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. I recommend that alternatives to deletion such as merging (or, if not, renaming to a Not Painfully Capitalized Title) are explored further before renominating.  Sandstein  11:23, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

List of Potentially Habitable Exoplanets Kepler Candidates[edit]

List of Potentially Habitable Exoplanets Kepler Candidates (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

List inclusion criteria fails standards of Wikipedia. List of Kepler exoplanet candidates is fine. Speculating on habitability is pure original research. jps (talk) 23:40, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 23:58, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE Please see the related deletion discussions on WP:CRUFT related to ESI: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of potentially habitable exoplanets and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of potentially habitable moons. jps (talk) 23:12, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment (I will vote after I have a chance to look into this further) With all due respect, while there is -to my knowledge- very little data on which scientists and other reliable sources could base a serious estimation of the habitability of various exoplanets, that is not to say that there is no data (size, composition and surface temperature can be determined to my knowledge, and it is possible that more could be determined of which I am unaware), nor is it to say that speculation by scientists is non-existent or non-notable. Still, the list title suggest a lot more rigor than is possible (again, to my knowledge). I'm probably going to vote to delete, but I want to look a bit more into it first. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 13:25, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You're absolutely right that there is some data which may speak to habitability, but it seems irresponsible to focus on a measure that is ill-defined and not quantifiable. The question is whether a list like this is the best way to present the information instead of in a location such as List of exoplanets. To quote an exoplanet astronomer with whom I was discussing this list, "So a list of planets in the habitable zone that are likely to be rocky, with comments that these are the most probable candidates to be Earth-like --> fine. A quantitative ranking of those worlds with comments that the ones at the top could host complex life --> many bulls have defecated better science." jps (talk) 16:12, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

...it seems irresponsible to focus on a measure that is ill-defined and not quantifiable.

I would say "ill defined and only very loosely quantifiable" because there are some numbers that can be used, but in essence, I agree. And having done a bit of digging since my first comment, I'm inclined now to go ahead and vote that we Delete this article. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 18:14, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:39, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of potentially habitable exoplanets or Delete both articles. Davidbuddy9 Talk  02:18, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Data is from [1] which is not WP:OR!!!! Davidbuddy9 Talk  02:54, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Davidbuddy9 is blocked for confirmed multi-voting with sock account QuentinQuade. I suggest all votes by this user be discounted as bad faith abuse. Alsee (talk) 09:57, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• • It is self-published. Not a reliable source. jps (talk) 05:40, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I just looked at that source... How is it self-published? Because the site is owned by the UPR? MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 05:08, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It is the personal webpage of Abel Méndez. It's similar to any other personal webpage hosted at a university. It's because there is no editorial control of the website (no curation except for that done by Méndez). The site is fine to illustrate Méndez opinions on habitability/his ESI ideas, but it is not vetted data any more than any other webpage that is not subject to curation or review. jps (talk) 14:09, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No, it's not. It's a subdomain of the UPR; a funded department of the university, which Mendez is in charge of. I've never heard of a university giving a subdomain name to a single professor (no matter how well-known or respected) for personal use. Even if they did, I can't imagine they wouldn't shut it down the moment they found out it was presented as anything but a personal home page. In addition, there's no disclaimer of any sort I've been able to find, meaning that the university tacitly endorses everything on the page. I'm sorry, I was voting with you based on prior knowledge and some info I gleaned from the article itself, but the sources provided here are actually changing my mind. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 17:28, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What are you talking about? Subdomains are given out all the time at universities, and not just to professors. I own one myself that I control completely. jps (talk) 17:53, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've never heard of such a thing, and it strikes me as a source of potential liability. Could you find some examples? I'm honestly curious. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 18:03, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

At least in France is almost standard practice to let permanent staff have a subpage. It is often just a list of publications and a CV, and university policy may restrict the content. But for instance this research lab lets their staff redirect internal URLs to personal pages (example: http://www-ext.impmc.upmc.fr/~caste/ ). Tigraan (talk) 12:05, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If you send me an e-mail I can send you one in private. jps (talk) 18:12, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There's an email link on my talk page. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 18:33, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

E-mail sent. jps (talk) 18:45, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Sourced. Not WP:OR in the slightest. This is a companion article to List of potentially habitable exoplanets which is extremely well-sourced and surprisingly also nominated for deletion. James J. Lambden (talk) 03:24, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• • The article doesn't even follow the proper WP:MOSTITLE. How can you say the "topic is notable" when it doesn't exist outside of Wikipedia? jps (talk) 00:15, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong keep: ESI is not WP:OR, see here. If you have a WP:COI issue, which seems to be the case, please bring it up with the specific editor instead of trying to condemn an entire page.   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  18:03, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No COI issue. The first citation is WP:SELFPUB. The second one is in a more obscure journal and only qualifies as a primary source there are no secondary sources connecting to it. jps (talk) 00:14, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Tom.Reding: I wouldn't see a WP:COI with another editor as most of these pages opened for AfD have been created by me, but it appears to be some grudge against the use ESI particularly citing PHL/HEC. Davidbuddy9 Talk  03:15, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"Grudge" is the wrong word. "Concern over proliferation" might be better. Especially considering the debunking that has been done of the index by professional astrophysicists. Wikipedia should not be relying uncritically on a single self-published website to establish a list. jps (talk) 14:11, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Peer-reviewed, mainstream-journal usage of ESI now referenced at Earth Similarity Index.   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  16:02, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

True. However, what is not referenced is a connection between the ESI and the potential habitability of exoplanet Kepler candidates. In fact, the paper actually comes to the opposite conclusion (that the ESI does not do a good job identifying habitable candidates). jps (talk) 16:21, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The basis for this AfD is that the pages in question use a metric which is WP:OR, which has been proven false.

Regarding potential habitability, this is how science is done—a hypothesis is proposed, predictions made, and results tested. The astronomical community believes some form of an ESI is needed and producible. The form it should take is a work-in-progress and in a state of flux on a scientific timescale, much like many nascent science articles on WP. The next step is to amend the hypothesis or produce and test an entirely new one, which should all be reflected in a good encyclopedia article. At that time it may then be appropriate to make large-scale changes to these pages. Until that time, the reader is best served with the most current information and a description of its validity, not by removing/censoring it.   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  17:33, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"The astronomical community believes some form of an ESI is needed and producible" --> No, this is incorrect. The astronomical community has basically ignored this idea. 11 citation in 5 years is a miserable citation rate. ESI has notability because of popularization, not because of its use in science. Since the only proposed table uses a WP:SELFPUBlished website as its one and only source for the values, it is still very much WP:NOR. To argue otherwise is to run afoul of WP:V/WP:RS policies and guidelines. jps (talk) 17:45, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Planet-related deletion discussions. Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ (talk) 18:35, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Astronomy-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:49, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Remove table, put info into the voice of Prof. Mendez (as opposed to wikivoice) and merge into Planetary habitability After a brief discussion with JPS, I've decided to change my vote. The information in that first link (upon which the content seemingly hinges) provided seems worthy of inclusion, but not in wikivoice, which means not in its own article or list. It should, IMHO, have a mention in the article I linked, perhaps even its own paragraph, but it should be made clear that this ESI metric is the informed-but-essentially-arbitrary product of one expert, not the consensus of astronomers. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 20:00, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Where did this conversation happen if I may ask? Since you exchanged emails I'm concerned that there could be a possible COI? Davidbuddy9 Talk  02:39, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It started above, but the only part of it which happened off this page took place here. There was a single email which consisted of a link to a university subdomain which JPS claimed to have been the former controller of. I verified that it was once under the control of an individual with the same real name and background as JPS on my own, and then asked him a number of questions, which he answered quite clearly. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 12:43, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm actually quite confused on this quote: "Remove table, put info into the voice of Prof. Mendez (as opposed to wikivoice) and merge into Planetary habitability" but there is no real substance to this article removing the table. If we logically look at this we have a generic short paragraph that reminds the reader that this is a list of unconfirmed exoplanets and then there is the table. Removing the table and putting it in someone's voice makes me wonder what the article would be, even if it is merged to Planetary habitability it would be quite redundant. This is why this is a "List of" not a full-blown article about Potentially Habitable KOI's. Therefore, what would be put in Prof. Mendez's voice? A generic paragraph reminding the user about unconfirmed KOI's? Or we put the list in "the voice of Prof. Méndez"? Davidbuddy9 Talk  03:36, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, nominator has a weak understanding of GNG, and has history against subjects not supported by specific sources passing only his requirements. Source presented clearly show this is notable. Valoem ^{talk contrib} 04:51, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your vote is based on fallacious reasoning and fails to adhere to Wikipedia's standards of conduct. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 12:36, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I stated "Source presented clearly show this is notable". Is that not a reason? Valoem ^{talk contrib} 16:08, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The nom didn't request deletion on notability grounds. Even if he had, what you said was still a personal attack and a fallacy. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 17:17, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong, the nominator's bases for nomination is WP:OR, we disprove OR with reliable secondary sources, same as we do with notability issues. Notable speculation on potentially habitable planets is allowed and passes GNG established by Wikipedia. Valoem ^{talk contrib} 17:25, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The reliability of that source has been challenged. Also, you still haven't struck or even acknowledged your personal attack. I would advise you to do so. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 18:15, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I stand by my statements. I believe this editor has merit in discovering non-notable subjects, but should do so in a more neutral manner. This particular article is notable, but sometimes nominates article which are clearly notable. Valoem ^{talk contrib} 19:04, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I suppose you've thrown two arrows in JPS' quiver, the next time the two of you butt heads, but that is your choice. Let's hope for you sake the disagreement doesn't end up at AN/I. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 19:21, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I prefer neutral nominations which allow editors to judge the merits of the article and sources for themselves. I especially dislike removal of sources during AfDs, not that this has happened with this discussion. Valoem ^{talk contrib} 22:56, 5 April 2016 (UTC) (Presumably accidental five ~ signature fixed by Alsee (talk))[reply]

• Delete now. The arbitrary definition of "habitable" is a mess, and this list will be deleted no matter what. We may as well delete it now. This is a list of HYPOTHETICALUNCONFIRMED planets, leaving only two options here. Either they will soon either be confirmed not to exist at all (doh!), or they will be confirmed to exist and be moved off this list. Either way the list ends up empty and deleted. Alsee (talk) 22:27, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Alsee: Strongly disagree with the language used here, Unconfirmed ≠ Hypothetical. These listings were not invented by PHL/HEC at all! In fact if we used the NASA Exoplanet Archive we can clearly see where all of this information is coming from as well as highly documented pdfs (ex [2] [3]) produced by NASA from the Kepler data. To say that this information from Kepler is Hypothetical is simply misleading, and I would strongly advise you to change your language as this is not a list of Hypothetical exoplanets. Davidbuddy9 Talk  23:35, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A reasonable point.  Done Alsee (talk) 23:50, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- RoySmith (talk) 01:34, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

KOI-433.02 m[edit]

KOI-433.02 m (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)

Entirely speculative original research. jps (talk) 23:38, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Earth Similarity Index#Similarity of non-planets to Earth Redirecting would be more beneficial for the reader as that would be most likely what the reader is looking for. Davidbuddy9 Talk  02:37, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and Comment You removed the citations from PHL before requesting deletion (click here to see what I mean) and labled it as OR, which I find very sneeky imo, especially after PHL cites Borucki et al., 2011 for the planetary info. No OR is happening on Wikipedia itself and I think removing citations to help your AfD do better is very inappropriate. Davidbuddy9 Talk  02:45, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Citations or not, this isn't a predicted exomoon. The one actual citation that exists simply speculates that if such a moon existed, it might have certain properties. There is no evidence for it. WP:NOT and WP:SPECULATE for starters. Lithopsian (talk) 18:41, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:50, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Astronomy-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:50, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: the host planet itself appears to be an unconfirmed candidate. It seems premature to be generating this type of weakly substantiated content. It isn't going anywhere; once it's confirmed then an article can be created. Praemonitus (talk) 18:53, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment, [4] this is the only source I found Davidbuddy9 are you sure this isn't complete speculation? I found this source Gawker, but this is talking about the planet KOI-433.02 not "KOI-433.02 m", found these on google scholar, [5] and [6], but also talking about the planet. I can't find anything on the moon except this [7] which I've just confirmed is a reliable source managed by the University of Puerto Rico at Arecibo, however it appears this moon is listed under "Expected Potential Habitable Exomoons" expect potential I'm guessing means possibly possible. Valoem ^{talk contrib} 04:45, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Might be better to have an article about KOI-433.02 the planet. Valoem ^{talk contrib} 06:06, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

self-published webpages are in no way reliable sources for the existence of speculated moons. This planet may not even exist and there is precisely zero evidence for the moon. jps (talk) 11:25, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

jps I agree with you here. Even the source which "might be" reliable states this moon is only speculation and is not confirmed to exist. I am curious to see if Davidbuddy9 found better sources before I vote delete. I actually would have voted delete immediately had you not been accused of removing sources again. I don't think theses sources right now pass GNG in the least (including the one you removed which were readded). The most reliable source says the moon does not exist. Valoem ^{talk contrib} 16:10, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Valoem:If you looked at the citations you would have found this. Davidbuddy9 Talk  03:14, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I saw that, it say "Expected Potentially Habitable Exomoons". Valoem ^{talk contrib} 03:38, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per jps, this is purely speculative. If we base notability on numbers or basis on public interest ... this fails. If we based this on reliable sources this also fails. The source phl.upr.edu which may be reliable states this is speculative and not notable. I would prefer this source intact in the future so a neutral judgement can be made. Based on sources provided this is not notable. Valoem ^{talk contrib} 18:49, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Per nom and Lithopsian. This object is purely hypothetical at this time, and there's absolutely no observational evidence for it. Astro4686 (talk) 22:50, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. the same article in usperspace too.[8] QuackGuru (talk) 15:44, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Can't store something in the event this is discovered? Valoem ^{talk contrib} 16:19, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You could blank the page or someone might MFD your sandbox. QuackGuru (talk) 18:32, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as what concerns me is that nothing is confirmed yet, delete for now until better information is available. SwisterTwister talk 04:10, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete reference consist mostly of listings databases of preliminary/potential candidates. While the databases themselves are notable, the objects contained therein are not. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 14:29, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Uncontested. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:28, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Bangladesh Islami Chattra Sena Pomara Mahattarkil Branch[edit]

Bangladesh Islami Chattra Sena Pomara Mahattarkil Branch (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)

Local unit(Not even district) of the student front of a fringe Islamist party. Vinegarymass911 (talk) 23:30, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. Worldbruce (talk) 14:05, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Worldbruce (talk) 14:05, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:51, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:51, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as no better information and searches found nothing. SwisterTwister talk 04:12, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Unable to find any independent reliable source that mentions this particular branch of the organization. Would redirect to Bangladesh Islami Chattra Sena if there were any real content. --Worldbruce (talk) 17:52, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:26, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Pride Mode[edit]

Pride Mode (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 non-notable World of Warcraft bot, clearly intended as a baldfaced advertisement - the image really clinches it(image deleted on Commons) - but not quite blatant enough that I'm willing to G11 it. I found no independent coverage when searching, only social media (and barely any of that, even). Fails WP:NSOFTWARE. Abjectly. —Cryptic 22:22, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. I don't see any coverage in reliable sources, and a WP:VG/RS Custom Google Search returns nothing relevant. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 07:49, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Fails WP:NSOFT. --The1337gamer (talk) 08:52, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. czar 16:17, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete due to lack of notability. I agree that it looks like an advertisement. ZettaComposer (talk) 12:59, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as nothing even for minimally better notability. SwisterTwister talk 06:06, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - no reliable sources to ascertain notability. Kagundu^{Wanna Chat?} 22:39, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:38, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedily deleted under criterion G11. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 04:17, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Infinite Dreams Technologies[edit]

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

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

I can't find any third-party coverage at all about this company. (Unsurprising, since the article doesn't assert significance.) Not related to Infinite Dreams Inc.. —Cryptic 21:51, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:57, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:57, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:57, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:57, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:57, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 22:23, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mask fetishism[edit]

Mask fetishism (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)

Practically non-notable. Cites no sources. Googling it reveals few reliable, with many un-reliable sources (fetish blogs, wikia, etc) and Wikipedia mirrors.

I am aware of the ten-year-old previous discussion. Mr. Spink ^{talk★contribs} 21:50, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:10, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per consensus at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Veil fetishism, an article that shared the same issues. We adopt a notability threshold to avoid having articles on everything that exists. This article is utterly unreferenced and there is nothing to suggest that it meets WP:GNG. WJBscribe (talk) 17:08, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, I'm seeing only brief mentions, unless someone can show otherwise haven't found significant amount of discussion among secondary or scholarly sources. — Cirt (talk) 17:52, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Per nom, no real notability. QueenCake (talk) 18:13, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 23:10, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Tom Arth[edit]

Tom Arth (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 football player. Does not meet WP:NGRIDIRON. Spent time with the Indianapolis Colts, but never played (see [9]). Spent time with the Toronto Argonauts in 2007, but never played (see [10]). Spent time with two Arena Football League teams, but again never played (see [11]). He played NCAA Division III football and coaches at that level, so WP:NCOLLATH does not appear to help. So with no SNG being met, I am not seeing GNG being met. Most results are from the college he went to and coaches at, so they are not independent. Had he played outside of NFL Europe (see [12]) it would be a different story, but never playing at a top level and going to a Division III school does not help. I think this article should be deleted. RonSigPi (talk) 21:44, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. RonSigPi (talk) 21:48, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. RonSigPi (talk) 21:52, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• keep head coaches of college football programs are normally kept as they are found to generate enough coverage to pass WP:GNG as outlined at the essay WP:CFBCOACH.--Paul McDonald (talk) 21:56, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

WP:CFBCOACH isn't a policy, it is just an essay. We are not talking about an FBS or even FCS program here. This is a Division III program - I just don't see all Division III coaches being presumed notable. I think the head coaches at Maranatha Baptist University, Lyon College (an NAIA school), and Iowa Wesleyan University - all schools with well under 1,000 students - need more than just an essay to grant a presumption of notability. I have no problem with FBS or FCS schools getting a presumption. Division III football just does not get much coverage and therefore you cannot presume all coaches are notable. Sure, some Division III coaches meet GNG, such as Lee Tressel, Larry Kehres, and John Gagliardi, but we should not assume coverage exists for the near thousand coaches at Division III/NAIA schools. Few of these schools' sports teams have any significant media footprint. RonSigPi (talk) 22:16, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Of course it is an essay. That's why I posted that it is an essay. Please read it to find responses and discussion about the issues you raised. For example, why is "under 1,000" students suddenly not notable? That seems very arbitrary. The essay does not "prove or disprove" notability, it contains arguments commonly encountered over (gosh a decade now?) of arguments and discussions. Your argument was that Division III doesn't get the coverage, but as we can see below there is a good amount of coverage available and therefore shows again that such cases do indeed tend to pass WP:GNG.--Paul McDonald (talk) 15:59, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep A quick search came up with this feature article about Arth from a major newspaper. Jweiss11 (talk) 10:11, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I came across the same article. And that is the only one I found (outside of a job hiring announcement from the same website). WP:GNG requires significant coverage in reliable, independent sources. In other articles i have seen, three is the minimum standard - (e.g., see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2017 BWF World Championships). If you find feature articles in two more independent sources, then I think GNG is met. Passing mentions are not enough (e.g., only one or two mentions in the article or something similar to a media release such as a job hiring announcement). Nor are blog posts or other articles from Cleveland.com. I have no problem if GNG is shown to be met, but I have not seen it and one article is not enough to meet GNG. RonSigPi (talk) 12:38, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have no problem with the articles at Cleveland.com, especially since such a large number of those articles come from The Plain Dealer, a major newspaper.--Paul McDonald (talk) 16:03, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Paul, I think RonSigPi's point here is that in the effort to find three independent, reliable sources, only one can from Cleveland.com. Jweiss11 (talk) 19:41, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Here are some other sources [13] [14] [15]. This could be expanded into a decent sized article pretty easily. I don't think that it would have been nominated for deletion if it wasn't short. WikiOriginal-9 (talk) 15:17, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:59, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 21:59, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

H Dice Game[edit]

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

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

This page is basically a poorly-written ad. For one thing, none of the rules of the game are listed. You have to download the game to find out anything about it. None of the sources it cites are independent of the game's creator, and all of the sources are just download pages anyway.

I strongly recommend the article be deleted, and any links that go to the article be removed. Math321 (talk) 20:50, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:25, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• delete no sources in article that count toward WP:N and I'm not seeing anything on line that counts as an independent RS either. Hobit (talk) 23:17, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Pure promotion. This article should have been speedied under WP:G11 as soon as it got created. Kolbasz (talk) 16:24, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete under WP:G11 per Kolbasz. This article is obviously promotional with no demonstrated notability. --Erick Shepherd (talk) 21:24, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. This has gone on long enough. Drmies (talk) 00:29, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dr.Nawar Al-Saadi[edit]

Dr.Nawar Al-Saadi (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 and likely written by a COI user for promotional purposes. All the references cited and other search results are primary and merely reflect the presence of publications by the subject. The existence of scientific papers doesn't confer notability to the writers, as it's common (expected) practice in academic circles. Elaenia (talk) 19:35, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Not notable academic.--DThomsen8 (talk) 12:40, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and protect from recreation - it's the third time this page is created by a single-purpose account: getting tiresome already. There really is no indication this individual meets WP:PROF, WP:BIO or any other notability guideline. - Biruitorul ^Talk 21:17, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:05, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:05, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:05, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Maslama al-Majriti. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 01:25, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Fatima of Madrid[edit]

Fatima of Madrid (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)

An "unusually thorough and scholarly discussion" at AFD in 2011 determined that this was not a real person. (Not sure how to add the "previous nominations" sidebar manually, sorry.) –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 18:32, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:07, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:07, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:07, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:07, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Astronomy-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:07, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: there's mention of her on the Maslama al-Majriti article, so a redirect to that page may be a useful option. I'm not sure how much should be merged. The Spanish language page appears to have more content. Praemonitus (talk) 19:15, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Maslama al-Majriti. The nominator somewhat overstates the result of the previous discussion, which was more that her existence could not be established from then-available reliable sources than that she definitely did not exist. However, several of the participants did conclude that she did not exist, and I think they were very probably (but not certainly) right. One would expect to find a mention of her in Said al-Andalusi's Al‐tarif bi-tabaqat al-umam, but while this (at least in the most available English translation) contains a short biography of her purported father and lists several of his students, it makes no mention of her (I've checked). That does not rule out the possibility of other medieval sources, but if such sources exist, nobody seems to be citing them. In fact, Spanish Wikipedia's version of this article cites two recent sources which state that the earliest traceable mention of her is in a volume of the Enciclopedia universal ilustrada europeo-americana published in the 1920s - my first thought, in fact, was to replace this article by a translation of the Spanish Wikipedia one, but unfortunately the more detailed of the two sources, while in my opinion an excellent piece of work, seems to be by an amateur historian who posted it to a website without obvious editorial control. I have, however, a day or two ago, used the other source to add a couple of sentences to Maslama al-Majriti, which should provide a reasonable redirect target.

I ought to add that GBooks and GScholar searches both produce recent apparently reliable sources which do conclude (or assume) that Fatima existed. However, of the two apparently best ones, one starts with two and a half pages that apparently assume her existence without giving sources (unless these are given in the short bibliography at the end of the book which, however, is not included in the pages visible from GBooks) and then just over half a page about arguments against her existence - the latter section looks suspiciously like a translation of the Spanish Wikipedia article. The other (by a mathematician in a social science journal) considers sources on both sides of the argument, most of which, however, are websites of no obvious reliability by Wikipedia standard (where, indeed, the links still work), and comes down in favour of her existence on the basis of the websites in which he places more reliance. Effectively, this looks like academics writing outside their specialisms and, not understanding the standards of evidence in the area in which they are working, unintentionally spreading an internet meme into academic books and papers. In the absence of at least some coverage of the topic on Wikipedia, the article is likely to be recreated repeatedly by editors who do not realise this - under current circumstances, the best way of avoiding this seems to be the redirect that I am suggesting. PWilkinson (talk) 23:32, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge/Redirect to Maslama al-Majriti -- per PWilkinson and so much of the great discussion in the last AfD. Nearly everyone from the 10th c. that we have any sort of record of any work (or supposed work) is notable, but that doesn't mean that they're good choices to have an article on until the sourcing improves; but I'm confident enough that it could improve that I think deletion is the wrong choice. -- Michael Scott Cuthbert (talk) 02:34, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Maslama al-Majriti, per comment by Mscuthbert, above. Cheers, — Cirt (talk) 19:49, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 21:56, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Messenger[edit]

Michael Messenger (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)

Smells of conflict of interest and promotional promo spam. Advertorial with hyperlinks in main article body text linking to commercials and advertisement type promotional videos. Article fails to demonstrate significant coverage in secondary sources independent of the subject himself. — Cirt (talk) 18:28, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: See also similar problems by author with Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Victoria Nixon. — Cirt (talk) 18:29, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. There are other people named Michael Messenger who look like they have a shot at notability, but I don't see any coverage in reliable sources about this one. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 19:58, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete (marginal keep on Victoria Nixon) Andy Dingley (talk) 20:00, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Fails WP:GNG and WP:CREATIVE. Joseph2302 (talk) 22:42, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:09, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:09, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:09, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Promotional, with nothing that can support passing WP:CREATIVE and WP:GNG. Arthistorian1977 (talk) 08:55, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as not yet better satisfying the applicable notability, delete for now at best. SwisterTwister talk 05:50, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was already speedy deleted. postdlf (talk) 13:40, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

TTK (Leak Detection)[edit]

TTK (Leak Detection) (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 only source ([16]) sounds promotional, and I could not find any better online. Hence, this article likely does not pass Wikipedia's notability guideline. Tigraan (talk) 15:43, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:56, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:56, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:56, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment by nominator: SwisterTwister nominated the article for speedy deletion under WP:G11. I disagree since (per the CSD page) any article that describes its subject from a neutral point of view does not qualify for this criterion, and I think the info in that article, non-notable as it may be, is written neutrally. Of course, I would not lose any sleep over it. Tigraan (talk) 11:02, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. (non-admin closure) SSTflyer 04:09, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Smarter Agent, Inc.[edit]

Smarter Agent, Inc. (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)

Purely promotional; no context of notability presented. Jacona (talk) 19:31, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 14:47, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Nominator seems to fail to understand that WP:BEFORE requires legitimate efforts to look for sourcing before nominating an article. The sources added, and the many more available online, establish notability for the firm, which both provides a major real estate search tool and has acted to vigorously defend its IP against some of the biggest firms in the industry. Alansohn (talk) 19:24, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the opinion on my understanding of WP:BEFORE, but I do understand what sort of sourcing should be considered before nominating an article for deletion. While there is some WP:ROUTINE run-of-the-mill stuff, and PR items, this company appeared and disappeared without being noticed by any significant publications. Jacona (talk) 12:38, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Bickering would be better addressed in other venues.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
JaconaFrere, this AfD was filed out of pure malicious spite. You have a clear obligation to look for sources and you failed completely. The significant coverage has lasted for years and ignoring these sources by calling this "Routine" is completely and totally false. It's well past time to end this proven pattern of persistent stalking and harassment; the blatant failure to ignore policy only exacerbates matters. Alansohn (talk) 13:24, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply] Wow. This AfD was filed because the article was completely unsourced, and the coverage found was trivial and routine. Instead of resorting to personal attacks, perhaps we should consider the opinions of other editors. Your allegations of stalking are completely untrue. It appears that they are just WP:ASPERSIONS cast to try to "win" arguments by means other than following policy. They have no place here. Jacona (talk) 13:59, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply] All you've done is ignore policy and simply disregard the ample reliable and verifiable sources about the company. If you don't have the basic honesty to acknowledge that there is a proven pattern of persistent stalking and harassment, please stop actively lying about it and move on to harass others. Alansohn (talk) 14:55, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply] Please, personal attacks don't belong on this AfD page, and they are in any case baseless. I've never been blocked. I don't have any trouble with other editors. Instead of personal attacks, perhaps you'd care to comment about why you think this article belongs on Wikipedia. Your constructive comments would be welcome, and you can have as much say as you like. Please don't make every article I edit a WP:BATTLEGROUND, this is quite [[WP:DISRUPTIVE)). Jacona (talk) 15:27, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply] See above, where I commented that "The sources added, and the many more available online, establish notability for the firm, which both provides a major real estate search tool and has acted to vigorously defend its IP against some of the biggest firms in the industry." The battleground that you have created is best demonstrated by your proven pattern of persistent stalking and harassment. Have a shred of honesty and decency, admit your mistake, move on and harass someone else. Even better, stop stalking anyone. Alansohn (talk) 16:21, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:54, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:54, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:54, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) —UY Scuti ^Talk 19:50, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

IDI - Inspector Dawood Ibrahim[edit]

IDI - Inspector Dawood Ibrahim (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Film isn't notable under WP:GNG or WP:NF (notability for films). Alternatively, it appears highly likely that principal photography hasn't begun,^[1] and WP:NFF instructs that "[f]ilms that have not been confirmed by reliable sources to have commenced principal photography should not have their own articles."  Rebbing  15:10, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep: a more reliable reference of notability here. --Helper V1 (talk) 16:04, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The principal photography started. And there's some mentions by the actor on The Hindu. [17] JackTracker (talk) 17:02, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't mean to bludgeon you or be needlessly argumentative, but, even if filming has started, that doesn't mean the subject meets GNG (not to mention WP:NFF paragraph 3's admonition against articles covering unreleased films in most cases). Also, WP:GNG requires "significant coverage," which "is more than a trivial mention"; the Hindu article's discussion of IDI: Inspector Dawood Ibrahim looks trivial to me: "The actor is currently shuttling between Wayanad for Roshan Andrewss’ School Bus and Kasaragod for IDI - Inspector Dawood Ibrahim, directed by Sajid Yahiya." Cf. the example given in GNG about Three Blind Mice.  Rebbing  17:15, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm agreeing with you. Their some issues with the references, I heard from several magazines that the movies shooting is progressing. Also it's last schedule is now going on at Ernakulam. See [18]. JackTracker (talk) 13:51, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:14, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:14, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Expanded WP:BEFORE:

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

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

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

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

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

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

WP:INDAFD: Inspector Dawood Ibrahim Inspector Dawood Ibrahim Movie Sajid Yahiya Jayasurya Sshivada

• Keep as filming IS under way and film's production (before filming and and now) meets WP:GNG and thus the caveats of WP:NFF (paragraph 3). Even with the existing coverage of last February, filming had not then began and the topic was simply TOO SOON. But as I remarked then, and even through exceptions have been allowed as guideline is not WP:POLICY, we needed it to be confirmed to have an article per guideline for films. It has begun and it serves the project to allow this stub to remain and be improved over time and through regular editing. And to any worries about it being currently stubby and needing work... so what? Immediate perfection is a goal, not a mandate. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 06:47, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• KEEP PER MQS - MEETS GNG & NNF. –Davey2010^Talk 01:24, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as this is convincing enough to keep for now. SwisterTwister talk 19:37, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep as I'm not seeing this going anywhere else (NAC). SwisterTwister talk 05:01, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Angela Goodwin[edit]

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

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

Delete: insufficiently notable actress. Quis separabit? 14:40, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:10, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:10, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Keep, vague deletion rationale, no WP:BEFORE, the subject easily passes WP:NACTOR and WP:GNG. An April fools' day joke, maybe? Cavarrone 16:08, 1 April 2016 (UTC)u[reply]
• Snow keep. Given the news obituaries in major newspapers, including one that was already in the article before the AfD was filed, there's no evident reason to doubt notability here. --Arxiloxos (talk) 17:08, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep long and distinguished acting career, reliable sources coverage such as Italian newspapers such as La Nazione, La Republica already referenced in the article and earlier coverage, passes WP:BASIC Atlantic306 (talk) 21:11, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Seems to meet WP:GNG. Pretty extensive career too. GabeIglesia (talk) 21:47, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. The article was in pretty bad shape when it was nominated, but it's much better now – enough to demonstrate notability. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 07:56, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. As above. Pretty clear notability.Lord Cornwallis (talk) 09:08, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Meets notability requirement. Could use some more references. VanEman (talk) 17:20, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep just like ever other actress that has a wiki page she is notable. Jkl2299 (talk) 03:58, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Significant improvements to the article, content as well as sourcing, since it's nomination as a 2-sentence stub. This is now more in keeping with, even better sourced than, the WP Italian article on her. WP:NACTOR says Has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions. Using Google Translate on the sourcing provided, her obit verifies she achieved that. If you check various sourcing for a full listing of her films, she was in over 50 films and television productions, and in notable roles in several of them. — Maile (talk) 13:07, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, certainly subject of secondary source coverage among multiple references. — Cirt (talk) 20:41, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. WP:SNOW. postdlf (talk) 13:23, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Station not stream outside Canada/US[edit]

Station not stream outside Canada/US (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 not encyclopedic material. Fails WP:GNG. Jeh (talk) 14:17, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Further comment by nominator: This borders on material prohibited by WP:NOTRADIOGUIDE. Per GNG, there is nothing that establishes Wikipedia-level notability of the streaming status of any radio station mentioned, nor is there ever likely to be. Per "not encyclopedic", encyclopedic material would include—for each station—the date they enabled streaming, the date they prohibited streaming outside the US (if that was a separate decision), the reasons for the decision(s), details of who made the decision(s), possible influences on the decision(s), effects of the decision(s) on the station and on other stations in the market, etc. For simple "is it streamed? And where can you hear it via streaming?" information there is already a place for such material in Wikipedia: in the individual radio stations' articles. This is just a miscellaneous collection of past events and there is utterly no hope of it ever being comprehensive or correct, as the streaming status of many radio stations changes on a nearly weekly basis. We might as well have "articles" like "List of auto parts stores not carrying Mopar products" or "List of grocery chains not carrying Don Miguel burritos". Jeh (talk) 14:44, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - non-encyclopedic trivia. Cordless Larry (talk) 15:24, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. Jeh (talk) 15:43, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Delete Per Jeh. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 17:54, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Delete Wikipedia is not a directory. GabeIglesia (talk) 21:44, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Artile is not noteworthy, is trivial, and is junk.Stereorock (talk) 05:20, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:16, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:16, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. A recreation is possible, but only if the sourcing is good and the tone is neutral.  Sandstein  11:43, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Vasily Klyukin[edit]

Vasily Klyukin (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 article is about a non-notable person and is possibly autobiographical. FinnHK (talk) 19:52, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Vipinhari || talk 20:18, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. Vipinhari || talk 20:18, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as I myself would've also nominated because none of this has any convincing signs and, despite the collection of links, none of seem solid enough for a better article. SwisterTwister talk 05:58, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• DON'T Delete I think there are more than enough references in the article, proving that it's not about non-notable person.
  Moreover, the links provided in this article clearly indicate us the evidence of Vasily Klyukin's works, his interaction with the most famous people of the world, as well as the popular mass media articles about his life and activity. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.173.118.69 (talk) 14:35, 15 March 2016 (UTC) — 46.173.118.69 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

  These references only prove that the media is happy to publish nearly anything in the search for more clicks. His ideas are creative but there is no evidence to suggest they are anything more than the creative work of anyone on any 3D modeling forum. FinnHK (talk) 16:16, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• I have a question to the comments above. Do you really believe that over 1000 articles worldwide could be published about non-notable person? It's hard to imagine how notable the person should be, if Vasily Klyukin is not notable enough for you, guys... Virtually all of the top mass media, such as CNN, Yahoo, Forbes, GQ, Telegraph, Le Monde, etc. published numerous articles about his futuristic skyscrapers, villas and yachts, as well as his sculptures. Let me underline it again, these articles are not just self-made, but it was published by the most influential and popular mass media sources in the world. If we will neglect it, we should pay no attention to the most public figures, show business stars and celebrities as well. Please check out just few links provided in this Wikipedia article (there is a bunch of links is still to be added). Moreover, his books can be purchased in the stores all over the world, or for example, at Amazon: Designing Legends [[19]] and Collective Mind [[20]].
  SwisterTwister, you should absolutely be nominated if you google your name and see it as top result, just like it is with Vasily Klyukin. Besides it, all you will need to do is to publish 2 successful books and to make top mass media write about you in over 1000 articles... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.173.118.69 (talk) 16:41, 16 March 2016 (UTC) — 46.173.118.69 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

• I'm not pushing for a delete, but I would certainly advocate re-writing it. It's so puffy and self-promotional and a victim of WP:WEASEL Lines like "His designs became well-known worldwide thanks to his innovative approach", where's the citation or evidence for that assertion? I have lots of issues with it, but they are predominantly stylistic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pupsbunch (talk • contribs) 20:26, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:06, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:06, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:06, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• I tend to a Keep now, since it looks like he's passing WP:CREATIVE with this [21], [22], [23], [24], [25], [26]. Arthistorian1977 (talk) 09:26, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - He may pass notability criteria, but this current article needs to go per WP:TNT. Highly promotional, covers none of the negative publicity about this architect, which in my searches outweighed the positive coverage. Notability is not the only reason for deletion, this would qualify under WP:DEL4. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:27, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Leaning delete - A little uncertain about this one. After searching Google, it does seem like there is some considerable news coverage (Daily Mail, Fox News) - granted, it's not a whole lot. But it would appear the subject is most notable for being an architect, not necessarily for being a writer, so I don't think going into extensive detail about his books and then citing Amazon as the source is necessary, encyclopedic, or even appropriate. I also strongly agree that this article is *extremely* promotional. I'm not an expert on space-traveling Monacan architects so this can go either way for me. I ultimately lean towards delete because of the strongly promotional language and the lack of reliable sources in the article. If the article is kept, I would strongly support a rewrite. GabeIglesia (talk) 14:06, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedily deleted by User:Vanjagenije under criterion G7. (Non-admin closure) "Pepper" @ 14:33, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

IMA Griz 2016[edit]

IMA Griz 2016 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Article about a video. Fails WP:GNG for lack of available reliable sources. - MrX 11:34, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete per A7 ("article about [...] web content [...] that does not indicate why its subject is important or significant") and G5 (per Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/IMA Griz). --McGeddon (talk) 11:46, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 21:52, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Canada Day Countdown[edit]

Canada Day Countdown (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 fail WP:EVENT, specifically WP:GEOSCOPE. Has been tagged as needing sources since July 2014, still no sources. Dbrodbeck (talk) 10:48, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete While the article does not have references, WP:BEFORE assumes that we are to look for them. I did and couldn't find any except http://www.country94.ca/news/canada-day-countdown-underway and http://thewave.ca/news/canada-day-countdown-underway, which are identical. Likely the same staff of writers. Nothing to meet WP:GNG. Thanks for nominating. Walter Görlitz (talk) 13:44, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above. Vaselineeeeeeee (talk) 21:06, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment to be clear, I did look for refs, found the ones above and then went the AFD route. Dbrodbeck (talk) 13:46, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:11, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:11, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:11, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Article has no place in an encyclopedia in its current form. 64.229.246.209 (talk) 22:33, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete at best for now as none of this suggests better independent notability. SwisterTwister talk 04:47, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 03:49, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Riviera Hotel (Philippines)[edit]

Riviera Hotel (Philippines) (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)

As far as I can tell, non-notable hotel. Article was created in 2011 and was at the time tagged for speedy deletion and later proposed for deletion; both times the creator removed the deletion requests. Nothing of any note has happened to the article since; it still talks about a proposed hotel and most of the article is actually about the wider development rather than the hotel itself. No indication is given of why this is notable. Emeraude (talk) 10:07, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:12, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:12, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:36, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as this is going to be unlikely for any solidly sufficient improvements and it's simply still questionable for any applicable notability. Delete at best for now. SwisterTwister talk 05:31, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Eventual Delete suggest making every effort to give the author and interested editors detailed suggestions of how to elevate the article to acceptable notability standards, failing which, deletion. - Alternativity (talk) 04:27, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep as this is clear enough to close even if a day early and I'm simply not seeing any other clear consensus happening aside from Keep (NAC). SwisterTwister talk 04:45, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Katie van Scherpenberg[edit]

Katie van Scherpenberg (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:ARTIST Greek Legend (talk) 10:05, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:37, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:37, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep She is represented in two encyclopedias about Brazilian art and by the Brazilian minister of culture. Part of the problem in sourcing her is that the sources on her seem to primarily be in Portuguese. However, her inclusion in the sources that are provided are sufficient to show that she's important as a Brazilian artist. In addition, a Google book search turns up that she's in plenty of books (many of which unfortunately don't have previews). She doesn't need to pass WP:ARTIST, only WP:GNG for inclusion and I think the article's sources and a Google search shows she does. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 15:10, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:16, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - there aren't many sources in English, but Google Books shows that she is at least mentioned in several books, and there are further sources in Portuguese, which convinces me that she meets our notability criteria. Cordless Larry (talk) 15:29, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete unless completely rewritten. . Keep now that Giso6150 and Cordless Larry have adressed the copvio. It think the subject may pass WP:GNG because of the tertiary sources, but the article in its current form is problematic. The article is not quite a 100% copyvio, so G12 probably doesn't apply, but it very closely paraphrases this bio at Flatbed press. Earwig's tool has 68.6% confidence that it's a copyvio. The flatbed bio is not dated, but refers to a fair that took place February 12 - 13 - 14, 2016 before the article was written on 4 March 2016.Mduvekot (talk) 16:14, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I just tagged the copyright text - Giso6150 fixed it. Cordless Larry (talk) 06:37, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I easily found reliable sources (in Portuguese) for this notable artist. Obviously the copyright issues must be resolved, but notability is unquestionable to me. giso6150 (talk) 14:55, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep the article needs work---perhaps we can get a translation of a Portuguese Wikipedia article on her---but she meets notability requirements. VanEman (talk) 17:23, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: {please note that we can't get a translation from a Portugese wikipedia article, because none exists. Mduvekot (talk) 17:32, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 21:50, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Kollaboration[edit]

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

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

Fails WP:GNG. The results in google news are not about this organization. Greek Legend (talk) 09:23, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:03, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:03, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete It's a third nomination and I suppose will be third deletion. Nothing notable about this organisation. Arthistorian1977 (talk) 07:34, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:20, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:20, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:20, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - I can't find any reliable sources on the topic, and none are provided with the article. Ajraddatz (talk) 19:38, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Fails WP:A7 and WP:ORG. --Erick Shepherd (talk) 21:27, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as nothing yet convincing of solid independent notability. SwisterTwister talk 04:47, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Uncontested. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 22:17, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

List of Saginaw Spirit alumni[edit]

List of Saginaw Spirit alumni (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

List of players from an amateur hockey team, fails WP:LIST and WP:LISTPEOPLE as (a) overwhelmingly comprised of NN people, and (b) completely unsourced. The list itself is badly incomplete, according to hockeydb.com (the standard resource we use on the hockey Wikiproject), and hasn't been updated in several years. Given that major junior teams average 30-someodd players a season and have complete roster turnover no less frequently than every five years, and that we don't seek to maintain such lists for even many a fully professional team, the odds that this will be a more useful list than the complete ones maintained on several sites are slim to none. In any event, it's better handled by the category that's already extant. Ravenswing 07:53, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:43, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:43, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:43, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:43, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Per nom. For those reasons, this is an appropriate topic for a category, but not a list. Rlendog (talk) 14:42, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as not convincing for its own article. SwisterTwister talk 04:42, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The IP opinions are not taken into account because they do not address the problems based on Wikipedia policies and guidelines mentioned in the nomination.  Sandstein  11:26, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Liberal Democrats (Zimbabwe)[edit]

Liberal Democrats (Zimbabwe) (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 a substantially promotional article about a new political party, without evidence of notability. Of the references, one is the party's own web site, one barely mentions the party in passing, and the others don't mention it at all. Searches for information about the party also fail to find any significant coverage in independent sources. (Note: If you wish to check for sources, be careful to make sure that you are actually getting sources about the Liberal Democrats of Zimbabwe: I found the vast majority of hits for search terms such as "Liberal Democrats" Zimbabwe were pages which mentioned the British Liberal Democrats and also mentioned Zimbabwe, but did not mention the Liberal Democrat party of Zimbabwe.) A PROD was removed by the creator of the article, with an edit summary which said "This is a political party in existence in Zimbabwe like all other political parties and it's activities prove existence of it", but that is missing the point, as the reason for proposing deletion was not that the existence of the party was in question, but because of a lack of evidence that it satisfies Wikipedia's notability standards. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 20:44, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, basically per nom. Author seems to argue inherent notability due to being a political party (invalidly), or doesn't understand notability policy. Having had a quick search, it's possible (but perhaps unlikely) that their notability is being drowned out by the UK lib dems, but since there is no argument for notability in the article or useful references, I'm pretty confident it is not WP:NOTABLE. -crh23 (talk) 21:27, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hie, why do you wantdelete this page Liberaldemocrats because is from a country with political despotism and no freedom of expression. The party website has an article from a Zimbabwean newspaper, interview on Talk 702 South Africa and we heard them speak on Radio Islam in an interview in Johannesburg. They engage Zimbabwe and build our country. Why u want to suppress them. Mugabe oppress our country and you also want to oopress it by killing opposition ;like Mugabe does. You might not care but we care when we see hope. I was follow them on twitter and they give me their website and did not knopw they are party but was always with them on twitter and I go to their website and see on their media page all these interviews about Zimbabwe. Is that not serving Zimbabwe. They are very popular on twitter and care about Zimbabwe and no one in Zimbabwe sources can talk about them because in our country you must buy media. This is wrong. I find this wiki thing when I was searching for them when I wanted ytheir website but not essy to find because there isd more about Lib Dems. Africa must suffer neh. This is racist or you also work for Mugabe and you are CIO, this is good party and is busy abouit Zimbabwe. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.13.0.77 (talk) 22:13, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Zimbabwe-related deletion discussions. Human3015 ^TALK  22:22, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Human3015 ^TALK  22:22, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Human3015 ^TALK  22:23, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as although I may not be entirely familiar with this area, the newly founded aspect and overall questionability is enough. Best deleted and restarted when better, SwisterTwister talk 01:33, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

From Tawanda Chikuvise ---- Imi people what is it with you. The party's name is Liberal Democrats and when added to a the List of Political Parties in Zimbabwe it automatically referred to the Liberal Democrats article in UK. We raised this with the authors and that is why the had to put that article. There must be something said about the party otherwise any removal of that article will; refer the party the UK party which will be3 misleading. We think that if you find it not okay because of whatever why don't you guys write an article based on the articles and references given. It is a notable party and is in the active in ZImbabwe has references more than other parties that are listed on the List of Political Parties in ZImbabwe. You would rather have a political party listed which refering to the wrong article? They listed it as Liberal Democrats and had to put LD to try and distinguish and The Zimbabwe was suggested byone of your editors Mr X from what we hear. Why are you giving them grief as if you just want to prove a point. You are behaving as this is your bedroom because the article removes the confusion as well on names.

.Comment There is another ref on the Change.org. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 105.226.21.33 (talk) 12:34, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

 Response to Delete. -- It is sad that ref number 3 apart from the official website shows an article about the activities of the Liberal Demmocrats but you guys do not see it. Furthermore they had a petition the AU and SADC through change which unfortunately according to wikipedia cannot be used as a reference, they have been on Talk 702 in South Africa and Radio Islam and all these are on their webpage in the media page, those live interviews. All other parties in the list either have the official website or nothing as reference or one or two, is this not bias?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 105.226.21.33 (talk) 14:02, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply] 

• Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2016 April 1. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 07:38, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. —Cryptic 11:17, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oppzo[edit]

Oppzo (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)

Patently non-notable online hardware store. It's a simple WP:A7 as far as I'm concerned but a second user removed the CSD tag without an explanation. --Non-Dropframe _talk 05:15, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Source checked, all above board. UKN droop (talk) 05:22, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: No evidence of notability.. Source is a scamadvisor site. Chrisw80 (talk) 09:04, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The genre is not sufficiently well-defined. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:59, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

List of console adventure games[edit]

List of console adventure games (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)

Unnecessary to have a list based upon adventure games that have been released for consoles. There's Category:Adventure games. It doesn't just list adventure games that were released exclusively on consoles, also the ones that have seen PC releases. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 12:14, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 12:15, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The list covers the same topic as the Category:Console adventure games, which is a valid one; and being a list, it offers a more informative layout for reader's consumption. The topic as such has received RS coverage re. Lack of refere([27],[28]), which makes it pass WP:LISTN. Diego (talk) 10:40, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  P.S. I've added to the article the reference that lists 25 adventure games - many of them exclusive for consoles. Diego (talk) 10:48, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - The list isn't manageable, it's not useful to compare video games across generations in any meaningful sense, and splitting it from a general "list of all adventure games" takes it out of the proper context of comparison between console adventures and PC adventures. So I suppose on both counts that's a vio of WP:NPOV.

  Aside: The category itself should probably also be deleted per WP:DEFINING; we don't intersect genre with console--and if we should, that's either way a different question. --Izno (talk) 12:51, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  Reliable sources do intersect the adventure genre with consoles, so the topic is supported by policy. Diego (talk) 13:33, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  You failed to respond to my points. On the whole of it, the article fails Wikipedia !rules other than WP:N/WP:LISTN. --Izno (talk) 14:06, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Neutral Userfly: That would make a very long and indiscriminate list, especially across multiple console generations. Current list only notes the console in question and the year, which is hardly enough to justify an indiscriminate list. It's just not manageable. ~Mable (chat) 13:04, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Your argument would be a reason to split the list if/when it grows unmanageable, not to delete it. We have the equivalent category which is perfectly manageable. I would agree to restrict the list to only those games that are exclusive to consoles, or for which the console version is notable on its own, as a way to have a stronger inclusion criterion; that would be definitely manageable. Diego (talk) 13:33, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • How would you intend to split the list? I might approve of more specific lists (such as "List of adventure games on the Nintendo Entertainment System"), but even if such lists were created, I would still !vote delete. Categories aren't restricted to inclusion criteria: editors can discuss whether something should fit in a certain category on a talk page, but in the end, the exact limits don't matter much, as categories aren't articles themselves and mainly intended simply to make it easier to find articles.
    • There are 183 console adventure games listed in this category, which already makes a long list. I would imagine that, for a large amount of them, you'd have difficulty to find a source referring to the game as an adventure game specifically. It's already a somewhat vaguely defined genre. Moreover, I wouldn't be surprised if many of the games listed in Category:Adventure games have also seen a console release and are simply miscategorized. I haven't actually done my research on this, but it would be difficult to convince me that "console adventure game" is a good topic for a list without it being sourced well. Generally, describing the subject of the list does wonders. What do all the items on this list got to do with one another? Why should I care about that item if I care about this item? What is the overall importance of this grouping? That's the sort of things that result in WP:LISTN ~Mable (chat) 14:14, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• That's the sort of things that are documented in the sources I provided:

• "Adventure games have a different connotation on consoles. On PC, adventure games almost always mean point-and-click or a variation of that style of gameplay. However, on a console there’s no mouse or pointer to click with. Usually, developers have to include other forms of gameplay together with the more common elements of adventure games, which are story elements, interaction and dialogue with NPCs, exploration of locations and scenarios, and puzzle elements. On consoles, there are very often action sequences included and other dynamics familiar to console gamers."
• "Robinett essentially created the console adventure game, and pioneered several videogame conventions that are now so common that we take them for granted." " The controller was a directional joystick with a single button.“ "The first step was translating the game from a purely text experience to a purely graphical one. Robinett cleverly reduced environments, characters, and objects to instantly recognizable, simple icons."

The topic is there. Lack of references is an argument for improvement and refinement, not deletion.

Categories and lists are no different in terms of inclusion guidelines - categorization of topics that are well defined by reliable sources is an accepted criterion. Diego (talk) 15:52, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You're starting to convince me that there could theoretically be some value to such a list, or at the very least such an article. Only two good sources is pretty weak, though, and one of them focuses entirely on the 1970s. I also don't know if Gaming Enthusiast is a reliable source - if not, the article wouldn't have much to stand on... ~Mable (chat) 18:08, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There are plenty more where these came from (see Ars Technica, IGN, Gamasutra...); I didn't try to make an extensive search, but I've certainly read lots of published content regarding how adventures need to be adapted for consoles given their lack of text and mouse inputs. Diego (talk) 22:36, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Changed to neutral per sources, though an article would still work better. ~Mable (chat) 04:53, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Gaming Enthusiast is not a reliable source. The more recent links do not go into depth on the importance of console-exclusive adventure games as a subdivision. czar 05:13, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I can agree to move the list to Draft space for a while, with the goal to transform it into a proper article. The current list could be tightened and placed as a section, like the ones we have at Art games and Video games as an art form. Diego (talk) 09:39, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Userfly is probably the best option, yes. ~Mable (chat) 09:49, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• On a side-note, Izno's comment on why the console adventure games category should probably also be deleted as it is an intersection with genre and platform is also pretty good, by the way. We use tools to find such intersection, so they don't need to exist. ~Mable (chat) 14:17, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. As above, very unclear inclusion criteria. Exclusive for consoles would be one story and what about games described in one source as "adventure" but in others as a subgenre? All in all, the scope issues as is are insurmountable. czar 14:54, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: I just noticed that the article also lists pc-only games ("Microsoft Windows, OS X, Linux") - is that an error? Also, how would this list deal with games that originate on PC and were ported to consoles? This is especially confusing when the "console" in question is a hand-held ("Microsoft Windows, Nintendo DS"). ~Mable (chat) 14:58, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • As I pointed above, we can include console-only adventures and action-adventures (Ico, Shadow of the Colossus, Dark Souls, Journey, Heavy Rain); games that are ported from other system should require a RS indicating the reason what the console version has special. Diego (talk) 15:52, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - This list could easily swell into the thousands eventually, and as stated, there's no clear criteria for inclusion. It's arguable that most video games being made for consoles today have an "adventure" element. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 20:14, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, per WP:PURPLIST: Lists which contain internally linked terms (i.e., wikilinks) serve, in aggregate, as natural tables of contents and indexes of Wikipedia. - Lists can be very useful as navigational tools, without requiring notability on their own. Yes, it could go grow bigger in the future, but there are other ways to deal with that than deletion. --Reinoutr (talk) 10:42, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Possible new solution: Move. Because the issue is with the unnecessary distinction of çonsole adventure games, we could move this to List of adventure games (which currently redirects to List of graphic adventure games. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 09:27, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The article provides a very useful list of adventure games released in (or fan translated to) English. Given the scarcity of reliable sources that could provide this kind of information, it is important to have the list here. I strongly believe action-adventure games should be not added to the list, and this must be made absolutely clear in the article as to avoid confusion. Besides, perhaps a better option would be changing this list into an article about the "chronology of console adventure games". This would justify the existence of the article even more. -- ThiagoSimoes (talk) 00:53, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • But the only sources we do have list action-adventure games almost exclusively, such as Shadow of the Colossus and Dark Souls. That exclusion makes no sense (even though the inclusion doesn't make any sense either) ~Mable (chat) 05:14, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • It currently has two sources, one of which is not a WP:VG/RS. How does it meet WP:GNG? Other issues are that the games listed are not "console" games exclusively: if that would be the case, it would make some sense. Dune (video game), Game of Thrones (video game), Murdered: Soul Suspect, the list goes on. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 07:52, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Note; there's a huge overlap with List of graphic adventure games. If we would remove all games that aren't considered adventure games and remove all those that aren't console exclusive, we wouldn't have anything left to keep. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 07:57, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • So that would suggest a merge of the two articles, as suggested above, would be an appropriate solution. --Reinoutr (talk) 14:22, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:36, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - there is a very loose and difficult to define inclusion criteria here. What exactly constitutes an 'adventure game' is rather nebulous.  InsertCleverPhraseHere  03:47, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong delete - Already said by many, the inclusion criteria makes it unmanageable. Where is Cursed Mountain? According to our adventure game article, visual novels are included, but none are included here. Why the arbitrary rule that handheld games are not included, and goes on to show games on the Nintendo DS? Why do some game list all the platforms it's on, but not all? From a glance, Heavy Rain is also on PS4, Flower, Sun, and Rain is on DS, Machinarium is on tons of platforms, but only lists PS3. Games such as The Book of Unwritten Tales is not on any console, but included (and not listed correctly). What is the actual point of the list? The criteria and information follows no actual guideline, and is more like a personal list than something that belongs on Wikipedia. I went from delete to strong delete just in the time of writing my thoughts on it. It's both too broad and too narrow, somehow. --Wirbelwind(ヴィルヴェルヴィント) 05:34, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Are you arguing with respect to the current article's state, or what it can become with a well-defined criterion? Who says there is a rule that handheld games ought not to be included? The particulars of what details to include for each entry belong to the article's talk page, not to the discussion that decides on the notability of the topic. (However you're right that The Book of Unwritten Tales doesn't seem to pertain, I've removed it; I think it was included because the II part in the series is released for PS4). As I said above, I would limit the list inclusion criterion to console exclusives or those for which the console port is significant in some way, and where reliable sources consistently place the game in the adventure genre. Diego (talk) 13:34, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete What exactly defines an "adventure game"? Music1201 (talk) 22:57, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete or redirect to List of graphic adventure games, a more comprehensive list. Having a separate list like this is redundant and pointless. It can be easily covered in the original list. AdrianGamer (talk) 14:59, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete.  Sandstein  11:38, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Patmont Motor Werks[edit]

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

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

Unreferenced and promotional Rathfelder (talk) 15:08, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I agree entirely with Rathfelder. Beyond its own self-promotional Go-Ped website there are no other sources. It hasn't been peer-reviewed or coverage in the either the press or trade publications. And the article is written more like an advert than a neutral, dispassionate encyclopaedic entry. Pupsbunch (talk) 19:12, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:29, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:29, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nevada-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:30, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Certainly a crappy article, but BEFORE shows the topic or its major product are quite possibly notable. Looking beyond the press releases, we DO have independent coverage: [29] [30] (Italian) and [31] for instance. UGLY articles need some love, and deletion of arguably notable topics is not love. Jus' sayin. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 22:11, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - I don't feel like taking the time, but there are numerous issues here. The article - under the current name - may not necessarily be notable. However, it is the creator of the Go-Ped which is notable. There was an article for Go-Ped which someone redirected into a disambiguation page [32]. Quite a mess. Could be redirected into a page for Go-Ped with the content rewritten for that page. --CNMall41 (talk) 03:39, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as there's no consensus to actually improve the article to a better state and thus is best deleted for now until better is available. SwisterTwister talk 04:41, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) —UY Scuti ^Talk 19:13, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Grand Bassam Zion Rock (Alpha Blondy album)[edit]

Grand Bassam Zion Rock (Alpha Blondy album) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Non-notable album. Unreferenced article. Fails WP:NALBUMS. XXN, 14:37, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Although evidently not one of Alpha Blondy's more successful records, this was an official major label album release by an important musician. The French Wikipedia article for this album cites a source (although I don't have access to that source). Google and GBooks searches suggest that reviews or other coverage can be found with enough and access to offline sources; see, e.g. [33][34][35][36][37][38] I don't think deleting this page would improve our encyclopedic coverage of Alpha Blondy and of Ivorian and reggae music in general. --Arxiloxos (talk) 14:54, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 17:10, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Arxiloxos (talk) 20:23, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. I'm no convinced that the sources are available to take this article beyond the unsatisfactory tracklisting and infobox that we have now (although they may exist offline). The current title is no use as a redirect - why on earth anyone added '(Alpha Blondy album)' to the title is beyond me. The album title itself may be worth a redirect to Alpha Blondy, but I would suggest moving this to Grand Bassam Zion Rock without redirect before redirecting there. --Michig (talk) 07:10, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Articles about albums by notable artists seem to be uncontroversial, and the artist already has others, so not sure why this one is different. Greenman (talk) 22:02, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and I would've closed this myself as this can be improved. SwisterTwister talk 04:36, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete.  Sandstein  11:29, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

SIGOS[edit]

SIGOS (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)

Advert masquerading as an article, most of the sources are rehashed press releases, and the tone, product lists etc. are just so promotional. Doubt they're notable, but if they are then TNT would be best IMO. Joseph2302 (talk) 11:04, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 13:39, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 13:39, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete – The tone of this article suggests to me that they are trying to be persuasive. CLCStudent (talk) 17:57, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• NOT Delete – The wording was changed to a neutral perspective. Company-own press releases have been removed and references from external sources have been added instead. Self-promotional tone has been removed . 15:01, 22 March 2016 (UTC)— Preceding unsigned comment added by Weisssigos (talk • contribs) — Weisssigos (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

• No, your attempt to fix it made it so much worse, and just a product directory. I've reverted it. Joseph2302 (talk) 16:45, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Thanks for your feedback Joseph2302 and apologies for not declaring my affiliation to the company, I was not aware of the COI Issue. I like to disagree though that my changes made it so much worse, as per your comment. As per Wikipedia guidelines I included verifiable articles and references from independent, third-party reliable resources, such as the independent worldwide GSMA Association, the European Telecommunications Standards Institute (ETSI) or the international market research and analysis company Frost & Sullivan, to whom SIGOS has no relationship and therefore no COI.

In the history section I also removed all self-promotion information. Also the product overview was changed into descriptive text instead of advertising tone. Maybe you could point out where exactly the new wording still sounded like advertising, instead of descriptive facts? I'm new here and like to make it right. Hope the declaration of my affiliation with SIGOS is now also correct? Many thanks in advance

The following Wikipedia contributor has declared a personal or professional connection to the subject of this article. Relevant policies and guidelines may include conflict of interest, autobiography, and neutral point of view. weisssigos (talk · contribs) This user has declared a connection. (Sigos, disclosures, article drafts or diffs showing COI contributions.)

• Is there any more/other feedback to the new wording by me, Weisssigos which was all deleted/reverted to the old wording by Joseph2302 ? I still believe it should have not been reverted as per my comments above. Looking forward to some more feedback/help to have an entry which complies with wikipedia guidelines. Thanks Weisssigos

• Delete as the "NOT Delete" is not suggesting how this article can be noticeably improved thus I am suggesting Delete because none of this currently suggests both satisfying the applicable notability and the necessary improvements....therefore Delete for now. SwisterTwister talk 04:32, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete.  Sandstein  11:24, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Matzo Shortage of 2008[edit]

Matzo Shortage of 2008 (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 reach the level of notability for an event as there has been insufficient coverage of limited significance and there was a short news cycle for this one-time event. A current search for reliable sources turns up far fewer than would be expected for a noteworthy event. Geoff | ^{Who, me?} 21:14, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - while covered in a couple of notable news sources, it seems that this isn't notable for an article of its own.  InsertCleverPhraseHere  03:01, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:46, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:46, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:46, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:46, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. A related article, 2008 Passover margarine shortage, was kept at AfD in 2010. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2008 Passover margarine shortage (2nd nomination). (Despite the title, I don't think there was an earlier AfD.) This article should probably be merged with that one under a more general title like 2008 Passover food shortage and evaluated together. The tone of this article is also a bit unencyclopedic, which contributes to the sense that the content doesn't merit preservation. In fairness, though, coverage of Passover food shortages was quite extensive during spring 2008, in both secular and Jewish-oriented media. At minimum, there should be sourced references to the shortage in other appropriate articles, such as Manischewitz#History (since that company's temporary manufacturing problems were reported to be a major cause for the shortages:[39][40][41][42]). --Arxiloxos (talk) 18:21, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete for now at best because this still seems questionably better and questionably notable and thus there's obviously no better information since this was a then-event, nothing else better convincing. However, Redirect where ever needed, SwisterTwister talk 05:15, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Delete. not notable on its own. Perhaps it could be merged into some other "Passover" article, but it hardly seems worth it. Don't need an article every time there's a product shortage.VanEman (talk) 17:42, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. (non-admin closure) — Omni Flames (talk contribs) 03:50, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

AudioCodes[edit]

AudioCodes (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)

Corporation does not meet WP:GNG. It has received paltry coverage for its 23 year tenure and has made zero impact outside of a very small niche. Article is written like an advertisement and has very little NPOV throughout. I do not think it is possible to remove the POV and ALSO establish notability. Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 22:26, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Article has been edited by Audiocodes before to insert promotional language. In terms of news/reliable source coverage, I did manage to find a few sources similar to this. Outside of those financial results though, there's really nothing. One would expect any publicly traded company to have a regular stream of investor related news based on regulatory filings (which are what those links are). Elaenia (talk) 01:47, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 04:18, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:05, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:05, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. The article is written as Press Release and has to be redone, but the company itself has quite a lot of coverage. For example, those: [43], [44], [45], [46], [47], [48]. Arthistorian1977 (talk) 09:55, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete at best then Draft as the amount listed above is still questionable at best and the article is currently noticeably troubled thus better work and improvements would be needed. SwisterTwister talk 04:30, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Keep - Given the company trades at the NASDAQ I would vote for a keep as this passes WP:GNG. Kansiime (talk) 00:25, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Boxing at the 2015 European Games. MBisanz ^talk 00:19, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Boxing at the 2015 European Games – Women's 51 kg[edit]

Boxing at the 2015 European Games – Women's 51 kg (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 additional content that can be found on the main page. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 19:19, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Boxing at the 2015 European Games. Content could be expanded one day, like some of the other events. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 19:33, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete None of the previous European Games have an expansion for boxing results which I think is proper. Wikipedia is not supposed to be result listing so although a case can be made for higher level competitions I don't think the European Games for Boxing is. It looks like all these sub-articles were created with the intention of expansion which never happened. I see that there were several other AfDs which should have been grouped and several sub-articles that were expanded that were not sent to AfD - I think the latter should be sent to AfD eventually but I want to see how these play out first.Peter Rehse (talk) 09:42, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 10:10, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"None of the previous European Games have an expansion for boxing results" - that's because there are none, as this is the first European Games! other results have been completed, these ones haven't. For now. There's also lots of incoming links to these individual tournaments for nations/competitors and they all have the possibility of being expanded. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 19:40, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Point taken (I was confused by the European Boxing Championships). I still stand by my comment that competition trees for every weight class for every competition is not necessary. For what I think is a comparable example Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2014 Asian Wrestling Championships – Men's freestyle 57 kg.Peter Rehse (talk) 19:49, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, otherwise redirect: I agree with Lugnuts. Notable event. Many secondary sources (see here. Most of the elite events at the European Games have these sub pages, see Category:Sports at the 2015 European Games. Also many incoming links. Only if someone can show that a page of a red link is earlier created than when it is a redirect, deleting could make sense. Sander.v.Ginkel ^(Talk) 10:43, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:41, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Azerbaijan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:41, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:41, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Please note that most of this series was closed already as Redirect - I think the closing admin missed two. (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Boxing at the 2015 European Games – Women's 60 kg.Peter Rehse (talk) 12:14, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Boxing at the 2015 European Games, as per the others in this series, and as per the reasoned plurality of opinion here. FeatherPluma (talk) 19:41, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Boxing at the 2015 European Games. (non-admin closure) SSTflyer 04:11, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Boxing at the 2015 European Games – Men's 75 kg[edit]

Boxing at the 2015 European Games – Men's 75 kg (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 additional content that can be found on the main page. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 19:21, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Boxing at the 2015 European Games. Content could be expanded one day, like some of the other events. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 19:33, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete None of the previous European Games have an expansion for boxing results which I think is proper. Wikipedia is not supposed to be result listing so although a case can be made for higher level competitions I don't think the European Games for Boxing is. It looks like all these sub-articles were created with the intention of expansion which never happened. I see that there were several other AfDs which should have been grouped and several sub-articles that were expanded that were not sent to AfD - I think the latter should be sent to AfD eventually but I want to see how these play out first.Peter Rehse (talk) 09:42, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 10:12, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"None of the previous European Games have an expansion for boxing results" - that's because there are none, as this is the first European Games! other results have been completed, these ones haven't. For now. There's also lots of incoming links to these individual tournaments for nations/competitors and they all have the possibility of being expanded. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 19:40, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Point taken (I was confused by the European Boxing Championships). I still stand by my comment that competition trees for every weight class for every competition is not necessary. For what I think is a comparable example Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2014 Asian Wrestling Championships – Men's freestyle 57 kg.Peter Rehse (talk) 19:52, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, otherwise redirect: I agree with Lugnuts. Notable event. Many secondary sources (see here. Most of the elite events at the European Games have these sub pages, see Category:Sports at the 2015 European Games. Also many incoming links. Only if someone can show that a page of a red link is earlier created than when it is a redirect, deleting could make sense. Sander.v.Ginkel ^(Talk) 10:42, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:47, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Azerbaijan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:47, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:47, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect as not independently notable. SwisterTwister talk 04:33, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Boxing at the 2015 European Games. (non-admin closure) SSTflyer 04:12, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Boxing at the 2015 European Games – Men's 81 kg[edit]

Boxing at the 2015 European Games – Men's 81 kg (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 additional content that can be found on the main page. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 19:21, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Boxing at the 2015 European Games. Content could be expanded one day, like some of the other events. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 19:33, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete None of the previous European Games have an expansion for boxing results which I think is proper. Wikipedia is not supposed to be result listing so although a case can be made for higher level competitions I don't think the European Games for Boxing is. It looks like all these sub-articles were created with the intention of expansion which never happened. I see that there were several other AfDs which should have been grouped and several sub-articles that were expanded that were not sent to AfD - I think the latter should be sent to AfD eventually but I want to see how these play out first.Peter Rehse (talk) 09:42, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 10:11, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"None of the previous European Games have an expansion for boxing results" - that's because there are none, as this is the first European Games! other results have been completed, these ones haven't. For now. There's also lots of incoming links to these individual tournaments for nations/competitors and they all have the possibility of being expanded. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 19:40, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Point taken (I was confused by the European Boxing Championships). I still stand by my comment that competition trees for every weight class for every competition is not necessary. For what I think is a comparable example Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2014 Asian Wrestling Championships – Men's freestyle 57 kg.Peter Rehse (talk) 19:52, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, otherwise redirect: I agree with Lugnuts. Notable event. Many secondary sources (see here. Most of the elite events at the European Games have these sub pages, see Category:Sports at the 2015 European Games. Also many incoming links. Only if someone can show that a page of a red link is earlier created than when it is a redirect, deleting could make sense. Sander.v.Ginkel ^(Talk) 10:42, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:48, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Azerbaijan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:48, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:48, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect as not independently notable. SwisterTwister talk 04:34, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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