her awards page or her parent article. That said, I would like to stay neutral at this point and see what others think about it. -- Frankie _talk 15:43, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Frankie, now that List of awards and nominations received by Taylor Swift is a FL, can it accept these entries? דיידרים (talk) 10:39, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:51, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:51, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:51, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:51, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep There are plenty of similarly designed articles in Category:Lists of awards by musician (browse through that category) and Swift has achieved enough to merit her own article. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:32, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a good argument for AFD's because one cannot determine the notability (or lack thereof) for an article solely based on whether or not other articles are notable. Snuggums (talk / edits) 01:57, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks Liz! My thoughts exactly. Actually, there are a lot of other achievements by Taylor that aren't mentioned here. I really suggest this should go editing or broadening rather than deleting it. This page is similar to Records and achievements of Michael Jackson, Records and achievements of Madonna, and Whitney Houston chart records and achievements but just a little different. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mat 1997 (talk • contribs) 04:12, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• The articles in that category are titled "Lists of awards and nominations...", not "rankings and achievements of..." — and List of awards and nominations received by Taylor Swift already exists anyway, which means that Taylor Swift already has the article that would fit into that tree, and doesn't need this to coexist with it. Bearcat (talk) 17:48, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You are correct, Bearcat, and I have struck my original comment. Thanks for pointing out what I overlooked. I now agree with those arguing that any content that is appropriate should Merge with List of awards and nominations received by Taylor Swift. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 10:23, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep or merge into List of awards and nominations received by Taylor Swift. Most of the "Rankings" entries are unique to this article, well-sourced and notable (given by notable enough to have Wikipedia article, but also read this RfC), so it isn't WP:CFORK. As for the achievements, I support moving those that are about her songs and albums to their articles, leaving only those regarding Swift herself and those who can't won't fit in the other articles (i.e. "most-awarded person in Teen Choice history"). The data in this article was was removed from the "List of awards" and was suggested to be moved into Taylor Swift, who could not accept it because WP:TOOBIG. Then it was suggested to be moved back to the list who could not accept it because it was a featured list candidate and could not accept new entries which will make it inconsistent. It simply fell between the cracks. דיידרים (talk) 03:11, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. List-cruft. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 05:57, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• "Rankings and achievements" articles are not a thing we do on Wikipedia — "list of nominations and awards" is, but that article already exists and we definitely don't need both. Redirect to List of awards and nominations received by Taylor Swift — anything appropriate for inclusion in that article which isn't already there should be added to it, but a lot of this is just listcruft that isn't encyclopedic anywhere. Bearcat (talk) 17:46, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Not a thing we do? Not all artists need this specific page. Plus, List of awards and nominations received by Taylor Swift can't have too much entries since it is already a featured list. Yes, some here already exists in other articles but most of it cannot be seen out there. Take a look at the article entries first. Mat 1997 (talk) 10:09, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete the question is, do All awards and achievements by Taylor Swift have notability independent from Taylor Swift herself? Has her number of awards broken records? Has her achievement outclassed others who have also achieved a lot in the entertainment industry? If the answer to those questions are no, then the awards and nominations can't have a standalone article. "The number of awards are too great for the article" argument doesn't save this article from the requirements of the WP:GNG. References list her awards and rankings but I don't see references where the sum of her awards and the quality of her awards are being discussed as the main topic of section/article. So, as the references to the article stands, there is no independent notability. For a wikipedia article to grab every award she's ever had and then saying 'this is notable' amounts to WP:OR original research. A WP:RS must discuss her sum or list of awards to verify notability of this sub-topic for it to remain a standalone article. AadaamS (talk) 18:49, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think you misunderstand the notability criteria. It is common when articles get too large for parts to be split off into separate articles. In these cases there is no requirement for the split-off content to itself satisfy a notability guideline. The question is really whether or not there is any encyclopedic content here that doesn't already exist in other articles related to Swift, and if there is, how that should best be organized. --Michig (talk) 10:17, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Hi Michig, I disagree with your interpretation of the GNG, article content only has to be verifiable, not notable. Once a lump of an article content is to be split out into a standalone article, suddenly its inclusion criteria have become stricter. There is nothing in the GNG which says it doesn't apply to each and every standalone article. In fact it mandates that if an article needs to be split, each piece split out needs to itself be GNG notable as well. This will prevent editors from creating articles like List of shampoos used by Taylor Swift simply because such information could be verified. So the GNG should be consulted when organising material about TS and splitting articles imho. AadaamS (talk) 17:32, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'm not sure that WP:GNG actually says anything specifically about content split out from parent articles, but common sense should suggest that if the content would be appropriate in the parent article then it is still appropriate if split out to a separate article for reasons of size. --Michig (talk) 18:21, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        • We're not after common sense, we're after encyclopedic sense and that's what the GNG is about. Lists of awards and achievements by an entertainer also isn't included as a suitable topic for a list according to WP:SALAT. My argument of course becomes moot if RS sources verify that her list of rankings and achievements reach GNG notability. AadaamS (talk) 18:35, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
          • Per What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, we shouldn't have excessive listings within articles Snuggums (talk / edits) 18:39, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
            • Hi @Michig:, in fact the GNG does say that the list subject must be notable as a group, see section WP:LISTN of the WP:GNG. AadaamS (talk) 10:42, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
              • As I previously stated, it says nothing about content split off from a parent article due to size considerations, and as I also previously stated I don't think there's much argument in favour of keeping this article as it is anyway - the question is really whether there is anything here that should be retained and where we should put it - keeping the whole thing and deleting the whole thing are not the only options here. I find that when 'Wikipedia sense' diverges from real world sense is when we have start to have real problems in this project. --Michig (talk) 13:24, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
                • Quite right it doesn't list any exceptions due to size and so far I can't see that it lists any exceptions at all. Of course content from this article might be merged elsewhere. This article could also be userfied as an interim solution. AadaamS (talk) 14:00, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Its a content fork and frankly borderline fancruft. —Indian:BIO ^{[ ChitChat ]} 06:28, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong delete awfully painful fancruft. Half the listings hold no notability whatsoever, do pieces of information such as the fact that Taylor Swift was ranked #1 on the "4Music Pop Powerlist 2015" (I don't even understand what they're ranking) really need an independent article? Or that some old lady clinging onto a career in journalism labeled her the third most interesting person of the year? (Barbara Walters's 10 Most Fascinating People of 2014) Grossly trivial list. Azealia911 _talk 00:57, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Davewild (talk) 20:38, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Non-notable voice actor whose most prominent role was Ako in Negima which was not one of the major characters in the series. She plays Louise's sister Cattleya in The Familiar of Zero who is a peripheral supporting role. She plays Mai in Izumo: Takeki Tsurugi no Senki but that isn't a notable series. Has not appeared in any overseas conventions or headlined news articles in ANN. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 16:57, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. --AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 17:00, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. --AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 17:00, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. --AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 17:02, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Maybe redirect to Shirobako as it seems that her longest role or simply delete if preferred, my searches found nothing particularly good and her IMDb shows basically the same. SwisterTwister talk 04:07, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete no coverage in independent sources, web searches turn up film directories and cast lists, no reviews, fails ((WP:GNG]] and any other guideline Kraxler (talk) 19:41, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Kraxler (talk) 19:46, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Victorien Angban (footballer, born 1996) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Footballer not notable per WP:NFOOTBALL as not played in any WP:FPL and does not pass WP:GNG Qed237 (talk) 16:34, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Qed237 (talk) 16:36, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete - Fails WP: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) 16:52, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - changed to keep, now meets WP:NFOOTY. Fenix down (talk) 07:51, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. GiantSnowman 18:47, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - although he could warrant a future article if he returns to Chelsea F.C.. I'm just going to stay out of football AfDs. And there are a ton of articles I'd like to send to AfD. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 12:55, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - per nom. 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) 15:05, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:34, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Belgium-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:34, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:34, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:34, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:34, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per nomination. Changed my vote. Ashbeckjonathan (talk) 02:05, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Passes WP:FOOTY now made his debut for Sint-Truiden in the Belgian Pro League a fully professional League in a game against Club Brugge as per this .Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 03:25, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Passes WP:NFOOTBALL as he recently made his debut in the fully professional League. NextGenSam619^t@lk 09:20, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Davewild (talk) 20:41, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Contested PROD. Concern was Article about a footballer who fails WP:GNG and who has not played in a fully pro league. PROD was contested by the article's creator without providing a reason. Sir Sputnik (talk) 16:02, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 16:03, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Fails WP: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) 16:52, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. GiantSnowman 18:47, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 02:46, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Fails WP:NFOOTBALL as FK Atlantas is in the A Lyga league which is a top level league but not fully professional. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 12:07, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lithuania-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:31, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:31, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Even tough FK Atlantas does not count as a club in a fully professional league they have played UEFA Europa League Football which is a top level professional competition. User:Vanmodhe Note: User Vanmodhe is the creator of this article. Disclosure added per WP:AFDFORMAT.

Appearances in UEFA Club competitions only confer notability if both clubs involved play league football in a fully pro league. As already stated, Atlantas do not. Sir Sputnik (talk) 17:39, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Not notable. Ashbeckjonathan (talk) 01:18, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Davewild (talk) 17:26, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Non-notable organization lacking non-trivial support. One reference does not mention the organization and the other is the organization's website. reddogsix (talk) 15:46, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:53, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:53, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:53, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:53, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• delete fails WP:ORG. Lacking in depth coverage, only has existed for a year so unless it's done something remarkable unlikely to have significant coverage. LibStar (talk) 16:08, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete promo advert, trying to raise funds?, no coverage in independent sources, the refs in article are 3 trivial mentions and the subject's own website, fails WP:CORPDEPTH Kraxler (talk) 20:05, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 05:48, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

There's no indication this fictional planet, setting for two SF novels, has received any significant notice. Other than the first two sentences, all of the content is in-universe. Clarityfiend (talk) 02:22, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:37, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:37, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:37, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:37, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete- we already have articles on the two books this planet is in, and the article is pretty much nothing but in-universe plot summary. Reyk _YO! 07:07, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete The planet itself isn't notable, owing to the lack of discussion in third-party sources. Maybe there could be a general article on the series with some of this info, but not this amount of unsourced content which is purely regurgitation of the books' contents (WP:NOTPLOT). Colapeninsula (talk) 11:20, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete There is sufficient coverage of this fictional world in The Shrouded Planet and The Dawning Light articles. Not a fictional element that is notable outside of these two novels. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 11:59, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 05:52, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Department of Urban and Regional Planning (JU) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Does not meet WP:Notability guideline Ibrahim Husain Meraj (talk) 05:07, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Single department at a university. Not independently notable. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:36, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 12:36, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 12:36, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• redirect to Jahangirnagar University (WP:CHEAP) or delete if its apt to cause confusion. --Animalparty! 05:08, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Since no articles link to it except the university article and nobody is going to enter "Department of Urban and Regional Planning (JU)" as a search term I don't think there's any value in redirection. -- Necrothesp (talk) 08:28, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete University departments are rarely notable. Another possibility is to Redirect to Jahangirnagar University as Animalparty! proposes but I think that deletion is more appropriate. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 11:53, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Davewild (talk) 20:42, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Australian bush flower essences (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Googling fails to turn up any references WP:RS which WP:V verifies the WP:GNG notability level of this subject. Therefore it is not a suitable subject for a standalone article. AadaamS (talk) 06:29, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:43, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organisms-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:43, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Non notable. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:14, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Kraxler (talk) 17:15, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Pfeifer Zeliska .600 Nitro Express revolver (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Googling Books, News and Newspapers turn up no references that verify WP:V the WP:GNG notability for this revolver. It is therefore a possibility this subject is not suitable for a standalone article. AadaamS (talk) 07:11, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, the prose is horrid but this is notable with regard to its size and power. There are sources out there, but it is not a commonly seen firearm.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 18:01, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: Although the revolver isn't being adopted or produced in large quantities, its extreme size makes it notable. The manufacturer's site (http://www.zeliska.ch/zeliska-458-win-mag/) appears to have a mentioned in the Guinness Book of World Records and what appears to be a scan of a magazine article. Faceless Enemy (talk) 03:14, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hi, a world record would indeed have made it notable. I can read german so the note beside it says that the world record was rejected on the grounds that Guinness don't award records for "crimes & wars", a statement that seems misapplied by Guinness because it's clearly a firearm unsuitable for either crime or war. According to this link http://www.toptenz.net/top-10-huge-personal-firearms.php (under 10) it was formerly made in the US, perhaps it's easier to find references for it under its previous incarnations? AadaamS (talk) 07:28, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Austria-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:39, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Firearms-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:39, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Davewild (talk) 20:44, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

A label whose fanfare is limited to articles from its own website, it seems. Guy (Help!) 08:55, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:46, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:46, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:46, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as it's recently founded (2011) and limited to Miami and there's not even anything to suggest good local notability with the best my searches were some News. SwisterTwister talk 18:01, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Davewild (talk) 20:45, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

borderline WP:CORPDEPTH (SPA/COI advert) Widefox; talk 10:01, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:48, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:48, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Unfortunately delete as my searches found to suggest good improvement after the time it's existed, here, here, here and here. SwisterTwister talk 17:57, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I consider it acceptable practice to lean towards delete for any company of less than 100 employees, unless there is some specific claim to notability. These borderline cases tend to result in relying on lower quality sources. Especially when the article is overtly promotional, filled with broken link citations, and obviously written by a COI. Our response to borderline spam shouldn't be to salvage the piece and spend hours on pages that so few readers have an interest in. CorporateM (Talk) 07:03, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Darrel Treece-Birch. (non-admin closure) Kraxler (talk) 17:26, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Fails WP:BAND Sulfurboy (talk) 22:05, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. lavender|^{(formerly HMSSolent)}|lambast 01:34, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. lavender|^{(formerly HMSSolent)}|lambast 01:34, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Unfortunately my searches found nothing, aside from these links, to suggest solid independent notability. SwisterTwister talk 05:13, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've already added references to the article and the band's second album, please let me know what else is needed to be done so as to update it accordingly. -- comment made by Michael13111983

• Redirect to Darrel Treece-Birch. I'm not sure what future the article on the musician has but while that article exists a redirect is appropriate. --Michig (talk) 07:35, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Davewild (talk) 20:50, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Carbia's page was deleted 10 years ago and is now back. If you have access to the original, it's well worth a read. Similar to the first time, there is out of control boasting: "The Queen of Horror", one of the "25 Most Beautiful Women Behind The Camera", "number one horror film ghostwriter in Hollywood", etc. There are not, however, any verifiable claims of notability. I think this is the first time I've seen an astrological reading used as a reference. Richfife (talk) 03:05, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:13, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:13, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:13, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Haha, this is an interesting one and especially with the same nominator. Unfortunately, whether intended or not (although I have to compliment the neatness and sources at least), this article reads a little more like a personal page and, while my searches found results here, here, here and here, there's nothing to suggest marginal notability or let alone improve the article's current state. @Richfife: Was this a page you recently revisited at random or was it on your watchlist? SwisterTwister talk 04:50, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure. It's certainly not something I search for all that much. Just had a Jungian urge. She wasn't on my watchlist. - Richfife (talk) 05:45, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I just received a private email from her publicity agency. I did not read it (except for the first few lines) and directed them to put any comments directly here. - Richfife (talk) 20:12, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Most of this article sounds identical to her About page (http://zoharfilms.com/about-author-mylo-carbia/) and most of the references, announcing the release of her book, sound identical and like press releases with the same identifiers ("number one horror film ghostwriter in Hollywood", "The Queen of Horror", etc.). As for the "25 Most Beautiful Women Behind The Camera", that is simply a list put together by an IMDb user, like other user-generated lists. Most telling though is that her IMDB profile (http://www.imdb.com/name/nm2229172/) which doesn't have any credits for her before 2015 and even the 2015 film is post-production and not released. Other films have been merely announced which doesn't mean that they will ever see the light of day. I would think that a screenwriter who had a three picture deal in 2003 would have at least one verified film credit to her name. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:05, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Davewild (talk) 20:51, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Contested PROD. Fails WP:GNG. Primarily blogs and forge sites. Walter Görlitz (talk) 02:53, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:11, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:11, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Software article of unclear notability, lacking independent RS references. Q&A sites used as refs are user-editable and not significant independent coverage. A search turned up no significant WP:RS coverage. Article was created by an SPA as possibly promotional. Dialectric (talk) 08:13, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - No evidence of independent notability. PianoDan (talk) 20:30, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Davewild (talk) 20:51, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

fails WP:ORG could not find any significant coverage for this tiny craft centre LibStar (talk) 02:04, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:31, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:31, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:31, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Museums and libraries-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:31, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I found information about Melaka online but the only information I could find on the Malacca Craft Centre was a promotional site for the area (http://amazingmelaka.com/) and a Foursquare check-in. Fails WP:ORGSIG. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:50, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Davewild (talk) 20:53, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Subject of the article is an associate professor (not yet a professor) and acting provost (not yet a provost). He fails WP:ACADEMIC. He fails criterion 1 as his research has not made significant impact in his scholarly discipline, broadly construed, as demonstrated by independent reliable sources. He would have manage to pass criterion 5, had it been he's a full Professor. His appointment as provost (without been a professor) is an indication that a Provost is not a "Distinguished Professor" appointment, therefore fails criterion 5, perhaps the seat is reserved for a professor who will be appointed soon and probably that is why the subject of the article is acting (no reason to be hasty to have a stand-alone article). Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 00:44, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Fails wp:academic. Oji has the educational experience but sadly that does note equate notability. –323MU (talk) 21:51, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. lavender|^{(formerly HMSSolent)}|lambast 01:51, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. lavender|^{(formerly HMSSolent)}|lambast 01:52, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:26, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Unfortunately the bar that WP:PROF sets is pretty high for academics and he doesn't meet it. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:43, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

 Note to closing admin --- the page creator Gabnite (talk · contribs) has been indef blocked. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Gabnite. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 09:16, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. kelapstick^(bainuu) 15:44, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Last AfD three years ago ended in no consensus. Appears to fail all aspects of WP:NBOOKS. Author is non notable and does not have an article on Wikipedia. I can find reviews from a few minor online reviewers, but no major reviews. Book was not a significant seller. Article tagged for notability since 2009. Safiel (talk) 15:36, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete The only coverage I can find in reliable sources is a throwaway putdown in AV Club[6]. Not notable, even by the standards of science fiction which gets less mainstream coverage than many genres. Colapeninsula (talk) 13:30, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:56, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:56, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:56, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: I found some sources, but they're not the strongest. I think that the author would pass notability guidelines so I'll start on an article for him. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:12, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• I think I found just enough to where the author could scrape by notability guidelines, but there's not an awful lot. It looks like this author put out two books and then effectively disappeared from the scene in 2009. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:27, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Safiel, Colapeninsula, what do you think about the author's page? I'm kind of a little undecided on him - there's enough to where I could probably justify a mainspace article for him, but at the same time this isn't all that heavy and that's pretty much the extent of his coverage. If this is all that he's ever going to get (ie, if he never releases anything again and never gets covered further) then this really isn't an exceedingly strong article. I could maybe flesh it out with a little synopsis of his work, but that's about it. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 07:30, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• @Tokyogirl79: Comment Given that WP:NAUTHOR reads:

• Authors, editors, journalists, filmmakers, photographers, artists, architects, and other creative professionals:

1. The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors.
2. The person is known for originating a significant new concept, theory or technique.
3. The person has created, or played a major role in co-creating, a significant or well-known work, or collective body of work. In addition, such work must have been the subject of an independent book or feature-length film, or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews.
4. The person's work (or works) either (a) has become a significant monument, (b) has been a substantial part of a significant exhibition, (c) has won significant critical attention, or (d) is represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums.

Clearly this author fails all aspects of WP:NAUTHOR so I would recommend against a move to article space. Safiel (talk) 16:20, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Well... the thing about authors is that they can pass notability guidelines if they're received reviews on their work in reliable sources - which he has (five of them). Reviews can count towards author notability depending on where they're posted. What I'm basically concerned with is that although he's received coverage in RS to where he could probably squeak by notability guidelines there really isn't a whole lot out there as a whole. I do for the most part agree that this probably shouldn't be moved to the mainspace but I do want to be on record as saying that reviews would count towards author notability. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 03:15, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I added a Background section based on a newspaper article. The Library Journal and Steampunk Magazine articles seem non-trivial, too. So I lean towards keep, but I can see how it is a borderline case. maclean (talk) 19:51, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. meets WP:NBOOK with the 3 reviews in the article ie. "1.The book has been the subject of two or more non-trivial published works appearing in sources that are independent of the book itself." I have also found this which may contribute to its notability [7] - Determining the Roots of Steampunk: A Comparison of Contemporary Works with Nineteenth and Early Twentieth Century Forerunners of Speculative fiction by Matthew Delman appearing in Presentations of the 2010 Upstate Steampunk Extravaganza and Meetup pages 83 to 110, which is unfortunately incomplete (damn you google books!:)) but in his conclusion states "The high-level mechanical and steam-powered technology the likes of which Verne and Wells composed in their seminal novels make an appearance throughout the entirety of Steampunk literature. The steam-powered Boiler Men of Whitechapel Gods, ... all of these fictional innovations exist because of the technology of the Nineteenth Century," Coolabahapple (talk) 16:10, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I changed my vote with the new sources. It's very marginal, but just scrapes notability. Steampunk Magazine is an actual print publication. Plus a couple of other reviews (RT is also a reliable source), local press, and other throwaway references. Wouldn't be averse to turning it into an article on the author but I don't think it's necessary. Colapeninsula (talk) 15:57, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep due to satisfying WP:NBOOK as the book has been the subject of two or more non-trivial published works (reviews) independent of the book itself. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 13:12, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. As this is a copy of anther article with some slight modifications. The user who created it has been blocked for a long-term pattern of ignoring our basic content policies. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:46, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Summer 2015 Invasion of Syria (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Article contains almost exclusively rumors and assumptions about a non-event, while the title suggets an actual invasion has happened. Most of the sources are dodgy weblogs rather than reliable sources. bender235 (talk) 15:41, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Classic WP:CRYSTALBALL, weak sources, non-event.. — Preceding unsigned comment added by G8j!qKb (talk • contribs)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Syria-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 02:43, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 02:44, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Middle East-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 02:45, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 15:46, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:56, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: After all, the shooting has already started. The Financial Times and most Middle Eastern national newspapers aren't something to be sniffed at. If you want to make improvements or move it to a better title, please go ahead. The thing is, is that this thing is actually happening, and deleting an article only to have to bring it back a couple of days later is a total waste of time and bandwidth.Ericl (talk) 17:11, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge with Turkey–ISIL conflict - The infobox has been copied from this article anyway, with most of the information there as well. Nub Cake (talk) 18:12, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• addendum: You will note that almost ALL the so-called "rumors and assumptions" have been confirmed by the Turkish government in the last day or so. Press conferences do not disseminate rumors. The invasion has to some extent already started and needs an article of it's own. As I said before, it would be a total waste of time and bandwidth take it down and then put it back up in less than a dayEricl (talk) 11:53, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Ericl: why not keep as a WP:DRAFT?

Because the event has already started. The Turkish military response, which includes bombing Kurdish targets in Iraq, is ongoing. that it might need to be moved to a better title, (Allied invasion of Syria: 2015 or something) or edited to within an inch of it's life, (which it does, so be my guest) is besides the point. This isn't about some airy-fairy paranoid peverication, it's about stuff like Timeline of the Syrian Civil War (January–July 2014), which was totally forgotten about because the war, like that in Iraq has been going on for a while and people get bored. Think about World War II, everybody knew D-Day was going to happen, however where and when was a top secret. Same here. Only this time there were leaks beforehand. The leaks and reaction to same were worth an article. However, now it's turning into a battle campaign which was long expected. World-Changing events need articlesEricl (talk) 12:20, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This page is simply a more brief copy of the page Turkey–ISIL conflict. The infobox has been copied from there, and the name of this article is misleading. The invasion has not started. The events at the moment have occurred mostly on the Syrian-Turkish border and the fighter jets who have bombed ISIL positions have done so without invading Syrian airspace. Plus, this is not an invasion of Syria targeting the Syrian government. It is a conflict between Turkey and ISIL. Nub Cake (talk) 14:06, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

An invasion of a country has nothing to do with which group's being targeted. Free France took part in D-Day. The Turkish air force has indeed violated Syrian airspace, and according to the good people at the Syrian Human rights observatory, may have bombed a Nusra Front base.Ericl (talk) 14:21, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This doesn't change the fact that it is exactly a copy of the other article. In that case, my opinion is Delete. The invasion consists of Turkish F-16s bombing ISIL headquarters and gathering points from Turkish airspace. Nub Cake (talk) 16:40, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Swarm ^{we ♥ our hive} 05:44, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The film was announced, but never entered production. Koala15 (talk) 23:18, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Koala15 (talk) 04:38, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Koala15 (talk) 04:38, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete or redirect to Baltsasar Kormakur as this especially found no results past last May and this other search found nothing else so this may have been canceled or put aside without announcement. With basically nothing even at IMDb, this article looks better and that's simply from the pre-production announcements. SwisterTwister talk 04:42, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete for now per guidelines for future films which states that films that have not begun principal photography should not have their own articles. Also Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. No prejudice against the article being recreated once principal photography has begun. ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 20:52, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. There is clear consensus that the current content, under the current title, does not belong in the encyclopedia, so this all starts with a delete consensus.

After that, the multi-way merge suggestion of North of Eden has substantial support. I'm not going to go so far as to state that there's consensus to do that, but there's also certainly nothing here which prevents somebody from going ahead and doing it on their own as part of the normal editorial process. -- RoySmith (talk) 22:09, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

A sketchy, largely unsourced list of alleged movements and proposed states without any article content at all (compare Secession in the United States or Secession in India). Many of the political parties seem to be marginal and little-known. Delete per WP:RS, possibly WP:OR and WP:N. HPfan4 (talk) 11:48, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:35, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:35, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:35, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]