< 9 April 11 April >
Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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--Anthony Bradbury"talk" 11:28, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Alexandre Sap[edit]

Alexandre Sap (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:BIO and WP:GNG. I see mentions here and there, but nothing really substantial about him. The article was created by User talk:Alexandresap, so a likely WP:COI as well. Clarityfiend (talk) 23:47, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. North America1000 10:37, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. North America1000 10:37, 12 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)Davey2010Talk 21:38, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

2018 Cricket World Cup Qualifier[edit]

2018 Cricket World Cup Qualifier (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 event presumably will happen, but isn't this too soon? Mr. Guye (talk) 23:15, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. clpo13(talk) 23:20, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. North America1000 10:38, 12 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. Speedy deleted by Graeme Bartlett, CSD A7: Article about a real person, which does not credibly indicate the importance or significance of the subject (but could be restored if elected). Malcolmxl5 (talk) 05:41, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Samuel Charles Anders[edit]

Samuel Charles Anders (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 curated this page yesterday after trying to fix some issues with it. However, a cursory Google search brings up no hits other than the few Congress links. I am not seeing any notability here beyond those hits, especially as he has yet to become the party nominee. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 22:58, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. North America1000 12:49, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. North America1000 12:49, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America1000 12:49, 14 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 A7 Graeme Bartlett (talk) 12:18, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dilber Munir[edit]

Dilber Munir (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)

Autobiographical article whose subject's main claim to notability is being related to someone else. Notability is not inherited. The coverage on the subject is minimal, as well. Mr. Guye (talk) 22:50, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. clpo13(talk) 23:20, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. clpo13(talk) 23:20, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Alternative search:
WP:INDAFD: Dilber Munir
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. Sarahj2107 (talk) 13:34, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nakhjir (company)[edit]

Nakhjir (company) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

My searches found nothing better at all including News, Books, browsers and Highbeam and also local newspapers Financial Tribune and Tehran Times so there's simply nothing to suggest convincingly better improvements. SwisterTwister talk 04:38, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 04:39, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 04:39, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 04:39, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar 22:49, 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 merge to Kumho Asiana Group. Yamamoto Ichiro (talk) 11:55, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

KT Kumho Rent A Car[edit]

KT Kumho Rent A Car (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 car rental company. The refs show that it exists and rents cars but no notability. Fails WP:GNG  Velella  Velella Talk   22:07, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:56, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:56, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. North America1000 10:44, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete as searches are not finding anything noticeably better. SwisterTwister talk 06:06, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Redirect perhaps at best as this certainly is not solidly independently notable but mentioning this there may be acceptable. SwisterTwister talk 01:26, 18 April 2016‎ (UTC)[reply]
(I've amended the comment above as the editor had changed to Redirect but made their !vote all confusing, Thanks, –Davey2010Talk 01:39, 18 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. North America1000 00:17, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Alexander Solodukha[edit]

Alexander Solodukha (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 the only references listed are to other Wikipedia articles. Music1201 talk 21:49, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Belarus-related deletion discussions. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 09:18, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 09:18, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. North America1000 10:44, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. North America1000 10:45, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • What needs any more clarification than the existence of hundreds of reliable sources saying that this is one of Belarus's top stars? for example this article starts with the words "Александр Солодуха и другие звезды..." ("Alexander Solodukha and other stars..."), this one includes him in the phrase "со звездами эстрады" ("with pop stars") when talking about a TV show in which he will teach amateurs to sing and sing duets with them, this is an article from Belarus's biggest news agency about his plans to star in a film about himself, and these are just from the first handful of those thousand or so news articles. And there's nothing in any policy or guideline that says that an article must by "improved now" to be kept. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 07:42, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
[ec] Thanks to Ymblanter for another reference; am changing to a keep !vote. I'm still relying on Google Translate, so will leave it as weak. --Larry/Traveling_Man (talk) 07:28, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are so many sources, as you can see from the news search that I linked above, that it's difficult to make a selection. I really don't have time to wade through them at the moment (especially as my Russian is rather rusty - it's coming up to 40 years since I passed my A-level) but will refer you to this one, which has the headline "Как Александр Солодуха стал Суперзвездой" ("How Alexander Solodukha became a superstar") and contains the sentence "Имя эпатажного белорусского исполнителя нынче знает почти каждый житель Беларуси" ("The name of the outstanding Belorussian performer is now known to almost every inhabitant of Belarus"). That's not the sort of coverage that unnotable prople get. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 07:23, 18 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, always preferable to deletion--Ymblanter (talk) 07:00, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Miss World Chile 2015[edit]

Miss World Chile 2015 (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)

Effectively unsourced, as all given sources link to the same Facebook page, which is not acceptable as a source conform WP:RS The Banner talk 21:27, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. North America1000 10:46, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. North America1000 10:46, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Chile-related deletion discussions. North America1000 10:46, 12 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 --Anthony Bradbury"talk" 12:16, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Silvio Simac[edit]

Silvio Simac (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 was originally a PROD Questionable for any applicable notability and my searches found nothing better than a few links at News and browsers, but simply nothing better convincing. by User:SwisterTwister but declined by User:Atlantic306 as Deprod as possibly notable as national taekwondo champion. I don't think he meets notability for the latter (not the Olympic version of Taekwondo) and the claims are not supported. Also don't think he meets WP:NACTOR Peter Rehse (talk) 21:25, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 21:25, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 21:25, 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 speedy keep. Withdrawn by nominator (non-admin closure) | Uncle Milty | talk | 20:47, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Evening Descends[edit]

The Evening Descends (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 recording by a non-notable band Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:17, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. clpo13(talk) 23:23, 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 delete.  Sandstein  07:39, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Music massage therapy[edit]

Music massage therapy (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 just a bunch of uncited original analysis with only a not very good source cited just to make sure this article survives for nearly four years. I can't find any other independent source significantly covering this topic, and the citation doesn't even mention the term. This first revision of the Wikipedia article saids that the concept was "Developed by Clodagh Irish from Waterford, Ireland in June 2012", but I can't find a single bit of that info anywhere else so clearly this article is about a concept somebody made up WP:ONEDAY. I can see the relation between Music and massage therapy, but I don't need an article mostly based on original research covering a non-notable topic to be reminded of that (or maybe I did, but... you know what I mean). editorEهեইдအ😎 21:00, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. North America1000 10:47, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. North America1000 10:47, 12 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 --Anthony Bradbury"talk" 12:19, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

List of Miss World Chile Titleholders[edit]

List of Miss World Chile Titleholders (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)

Content fork of Miss World Chile The Banner talk 20:51, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:52, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Chile-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:52, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. North America1000 10:47, 12 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 Procedural close. Article speedy deleted at 12:24 on 12 April 2016 by Graeme Bartlett (talk · contribs) (G12: Unambiguous copyright infringement of http://www.projectonlineincome.com/2016/04/seven-phrases-to-keep-in-mind.html) (non-admin closure) | Uncle Milty | talk | 20:49, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Money is in the list[edit]

Money is in the list (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:NOTADICTIONARY. I don't think this is encyclopedic. Music1201 talk 20:41, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. clpo13(talk) 23:23, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. clpo13(talk) 23:23, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. North America1000 10:48, 12 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)Davey2010Talk 21:38, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Minute To Win It (Indian game show)[edit]

Minute To Win It (Indian game show) (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 program Minute To Win It (Indian game show) is just only started and it only completed 1 or 2 shows only. Also the reference which is added that's manoramaonline.com is the parent company of the channel which is airing the program. JackTracker (talk) 19:44, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. clpo13(talk) 23:21, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. clpo13(talk) 23:21, 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 Delete non-notable book by red-linked author--Anthony Bradbury"talk" 11:40, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Cachaça, Um Amor Brasileiro[edit]

Cachaça, Um Amor Brasileiro (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 to meet notability criteria for books. giso6150 (talk) 19:37, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. North America1000 10:48, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. North America1000 10:48, 12 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 per consensus. --Anthony Bradbury"talk" 12:27, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Abel Maxwell[edit]

Abel Maxwell (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)

Advertorially toned WP:BLP, based entirely on primary and unreliable sources with no evidence of any reliable source coverage in real media, of a musician with no strong claim to notability per WP:NMUSIC. As always, Wikipedia is not a free PR platform on which every musician automatically gets an article just because he exists -- real media coverage, supporting a proper claim of notability, must be present for him to earn an article. But nothing written or sourced here clears the bar -- and even if better sourcing and a stronger claim of notability can be shown, the article would still have to be rather substantially rewritten for WP:NPOV compliance. First version was about the same person, but was completely different (it tried and failed to stake his notability on WP:AUTHOR for a book, with his musical output relegated to an afterthought rather than the crux as it is here), so I don't consider it immediately speediable as a recreation of deleted content, but it's still not a keepable article in its current form. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 19:27, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 19:33, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:50, 11 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 --Anthony Bradbury"talk" 12:30, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Etteplan[edit]

Etteplan (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, fails WP:NCORP JMHamo (talk) 19:24, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America1000 10:49, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. North America1000 10:49, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Finland-related deletion discussions. North America1000 10:49, 12 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 per consensus. --Anthony Bradbury"talk" 21:17, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

County of San Juan[edit]

County of San Juan (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 appears to be a hoax or unverifiable. Legacypac (talk) 19:21, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:49, 11 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 per consensus. --Anthony Bradbury"talk" 21:20, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Gurinder Seagal[edit]

Gurinder Seagal (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:BLP of a musician which makes and sources no claim of notability per WP:NMUSIC -- as written, it literally just asserts that he exists, and is sourced entirely to passing namechecks of his existence in media blurbs about a collaborator of his, rather than to substantive coverage about him. Wikipedia is not a free PR platform on which every musician is automatically entitled to an article just because he exists -- reliable source coverage, supporting a proper claim of notability rather than mere existence, is required for the musician to earn a Wikipedia article. First version was about the same person, but was written and sourced differently enough that I don't consider this immediately speediable as a recreation of deleted content — but it's still in no way a keepable article in this form either. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 19:14, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:44, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:44, 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 delete. Sarahj2107 (talk) 13:33, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Van Lang (website)[edit]

Van Lang (website) (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)

Was not online for very long, and I cant find sources for it. John Vandenberg (chat) 19:05, 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 Delete per consensus. --Anthony Bradbury"talk" 21:25, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mohabat Kar Da Lewno Da[edit]

Mohabat Kar Da Lewno Da (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 film. Contested prod. Bradv 18:24, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. clpo13(talk) 18:32, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. clpo13(talk) 18:32, 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 delete.  Sandstein  20:57, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Parallelities[edit]

Parallelities (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 science fiction novel. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 18:24, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 15:32, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 15:32, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:06, 18 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 --Anthony Bradbury"talk" 21:27, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jashan (2016 film)[edit]

Jashan (2016 film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable film. Speedy deletion template was placed by another user and removed by an IP. Bradv 18:17, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. clpo13(talk) 18:32, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. clpo13(talk) 18:32, 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 Delete no independent references, not notable. --Anthony Bradbury"talk" 11:45, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Pulse (rock)[edit]

Pulse (rock) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:BAND. Prod contested by author. Bradv 18:14, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 18:14, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 04:47, 12 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). North America1000 01:11, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

EasyShiksha[edit]

EasyShiksha (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. I'm also wondering whether the author wants this to be deleted, because he keeps adding promotional content and the advert tag. Adam9007 (talk) 17:58, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:32, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:32, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:32, 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 delete. From WP:BIO

A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject.

The arguments for keep did not convince me how this subject meets this criteria, hence this subject is considered to be not notable. Yamamoto Ichiro (talk) 11:59, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Hyde (musician)[edit]

Chris Hyde (musician) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable individual. The blogs mention his death, but no other coverage of the individual exists. Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:49, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:55, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:55, 14 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. Nomination withdrawn. ((non-admin closure)) Mhhossein (talk) 11:02, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

 Request withdrawn Jytdog (talk) 09:59, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Deep hypothermic circulatory arrest[edit]

Deep hypothermic circulatory arrest (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The subject of this article is covered better at Targeted temperature management in terms of current medical practice. This article as it stands, is a couple of quotes out of old sources. To the extent this is meant to be about cryonics this article is unhelpful and should just redirect there. But there is no here, here. This appears to be a failed WP:POVFORK. Jytdog (talk) 16:05, 10 April 2016 (UTC) (withdrawn Jytdog (talk) 09:58, 15 April 2016 (UTC)}[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:31, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The use of deep hypothermic circulatory arrest in surgery is a separate practice in medicine from Targeted Temperature Management (TTM) also known as therapeutic hypothermia. All book references and PubMed references to TTM pertain to therapeutic hypothermia, not hypothermic circ arrest. Therapeutic hypothermia is the reduction of normal body temperature by several degrees after cardiac arrest or other neurological injury for purposes of facilitating neurological recovery by inhibiting the immune-inflammatory cascade that happens after injury. In lay terms, think of it like putting a cold compress on an injury to reduce swelling. In contrast, deep or profound hypothermic circulatory arrest is instituted as a protective measure *before* causing injury by stopping blood circulation to do surgery in a bloodless field. Not only are the names, mode of use, and purposes different, but the mechanisms by which cold protects the brain from injury during circulatory arrest is different from the mechanisms by which mild cold helps the brain heal after circulatory arrest or other injury. The protection mechanism of deep (and even colder) hypothermic circulatory arrest protection by reducing cerebral metabolic demand by suppressing brain activity. The healing facilitation of mild hypothermic *after* circulatory arrest is reduction of inflammation. They are apples and oranges. Cryobiologist (talk) 19:46, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Cardioplegia is a separate subject again, different from either hypothermic circ arrest or TTM. Cardioplegia is cooling the heart to protect the heart during circulatory arrest in the heart during open heart surgery. During cardioplegia, the bypass pump keeps blood circulation going to the rest of the body, including the brain. During deep hypothermic circulatory arrest, the bypass pump is turned off stopping blood circulation to the entire body and brain. It's cerebroplegia to protect the brain during circ arrest, not cardioplegia to protect the heart. Cryobiologist (talk) 20:11, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Everyone gets it that the use of hypothermia in CBP is something that cryonics folks pin a lot of their hopes on. But in actual practice of medicine, it is discussed together with TTM, and the use of hypothermia in CBP is not completely accepted and is being moved away from. PMID 24996609 - a 2014 review - actually identifies its use a a risk factor for poor neurological outcomes and PMID 25107725, another 2014 review, discusses the move away from DHCA (already two years ago) to more moderate or mild hypothermia, as these approaches are showing better outcomes. Jytdog (talk) 20:39, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You are still confusing two separate subjects. DHCA is not hypothermia during CBP (cardiopulmonary bypass), nor is DHCA chilling people to get better outcomes after cardiac arrest (TTM). DHCA is using cardiopulmonary bypass to first cool the patient to 18 degrees Celsius or colder, and then stopping blood circulation all together. This is a completely different thing. DHCA is used by not just used by cardiovascular surgeons during aortic arch repair, but probably even more commonly by neurosurgeons doing repair on otherwise inoperable cerebral aneurysms. The resulting isoelectric EEG is not incidental, but deliberate and even augmented by barbiturates when necessary because the more effectively action potentials are inactivated during the procedure, the better neurological outcomes have been shown to be. I understand that you were led to this article because the cryonics article pointed to it as an example of survivable isoelectric EEG in medicine, but please don't assume this means that DHCA isn't established mainstream medicine. Cryobiologist (talk) 21:32, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I am not the littlest, tiniest bit confused. You are making arguments on personal authority (your putative great authority and my putative ignorance) that don't matter in Wikipedia. I have cited sources and even the other editor arguing to keep below can see that this is one field. Jytdog (talk) 21:40, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You are asking for proof of a negative, specifically that DHCA isn't called TTM in medicine. A PubMed search for "Targeted Temperature Management" produces 187 hits. A PubMed search for "hypothermic circulatory arrest" produces 2113 hits. A PubMed search for "Targeted Temperature Managment" and "hypothermic circulatory arrest" produces zero hits. There are plenty are articles in the world about spacecraft, and there are plenty of article about submarines, but it would probably be hard to find a specific article explaining that submarines aren't spacecraft. Cryobiologist (talk) 22:25, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
that is better, thanks. A search for ""therapeutic hypothermia" brings up ~500 pubmed articles that discuss both. Sure one is more emergency medicine and the other is more focused on CV surgery, but they do the same thing for the same purpose - neuroprotection. That article is much more developed than this one. I had redirected this to that, and was considering renaming that one as a next step, and then elaborating on everything there, when you reverted the redirect. That is still what I intend to do, and it wouldn't surprise me at all if content would need to be split back out once it is actually developed enough to be a decent article. So how about that? We could even work on that together if you like. If you agree I can withdraw this AfD, and we can re-do the redirect, rename that article, elaborate it, and see if a re-split is needed. What do you say? Jytdog (talk) 22:42, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I would certainly rather work with you to make articles better rather than debate. With respect to the current proposal, when I read the abstracts, every article that comes up on PubMed under "therapeutic hypothermia" still refers exclusively to the use of mild hypothermia after cardiac arrest or other cerebral ischemia has occurred. For further corroboration of this exclusive meaning of therapeutic hypothermia or TTM, see this this review article for nurses which says

What is therapeutic hypothermia?

Therapeutic hypothermia (also called targeted temperature management) refers to deliberate reduction of the core body temperature, typically to a range of about 32° to 34° C (89.6° to 93.2° F) in patients who don’t regain consciousness after return of spontaneous circulation following a cardiac arrest. (See Exclusion criteria for therapeutic hypothermia by clicking on the PDF icon above.) Hypothermia also is used to treat newborns with perinatal asphyxia; however, this article focuses on its use in adults.

To see how DHCA doesn't fit into this, general explanations of DHCA are here and here. I can understand why you think the DHCA article is bad. It's quality and length should at least reflect the amount of popular press coverage this type of surgery has gotten, which is more than some other medical articles I've seen on Wikipedia with more obscure topic matter. Why don't we work on the DHCA article together, and try to take a break from "cryonics" debates for awhile if others will let us. Cryobiologist (talk) 23:47, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Jytdog: Are you withdrawing? Mhhossein (talk) 12:33, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
bickering, as correctly identified by Andrew D
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
There is no reason for this WP:SPLIT to exist; it is just a cryonics WP:POV fork. Jytdog (talk) 21:13, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, that's all wrong. The page started as being about a "standstill operation" – a technique of surgery in which the circulation is stopped. There has been some variation of title but that's just a matter of medical jargon and is no reason to delete. Also, splits and forks are addressed by merger, not deletion. But this page in question was created in 2006 while the TTM page which the nominator prefers was created later, in 2007, and so the claim of forking is therefore false. My !vote stands. Andrew D. (talk) 21:36, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
We delete POV forks especially when there is plenty of room in the broader article. You don't seem to be arguing to benefit the encyclopedia but rather about something else (I do get it that you were unhappy over that Lens regeneration stuff). Look at this piece of crap article - two extended quotes - and see what links here. The dahling of the cryonics crowd, is what this is. Nothing more. No here here. Jytdog (talk) 21:40, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The connection with cryonics seems quite tangential as this is a technique developed for use in living patients. Here's another source about the topic: Deep hypothermic circulatory arrest. This further demonstrates the notability of the topic and the irrelevance of the cryonics connection. There's not the slightest case for deletion here and so my !vote stands. Andrew D. (talk) 21:54, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
That source is the same as which is already in the article (current ref #2, just a different publication).--☾Loriendrew☽ (ring-ring) 21:58, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I found that source in an independent search so I suppose it's a good one. But there's plenty more out there as Google Scholar provides over 11,000 papers when one searches for this exact title. This is more than ample to demonstrate notability and so, again, there's no reason for us to be deleting anything. The nomination seems to have its origin is some dispute about cryonics when this technique is more about cardiac and neurosurgery. The nomination is therefore disruptive in nature, as it fails to focus on the main aspects of the topic. My !vote stands. Andrew D. (talk) 22:06, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I had originally redirected this very thin stub to the Targeted temperature management article and that was reverted by Cryobiologist here. Hence the AfD, which is based on our policies about overlapping content (NOTABILITY, SPLIT, POV fork). and is 100% rooted in the article that exists and how it should fit in the Encyclopedia that exists, and your further comments make it even more clear how personally-driven this is for you. Anyway. enough back and forth except... google scholar for a medical topic. Facepalm Facepalm . Jytdog (talk) 22:15, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The nomination seems to be 100% battleground because it makes no sense when considered in terms of our policies for building the encyclopedia. If one doesn't care for Google scholar, then there are over 5000 search results in Google books. Again, these are more than ample to demonstrate the notability of the topic and the bizarre nature of the nomination. The nominator should please cease their attempts to shout down contrary !votes as this tends to make the discussion rather tiresome. I shall be retiring now to sleep but any further attempt to seize the last word should not be construed as changing my !vote which is now quite definite in opposition to deletion of this notable topic. Andrew D. (talk) 22:28, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Could have done a merge request too. And I have no question that your vote will be changed. I am making clear how funky your vote is. But you are right, none of this is helpful an I will hat it. Jytdog (talk) 22:33, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
So everyone is clear on the chronology, the DHCA article was never forked from Targeted_temperature_management, and Targeted_temperature_management never contained any mention of DHCA until today when a small passage was added concurrent with the redirection and then deletion nomination of the DHCA article. Merger can seem justified if it appears that overlap previously existed, but it didn't. Cryobiologist (talk) 00:21, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed. The DHCA page was created in 2006 (as "standstill operation") while the TTM page was created later, in 2007. Andrew D. (talk) 06:18, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I don't mean POV fork in time, I mean in function. Jytdog (talk) 06:19, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
That would be a redundant fork, not a POV fork. But, it appears that this is not a fork at all; they are just related articles. Andrew D. (talk) 06:30, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
respectfully disagree w/[1]--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 15:10, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - to clarify the POV fork thing - I am not talking about historically, but rather functionally - how these articles are used and interlinked within WP. This article is not even linked at the relevant articles about aortic procedures (which need a ton of work themelves) It is linked at all the cryonics articles. And I am very very aware of the difference in the procedures. What they share is a common approach (use of cold in medicine), a common goal (primarily neuroprotective) and common problems in rewarming and reperfusion. Was thinking of renaming the other to make it better "head" article like "Therapeutic Hypothermia" or maybe better "Hypothermia in medicine". From an encyclopedic perspective that would make total sense. I was fully anticipating a re-split of things as necessary. But right now the two articles live in different universes and this one is pitiful and underlinked. Jytdog (talk) 02:12, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I certainly agree that Therapeutic hypothermia (which already links to Targetted temp management) Hypothermia in medicine are both vastly better terms for a merged article than using Targeted temperature management, which is just wrong for the deep hypothermic arrest methods. Perhaps even better is Hypothermia for neuroprotection in medicine, since hypothermia in medicine covers everything to use of initial cold packs on sports injuries. Interestingly enough, some of the latter is probably what happens to brains in mild hypothermia. When it works, it probably works like those cold packs, not by altering metabolism (it's not severe enough to do much of that) but by altering other pathways (and damping others, such as inflammatory cascades). On the other hand, the deep hypothermia arrest techniques are very brute force metabolic approaches as can be seen by the fact that their duration time limits can more or less be calculated by the old Q10 rule: brain metabolism is cut roughly by 2 (actually more like 2.2) for every 10 C drop from normal temperature. There is no such principle at work in the mild hypothermia targetted techniques. In fact, sometimes they don't work at all! SBHarris 03:02, 11 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. While article has an informal tone, the !keep rationales clearly show he passes WP:PROF. (non-admin closure) Onel5969 TT me 12:46, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Leonard Sweet[edit]

Leonard Sweet (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The article contains quite some claims of notability, but not the reliable sources to back up those claims. The only two sources that aren't Sweet's own website or his book are this self-published piece which in turn refers to this, which for all I can tell is, despite the self-description, neither in Russian nor particularly reliable, and this publication by a ministry. The majority of our article's content is not confirmed by either of these weak sources, and removing unsourced and unreliably sourced content would amount to blanking it. My own sources have brought up passing mentions in international newspapers such as The Hindu, but not any significant coverage. Articles by columnists about Sweet, which wouldn't be reliable sources anyway, disagree wildly, from calling him a best-selling author to claiming that not many people read the works of Leonard Sweet. In summary, this is a rather promotional piece not supported by the given references, and better references that would allow us to rewrite the article do not seem to exist. Huon (talk) 15:55, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 15:34, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 15:34, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 15:34, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Scholarly source discussing his position within Evangelical momemnet (Sweeney, Douglas A.. 1991. “The Essential Evangelicalism Dialectic: The Historiography of the Early Neo-evangelical Movement and the Observer-participant Dilemma”. Church History 60 (1). [American Society of Church History, Cambridge University Press]: 70–84. http://www.jstor.org/stable/3168523.)E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:05, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You're welcome to improve the article. It's not me saying Sweet's work isn't read, it's one of the rather few third-party sources (of dubious reliability - it's an opinion piece, but in a national newspaper) I managed to find. If this is kept I'll simply remove the unsourced and unreliably sourced, promotional content from the BLP, leaving us with a one-line stub unless someone else can present sources that would actually allow us to write about Sweet in some detail. I don't have access to the source E.M.Gregory found, so I can't make use of that myself. Huon (talk) 17:07, 17 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. A rough headcount shows that "delete" and "keep" opinions are about equally divided, 14 to 13. As is usual in discussions about controversial topics that draw a wide non-Wikipedian audience, I'm discounting opinions by IPs and very new accounts to filter out meatpuppets, sockpuppets and canvassed individuals, so as to increase the likelihood that the outcome reflects the consensus and practice of the community of Wikipedia editors. This gets us an adjusted headcount of about 12 "delete" to 8 "keep". Assessing the strength of argument in light of Wikipedia policies and guidelines, I have to discount a few other opinions because they do not address the policy-based rationale for deletion, such as the "keep" that just likes a particular article Auerbach wrote, and give less weight to opinions that merely assert, rather than discuss, the subject's (non-)notability. The remaining opinions, by mostly experienced editors, paint a picture of a journalist who is "borderline" notable in Wikipedia terms, with editors disagreeing in good faith about whether the coverage about him is sufficient to warrant inclusion. That's not something I can determine by fiat, and therefore, even though we have a numerical trend in favor of deletion, we do not have consensus, resulting in the article being kept by default, for now. I recommend that any renomination takes place at least a few months from now, which might reduce the risk of distraction by Internet drama.  Sandstein  07:59, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

David Auerbach[edit]

David Auerbach (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)

(Previous deletion discussion was for an unrelated subject with the same name).

No indication from searches that the subject is covered by multiple independent, reliable sources. Sources cited in the article are predominantly written by the subject and are in any case only listed to note their work history or opinions. The only independent source cited on the page is an awards landing page which lists Auerbach's employment at Slate.

They do show up in Google Scholar/Books, but that's partially their patents (https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=l1LvKQIAAAAJ) and books referencing their articles (I've spot checked some of them and they don't appear to go beyond passing mentions). Protonk (talk) 15:45, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Jorm, that is not correct. See below, for Elaenia's comment. Drmies (talk) 01:50, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Updated to keep. I went back and did another search with WP:JOURNALIST #1 in mind, rather than searching for articles about Auerbach and found enough to satisfy it. So long as we consider someone notable for being "widely cited by peers", he is indeed notable. I guess I don't evaluate journalist AfDs all that often. Here are some of the sources I found which demonstrate this, and these look to just be scraping the surface: Daily Mail, Fast Company, Huffington Post, Washington Post, The Guardian, Tech Crunch, Los Angeles Times, Columbia Journalism Review, Vice Motherboard, Aljazeera, Washington Post again, The Verge, Bloomberg View... — Rhododendrites talk \\ 03:34, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I need to say something about the direction this thread has taken via some of the keep votes. Any !vote based on Wikipedia public relations rationales should be completely disregarded. It's been shown that this nomination was not a retaliation, having been initiated before the recent Twitter mess. I presume some participants are here because they don't like Auerbach and some are here because he brought their attention to it and they wish to defend him. Neither is great, but there's no reason whatsoever this discussion shouldn't stick to the question of whether or not the subject satisfies Wikipedia's notability criteria. If someone has a strong bias either way, that's not ideal, but it's ok for people to have an opinion if they also have strong arguments. The problem is when opinions take the place of substance (where substance=arguments as to whether notability criteria are satisfied). What is total nonsense is the idea that because he criticizes Wikipedia and is willing to rant about this AfD to his Twitter followers, that this article should somehow be treated with kid gloves for "appearances". Absolutely not. He's notable; keep the article because he's notable; weigh the arguments about notability; keep PR out of it. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 03:34, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Actually it doesn't. That ship sailed long ago. Just being a good writer at a top publication, or good at anything, doesn't confer notability. Even two profile articles about him could be sufficient, but apparently they don't exist. I'm having trouble understanding the keep votes in this discussion, its not like we're dealing with a new issue here. Cf. Andrea Peyser, an article that for some reason caused amusement elsewhere when I wrote it, but there have been a number of articles written about her.--Milowenthasspoken 16:01, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
cmatrix4761 - "GamerGate Controversey"? "Retaliation tactic"? I think your reasoning and assertions are a bit over-the-top here. I highly recommend that you take a look at Wikipedia's general notability guidelines, as well as Wikipedia's notability guidelines regarding authors. These are the two guidelines that most editors will reference or review while they research and make a decision regarding this AFD discussion. ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 15:58, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Torchiest, that is not quite true. The Atlantico article quotes Mr Auerbach at length and even mentions his sister and brother. As for the other sources, let's just say that it would be nice if the other contributors to this discussion had a look at them and made up their own minds.
Drmies, you know me so well. I've got gamer friends, software developer friends, and a child who used to live for WoW and Minecraft. Oh, and I was also the gamergaters' bête noire du jour for a hot minute back in September 2014.
Have you seen Mr Auerbach's recent tweets? Look past the hyperbole and you'll find another BLP "subject" who was hurt by WP. I don't enjoy seeing people get hurt on here, even if they appear to be masochists who think that having a Wikipedia biography is all that. David Auerbach may eventually wake up to the fact that having to examine the recent additions to his article for libel and trollage for the rest of his life is not as much fun as advertised. He may find himself declared the dad of a baby with a fellow journalist he's just good friends with. Far-fetched? Try me. Check how long it took you and your colleagues to "fix" that outrageous example of BLP feckery. There's too few of you to even notice this kind of carp. WP is among the most irresponsible websites on this planet, and, yet, as this case proves, people still seem keen on being listed as notable on here.
I'm actually hoping that you guys will decide to delete Mr Auerbach's article so as to ensure that another Wikipedia critic will help you all dig yourself some more into that warm and comfy grave you're all busy working on. DracoE 18:10, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • The piece in the atlantico is basically them re-blogging his slate article. Any detail there (including the biographical detail you mention) about Auerbach were in his slate column--I checked. That's not a source focusing on the subject at all. Protonk (talk) 00:02, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oh hai, Protonk. You mean to say that Atlantico found Mr Auerbach's piece in Slate important enough to quote from it? Got you. You know what else I got? The fact that you, as an employee of a WMF spinoff, get to nominate the biography of a Wikipedia critic for deletion. That has more than a whiff of impropriety about it. DracoE 04:44, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Let's stop with the bullshit conspiracy theories, please? I !voted here, and the subject then went on a multi-tweet screed about an imagined conspiracy because I have talked with Gamaliel at some point in time. It's pointless and incorrect. This article should never have passed the first order of page curation and validation; I'm frankly surprised that we're even having this conversation. So please: let's stop with the aspersions. They make you look bad; no one else.--Jorm (talk) 06:36, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Draco's right - whatever the outcome it would be better if we avoid the appearance of impropriety . Given the number of current (and former) WMF-ers who found their way to this obscure little article we're not doing a very good job. Maybe a friendly push or two will help. James J. Lambden (talk) 07:06, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Right, right. I haven't worked at the Foundation in over a year and a half and I'm probably the last person to be singing its praises overall. I had no idea who the fuck this guy was, or that he was a "Wikipedia critic" (who isn't?) and ProtonK isn't a WMF employee nor has been, ever. But keep barking that conspiracy theory. It's really believable. --Jorm (talk) 07:17, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I think people who have written RS articles exposing the tragedy of global warming deserve special treatment, WP should adopt such a policy as a public service. Raquel Baranow (talk) 17:34, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Mr Ernie, the basic issue is that the subject here hasn't had major newspaper profiles written about him, while Wood has. With Wood, the debate focused on BLP1E, and I don't think her article was wise to keep. I've written articles on many journalists, and I wouldn't have created one on Auerbach, as it wouldn't meet WP:GNG. If anything, the swirl of controversy surrounding this discussion is more likely to result in an incorrect keep. I haven't "voted" either because if the closing admin is weighing policy and the strength of the arguments, delete is the correct outcome.--Milowenthasspoken 11:41, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not enough coverage in RS about the subject to pass NAUTHOR or GNG. There is not even a good claim of notability in the article. He writes for Slate. So? He thinks Wikipedia is screwed up. So? How is this significant? The article is a stub because there is nothing to say about this person not because there are RS out there on which to base an article on but are not in the article yet. This is the very definition of non-notable. JbhTalk 13:00, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
How does he pass GNG? The link E.M.Gregory noted has only passing mentions and quotes, and those from Brietbart or, his home publication, Slate. What significant coverage about him is there? I will happily change my !vote if some can be shown. JbhTalk 19:15, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Scroll down that link to find discussions of his articles in Forbes, Reason (magazine). Here's The Atlantic citing his "masterful" review of a new Pynchon novel [[9]]. The argument here is [WP:JOURNALIST]] # 1. "widely cited by peers." More out there. But I am also concerned that the animus apparent in this AFD may be due to the fact that he is known for his widely cited criticism of Wikipedia, i.e. WP:COI, and it just makes us look silly and yo know, like we WP:OWN Wikipedia because we edit here and so we delete the bios of our critics. I'm not accusing any particular editors of bias, just saying that this is how this debate will look to others.E.M.Gregory (talk) 00:15, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm.... One Forbes article has one sentence "Blame Apple" wrote David Auerbach of Slate and this one [10] is about a different person unless he is a RAND policy analyst. The Atlantic article you link says only "Since you can read a definitive review of Pynchon's novel by David Auerbach..." and nothing else. This does not come close to any of our notability criteria. JbhTalk 00:56, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
As someone who's tried hard to get marginal authors' articles saved on many occasions, I know that simple listings of upcoming lectures and the like are not sufficient. The New America link is already in the article, and is not an independent source. Perhaps if his book gets coverage, this could be recreated. —Torchiest talkedits 02:20, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
In response to Torchiest and JBHunley, My point is that this is one of the ways to separate notable journalists form non-notable ones, and that Auerback can be seen as somewhat notable. Notable journalists win fellowships to spend a year writing a book at a think-tank; get a contract from a major publisher; are invited by universities and major public forums to speak and be panelists; and other writers endorse their work by citing it. In Auerbach's case, on a great many of the topics he has written about, you easily find people citing him in books, or, for example, this week, in The Verge: "By then, as Slate tech columnist David Auerbach wrote, Reddit was widely seen as "a cesspool of hate in dire need of repair." [14]. Notability for a journalist is cumulative.E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:05, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Credability for a journalist is cumulative however, in the Wikipedia world, WP:NOTABILITY is not. Many of the keep votes seem to rest on a special pleading to avoid bad optics. Optics may inform editorial discression in borderline cases of things like DUE etc once a subject passes the threshold for inclusion but are in no way an appropriate reason to do an end run arround established content guidelines. JbhTalk 16:19, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Now wait just a cotton pickin' minute here... nobody is trying to "do an end run" around any guidelines. First of all, WP:NOTABILITY is a "guideline" not policy. In fact, it says right there on the guideline page: "It is a generally accepted standard that editors should attempt to follow, though it is best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply".
Note the "common sense" and "occasional exceptions". This is a borderline case, and reasonable minds can disagree, but implying that I am trying to pull a fast one (or an "end run") is kind of offensive. There is a case to be made for inclusion, and it is not as black and white as some here are implying.
What we have here is, in my opinion, an "occasional exception" requiring "common sense". The "common sense" here is, the cost versus benefits. The benefit here to deleting this article? One less stub, and that's about it. The cost? Perhaps Wikipedia's reputation. That's it, in sum. Editors here are willing to risk reinforcing the encylopedia's reputation for deleting the articles of critics for what exactly? One less stub. What a cost for such a stupendously small benefit.
What exactly IS "Wikipedia's reputation"? The encyclopedia has a reputation for putting up for deletion the articles of people and organizations that criticize Wikipedia or the causes its editors advocate. Here's an example of what I'm talking about: editor "Cwobeel" submits the article of a webzine critical of Wikipedia for deletion. His timing was impeccable... he submitted it for deletion literally within a matter of days of The Federalist's criticisms of Wikipedia. There was a certain amount of attention payed to his action amongst Wikipedia watchers and some media watchers. This event damaged Wikipedia's reputation and for what? To have one fewer stub? Was that the benefit Cwobeel was seeking when he put the reputation of the encyclopedia in harms way?
We have a similar case here. A media critic of Wikipedia suddenly finds his article up for deletion. Yes, it looks horrible, and has terrible optics. And yes, deleting it will seal Wikipedia's reputation for vindictiveness. And for what? So there can be one less stub? Astounding.
Let's show some "common sense" here. In a borderline case for inclusion, where the very reputation of the encyclopedia is on the line, let's give that reputation at least a little weight in our deliberations, whattaya say? Marteau (talk) 19:58, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:04, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:05, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:05, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:05, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
There speaks a man who has never been shortlisted for a prize.E.M.Gregory (talk) 01:42, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Clearly not so clear. What is unusual about his page, compared with run of the mill AFD discussions, is the lack of interest on the part of editors in searching for sources. Granted, it's tricky, since the best keywords to use when a guy has had multiple patents granted to him, has both worked in and written about relatively arcane fields of software development, and has a name that he shares with several people, including a businessman involved in IT, and at least a couple of published academics. Nevertheless, I am used to AFDs re: Authors, journalists, and scholars in which editors search for and bring sources to the discussion. We are under scrutiny, and it's not admirable.E.M.Gregory (talk) 01:42, 19 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. Deletion argument failed to convince me how this would fail our notability guideline as per WP:N or WP:BIO. While the coverage of the subject is not great enough to turn this into a FA/GA, there's is minimal enough coverage to meet the guidelines for WP:N. Yamamoto Ichiro (talk) 12:20, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Florence Devouard[edit]

Florence Devouard (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 is nominated for deletion since subject is not notable outside of her Wikimedia involvement and fails WP:GNG and WP:BIO. No favoritism should be displayed to insiders no matter how senior. Mohsinpathania (talk) 15:00, 10 April 2016 (UTC) Mohsinpathania (talkcontribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

1.The person has received a well-known and significant award or honor, or has been nominated for one several times.
- Awarded the rank of chavalier by the president of France here as "présidente d'une fondation mondiale ; 15 ans d'activités professionnelles"
2.The person has made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in his or her specific field
- présidente d'une fondation mondiale - as above citation
Moreover, I find it difficult to Assume good faith:-
This nomination is malformed, and incorrect, as it is the 4th nomination, not the third
This nomination is not listed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2016 April 10
This nomination was started by an editor as their second edit, and occurred immediately after an IP had removed most of the references from the article. - Arjayay (talk) 17:00, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment: DELETE A withdrawn nomination must be treated as null (as though it never happened). The nomination was listed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2016 April 10, see [16]. I nominated this article after locating this on internete En:WP article for Florence Devouard while searching for more sources for Wikipedia Sucks keyword.
    WP:ANYBIO is not satisfied. The "appointment" (not award) of chevalier given to this person is a relatively insignificant and ordinary badge and in the lowest possible grade, ("You call these baubles, well, it is with baubles that men are led"-Napoleon). The 2nd part is also not satisfied, such a person will have been written about, in depth, independently in multiple history books on that field, by historians. Mohsinpathania (talk) 01:24, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I struck your delete !vote, as that is implied with your nomination. --| Uncle Milty | talk | 21:11, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment: Since the previous nominator was unduly influenced to withdraw his nomination despite strong sentiment to delete, I have also nominated Mutant Pop Records for deletion. PS. Website owner - There is some software bug in your template "subst:afd3", kindly correct it. Mohsinpathania (talk) 02:19, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I haven't looked into any other aspects of notability, but I certainly don't believe that being a chevalier, the lowest level of membership, in the Ordre national du Mérite goes any way towards conferring notability on its own. That is roughly equivalent to being an MBE in the UK, but it is generally accepted that a subject needs to be at least two levels higher in the order, a CBE, before that honour is considered to be notability-granting. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 21:44, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment: You are mistaken Sir. I was clearly blocked on Commons for requesting a deletion for monkey selfie image. My ground was that the EXIF data (Copyyright Management Information) had been stripped out in breach of USC code by a Commons bureuacrat and sysop to misrepresent that the image was authored in 2011, and not 2008 as published on NBCNEWS.COM. I am presently in active correspondence with your Websites legal counsel over this block and related issues, and certain clarifications have already been provided to me by Shri Rogers (Legal Counsel for Wikipedia). I am not at all describable as a vandal or disruptive person for pointing out breaches of Foundation Terms of Usage and US laws applicable to your esteemed website,and I am not in any edit war on your website. Mohsinpathania (talk) 06:57, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:01, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:01, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:01, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:01, 18 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 non-notable pageant; all other single-year entries deleted. --Anthony Bradbury"talk" 21:57, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Miss Asia Pacific 1969[edit]

Miss Asia Pacific 1969 (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)

Annual page of a pageant deemed not notable enough for an article. Sourced only to a blog site and the pageant's own website. Legacypac (talk) 15:03, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. clpo13(talk) 16:35, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. clpo13(talk) 16:35, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. clpo13(talk) 16:35, 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 delete (procedural as article was already deleted). —Nizolan (talk) 21:10, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Kozicki coat of arms[edit]

Kozicki coat of arms (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)

Add copy at: User:Akozick/Kozicki Coat of Arms

De-PRODDED by Kvng on the basis of this AfD discussion, though no comment was made on this particular article. The article gives no context or indication of notability, and I can't find any sources non-trivially discussing a pre-19th century Alexander Kozicki, much less his coat of arms. The Polish Biographical Index does list one Aleksander Kozicki/Kosicki, but he is presumably not the subject of this article since he lived from 1802 to 1886, after the Commonwealth had been dissolved. —Nizolan (talk) 15:03, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. —Nizolan (talk) 15:05, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • It was a member of the long list given in that discussion, I just meant no one actually commented on this article specifically (and the consensus seemed to be to discuss each article on its own merits, rather than an affirmative keep for each one). Just meant to register it as a clerk note-type thing and courtesy ping anyway, not a complaint about your action! —Nizolan (talk) 16:30, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. And I was just trying (badly) to clarify that Mdann52 who closed the previous deletion discussion in applying the talk page template seemed to assert that the Keep result there applied to this article. A previous AfD result makes this article ineligible for WP:PROD, thus my WP:DEPROD. I don't have an opinion about whether this article should be kept. ~Kvng (talk) 13:55, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've added the userspace version which is at MfD - basically combining discussions here. Legacypac (talk) 08:35, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Most of this user's pages have now been deleted as hoaxes. Tagging this now. Legacypac (talk) 04:23, 14 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. Sarahj2107 (talk) 13:32, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Kuusou Mesorogiwi[edit]

Kuusou Mesorogiwi (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 sources and no assertion of notability. Being the theme song of an anime alone does not make it notable enough to have its own article. It needs to have significant coverage from reliable sources. nyuszika7h (talk) 14:57, 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 List of diplomatic missions of Lithuania. Redirect is 99% the prefferred outcome (opposed to deletion) and consensus is to redirect anyway (non-admin closure)Davey2010Talk 23:31, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Embassy of Lithuania, Brussels[edit]

Embassy of Lithuania, Brussels (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

fails WP:ORG. Embassies are not inherently notable . This article merely confirms it exists. LibStar (talk) 14:51, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No significant coverage of the embassy and no inherent notability (although it has been suggested from time to time). On a side note, someone should take a sledgehammer to Category:Diplomatic missions by sending country, as most of the entries there fail the same notability criterion. No longer a penguin (talk) 09:17, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. North America1000 12:55, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lithuania-related deletion discussions. North America1000 12:55, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Belgium-related deletion discussions. North America1000 12:55, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of diplomatic missions of Lithuania. Smartyllama (talk) 17:34, 14 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 consensus is that this article does not meet the criteria for inclusion on Wikipedia, with a lack of reliable independent sources. PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 15:38, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

MacDonald Turkey Point Marina[edit]

MacDonald Turkey Point Marina (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 business SmartSE (talk) 14:00, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 14:45, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:57, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:09, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 10:37, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, I was just trying to help a small business owner out because I care about such things. I've withdrawn from their project. I was unaware that my tiny freelance fee would constitute such a tempest in a teapot. I think I now remember why I left the Wikipedia community in the first place many years ago (different username). Peace out. Laskiblue62 (talk) 14:36, 14 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 --Anthony Bradbury"talk" 21:48, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Maclain Nelson[edit]

Maclain Nelson (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)

Speedy was declined even though article is only a partial sentence that does not indicate any roles this actor played. Postcard Cathy (talk) 13:20, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Musa Talk  14:28, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Musa Talk  14:28, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Musa Talk  14:29, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I wasn't sure of the best approach to this. WP:AFDISNTCLEANUP asks for good eventually souceable material but here we only had a half completed sentence. I really did think a speedy or a PROD was enough.Peter Rehse (talk) 18:43, 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 speedy keep (Criterion 1) (non-admin closure)  Rebbing  23:40, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Kammatipaadam[edit]

Kammatipaadam (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)

Unreleased film does not meet the film notability guideline's requirement of significant, independent coverage, and, per WP:NFF, "films that . . . have not yet been publicly released . . . should generally not have their own articles unless the production itself is notable per the notability guidelines."  Rebbing  18:17, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

My nomination was bad, and I feel bad. I withdraw.  Rebbing  23:40, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:56, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:56, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
a deeper look...
proper spelling:(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
studio:(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL
type:(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL
and with WP:INDAFD: Kammatti Paadam Rajeev Ravi Dulquer Salman Vinay Forrt Kammatipaadam
Response: It is unfortunate that Indian media do not usually write long and incisive articles about their films, but I believe just as you stated above "the film clearly passes WP:NFF" and also that the likelihood of there being even more toward WP:NF is pretty much assured in consideration of the notable director and cast.. it will just take looking. Toward your narrow interpretation of WP:NFF (paragraph 3), you might then offer a suitable place where the information might be merged for a few weeks, and in the meantime I'll do some work on it so others may also agree as do we both that WP:NFF is met and as a suitable stub article it can be kept and expanded over time and through regular editing. Thanks, Schmidt, Michael Q. 05:25, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps I wasn't clear above. I agree that the film doesn't have a problem under WP:NFF paragraph 1 (films not confirmed to have commenced principal photography should not have articles), but that's not the same as saying the film satisfies the notability guidelines. In my view, NPP paragraph 3 (unreleased films) forecloses notability as the production itself is not notable: the production coverage of which I am aware is either not reliable or very much routine and not at all significant, and I also believe it wouldn't be notable under WP:NF and WP:GNG even as a released film. Also, notability doesn't transfer (a film isn't notable merely because its performers or directors are notable), and the future possibility of notability doesn't make a subject notable today.
As for merging, there is almost no content in this article to merge. The article can be summed up as: a certain Malayalam film was directed by a certain person, written by another, stars these people, was written at this time, and is slated to be released later this year. I would suggest mentioning the film in each participant's filmography, as appears to have been done. I believe retaining this stub, as you suggest, would be inappropriate at this time.  Rebbing  05:51, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, you were not clear. Either it passes the inclusion criteria (even if barely) of WP:NFF (paragraph 3) or it does not. So we await a consensus. If others agree it does, it can be allowed to stay as a (guideline encouraged) improvable stub (see WP:IMPERFECT)... for as as much as it would be wonderful if everything written for Wikipedia was already perfect, such wished-for perfection is not an absolute demand of guideline nor policy. Imagine how pointless this work would have been had all 682 been perfect at their outset. And to further disagree with you and since all sources speak toward the director Rajeev Ravi, I included a sourced statement therein worthy of being at most a very temporary redirect target. And if deleted, we definitely need to encourage someone to continue working on a version in a draftspace, as the current stub when WP:REFUNDED would be sent again to AFD by someone else (not you) impatient with the pace of regular editing, and/or unable or unwilling (not you) to find the many available sources. Schmidt, Michael Q. 08:56, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please note that my objection to this article has little to do with its current imperfection and much to do with its subject: notability isn't based on the article's sourcing, and, therefore, no amount of improvement, encouragement, or patience could make this subject notable.  Rebbing  14:27, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You are correct that notability is not based upon sources being used, but rather upon their being available. Abd while I only posted the first few I found to show what you missed in your own BEFORE, I feel there is enough more sourcing available to meet inclusion under WP:NFF (paragraph 3) and so to allow continued efforts. You do not. I feel the topic can be improved to serve the project. You do not. A difference of opinion is fine, but that is why I will await consensus. Cheers. Schmidt, Michael Q. 01:01, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Onel5969 TT me 12:56, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
As for WP:BITE (guideline), I don't read it as discouraging nominating for deletion new editors' articles; new page patrollers routinely CSDify articles created by brand-new contributors—an arguably harsher treatment. In your digging, you should have noticed that this was the editor's fourth new article in less than an hour; all of his article creations, including the two he'd created the week before, were similarly undeveloped and unimproved, so waiting on this seemed unlikely to improve matters—especially as my concern was notability, not article content, and notability, if lacking, cannot be established by any amount of heroic editing.  Rebbing  16:36, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I for one am not stalking him, but I've noticed this newcomer writing unsourced articles and, while not as impatient as others, I agree that most (but not all) were premature. Being somewhat more welcoming when I politely offered some advice on his talk page already festooned with oh-so-friendly deletion notifications. He has not edited for many days now, so I hope he has not been chased away.
And while you may certainly feel otherwise... but when so many sources are available for this completed film simply awaiting release in perhaps 3 weeks, I believe nominating a new editor's article 23 minutes after creation seems a bit hurried IMHO. Thank you for once again for repeating yourself, but you seem to have missed my asking for input from others, and decided instead to rehash your repeated refutation of inclusion guideline by using statements embellished by "essays". Time now for others please, as I feel it is a suitable WP:STUB that increases a reader's understanding of the topic being discussed. And unless policy and guideline are wrong, increasing a reader's understanding is why Wikipedia is here in the first place. Schmidt, Michael Q. 07:53, 13 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 pageant deemed non-notable. --Anthony Bradbury"talk" 21:52, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Miss Asia Pacific 1981[edit]

Miss Asia Pacific 1981 (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)

Year version belonging to a pageant that was deemed not notable. (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Miss Asia Pacific International) The Banner talk 11:52, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 10:47, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 10:47, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 10:47, 13 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 per consensus; single-year article about non-notable pageant. --Anthony Bradbury"talk" 22:01, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Miss Asia Pacific 1980[edit]

Miss Asia Pacific 1980 (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)

Year version belonging to a pageant that was deemed not notable. (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Miss Asia Pacific International) The Banner talk 11:51, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 10:46, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 10:46, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 10:46, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. User Zedopuppy has been indef blocked for disruptive editing. Improvement needs references to substantial coverage by reliable sources, which do not appear to be available. A search yields the usual passing mentions, photographs and pageant blog posts. • Gene93k (talk) 23:23, 16 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 non-notable pageant. --Anthony Bradbury"talk" 22:04, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Miss Asia Pacific 1982[edit]

Miss Asia Pacific 1982 (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)

Year version belonging to a pageant that was deemed not notable. (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Miss Asia Pacific International) The Banner talk 11:51, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]


Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 10:47, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 10:47, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 10:47, 13 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 about one edition of pageant deleted as non notable. --Anthony Bradbury"talk" 22:06, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Miss Asia Pacific 1983[edit]

Miss Asia Pacific 1983 (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)

Year version belonging to a pageant that was deemed not notable. (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Miss Asia Pacific International) The Banner talk 11:51, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 10:50, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 10:50, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 10:50, 13 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 as article about one year of pageant deemed not notable. --Anthony Bradbury"talk" 22:09, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Miss Asia Pacific 1984[edit]

Miss Asia Pacific 1984 (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)

Year version belonging to a pageant that was deemed not notable. (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Miss Asia Pacific International) The Banner talk 11:50, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 10:52, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 10:52, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 10:52, 13 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 article about single episode of non-notable pageant. --Anthony Bradbury"talk" 22:12, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Miss Asia Pacific 1986[edit]

Miss Asia Pacific 1986 (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)

Year version belonging to a pageant that was deemed not notable. (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Miss Asia Pacific International) The Banner talk 11:50, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 10:40, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 10:40, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 10:40, 13 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 --Anthony Bradbury"talk" 22:14, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Miss Asia Pacific 1988[edit]

Miss Asia Pacific 1988 (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)

Year version belonging to a pageant that was deemed not notable. (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Miss Asia Pacific International) The Banner talk 11:50, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 10:53, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 10:53, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 10:53, 13 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. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 12:31, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nee Vaa Sruthi Polam[edit]

Nee Vaa Sruthi Polam (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 film. Fails WP:GNG for lack of available sources. - MrX 12:08, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89(T·C) 23:13, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89(T·C) 23:13, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
filmmaker:(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)
star:(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
studio:(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
WP:INDAFD: Nee Vaa Sruthi Polam Saravana Arun Ram Shweta Suvedha UGG Creations
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein  11:32, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  1. The source (which is the youtube video) is not watched by enough people.Daniel kenneth (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · SUL · CA · checkuser (log)) 18:06, 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 delete. czar 14:07, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dennis Phua[edit]

Dennis Phua (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 Almost no sources exist to show notability. Lemongirl942 (talk) 10:44, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Joseph2302 (talk) 13:06, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. Joseph2302 (talk) 13:06, 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 delete. The consensus is that as the club is not in a fully-professional league, the season article does not meet the criteria for inclusion. PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 15:40, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

2013 Orange County Blue Star season[edit]

2013 Orange County Blue Star season (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)

devoid of content Rathfelder (talk) 10:02, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Joseph2302 (talk) 13:04, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Joseph2302 (talk) 13:04, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:56, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:56, 18 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. Yamamoto Ichiro (talk) 12:43, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ariana Jollee[edit]

Ariana Jollee (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 PORNBIO and the GNG. Negligible independent reliable sourcing. "Superslut of the Year" is not a significant award, and if Wikipedia were a sensible place it would be seen as a BLP violation. Tendentiously deprodded by the usual suspect. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by administrators since 2006. (talk) 19:16, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:27, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:28, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:28, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
No one's arguing that she passes GNG, but how does she fail PORNBIO? She has two non-scene/ensemble wins, which is more than enough to satisfy the guideline. Rebecca1990 (talk) 01:51, 27 March 2016 (UTC)\[reply]
I never said anyone was did I ?, Because they're not notable awards and winning an award for "Superslut of the year" is as cheap as it gets, She has a lovely profile over at Pornhub (which I just found out can't be linked thanks to the blacklist!) so it's not as if we're disadvantaging anyone by deleting this poorly referenced article. –Davey2010Talk 02:05, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
No, it isn't "cheap". The porn industry's most prestigious award is AVN's Female Performer of the Year and there is a very strong correlation between that award and XRCO's Superslut. 10 out of 11 Superslut winners have been nominated for/won Female Performer of the Year. Jollee was nominated for AVN's Female Performer of the Year award in 2005 and 2006, the same years in which she won XRCO's Superslut. AVN nominates 15 people every year for Female Performer of the Year while XRCO narrows AVN's list down to the strongest contenders for their own Female Performer of the Year award. Jollee was such a strong contender for Female Performer of the Year in 2005, that she made it onto XRCO's elite Female Performer of the Year nominees list of only 5 people. Now, I personally think that an AVN Female Performer of the Year nomination should be enough to pass PORNBIO. It is quite a reasonable request. I can assure you all I'd never ask for any other nomination into PORNBIO, not even Female Performer of the Year from XBIZ/XRCO/etc. or Best New Starlet, but the fact there's over 30 AVN Female Performer of the Year nominees without WP articles is preposterous. Despite being a reasonable addition to PORNBIO, it would probably not happen, but at the very least can we keep the current PORNBIO guideline? PORNBIO notability is already far enough from real-world notability, stop trying to take it even further from that by expanding its exclusions. PORNBIO#1 ("Has won a well-known and significant industry award. Awards in scene-related and ensemble categories are excluded from consideration.") is clearly met by XRCO's Superslut award. No good argument has been given against it so far in this AfD besides "I don't like the category because it has a funny name". You're all reacting to the Superslut category as if it were an award for "Best Amputee Porn Star", "Best Midget Porn Star", or some other obscure genre where it's nearly impossible for performers in it to become notable because of its unpopularity. Evil Angel produces pornography so extreme, that it has led to obscenity charges, and it is among the porn industry's top companies, which demonstrates that extreme sex acts are part of mainstream pornography. Some porn stars who perform extreme sex acts become notable for doing so, so it makes sense for porn award shows to recognize them. Out of the 13 years the award has been give out, only two recipients of it have won it twice, and Jollee is one of them. Rebecca1990 (talk) 17:39, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
No one's arguing that she passes GNG, but she does pass PORNBIO, which is enough, by consensus, for articles to be kept. Rebecca1990 (talk) 01:51, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Does it pass a) significant and b) well-known? Sure, the article on the award itself prominently says in passive voice (quite against UNDUE) that it has been deemed the Academy Award for X-rated media, but the organization that issues the awards is not the AMPAS or SAG-AFTRA for pornography, and I only find moderate coverage of the award itself (past the level of notability, but not "significant or well-known"). Esquivalience t 02:58, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, XRCO is a well-known/significant award. WP:PORNBIO itself explicitly states that an XRCO Hall of Fame induction is enough to keep an article. Rebecca1990 (talk) 22:40, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rebecca, please stop misrepresenting the terms of PORNBIO. PORNBIO does not say that only scene-related awards are deemed to fail PORNBIO, and that all other awards qualify. Other awards (relating to niche categories, body parts, for example) have been found by consensus to fail the well-known/significant standard. You may not like the consensus, but denying it exists is tendentious and disruptive. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by administrators since 2006. (talk) 16:42, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not misrepresenting PORNBIO. Consensus in AfDs has repeatedly shown that all non-scene/ensemble categories from well-known/significant ceremonies meet PORNBIO. You've keep claiming that niche and body part categories have consensus to exclude from PORNBIO, but have never provided evidence of it. In fact if it were true, it would say so in PORNBIO. It's preposterous that you would even suggest we exclude niche and body part categories. There is no logical reason to do so. The niche awards go hand-in-hand with PORNBIO#2 ("Has made unique contributions to a specific pornographic genre") and since one of the things porn stars are best known for is their body parts, it makes sense to have body part awards. Don't get me wrong, I do think Best Actress awards are evidence of notability and think they should continue to be accepted by PORNBIO, but I consider body part awards to be even bigger evidence of notability than Best Actress. There are simply more people viewing pornography for the boobs and butts than they are for the acting/plots. Porn stars known for having large breasts or a big butt are better known for having that than the ones known for their acting skills are known for their acting skills. Rebecca1990 (talk) 21:01, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
For all your huffing and puffing about The Big Bad Wolfowitz, you keep evading the point that PORNBIO quite plainly does not say that only scene-related award categories fail the well-known and significant standard. As Morbidthoughts told you on the PORNBIO talkpage, "The debates or contention in AFDs/DRVs like Deauxma and Elexis Monroe have been whether their nominations are significant enough to satisfy PORNBIO simply because they are performer awards. No, they are not and consensus had made clear when we last edited PORNBIO that the category is important in determining significance.[7] The AFDs and DRVs have made clear that the MILF of the Year nominations are not significant enough not that PORNBIO is flawed. Given that in this very AFD you are also arguing that "she does pass PORNBIO, which is enough, by consensus, for articles to be kept" -- which contradicts the express language in WP:Notability (people), of which PORNBIO is a component that "meeting one or more [of the components] does not guarantee that a subject should be included", it's clear that the position you argue regarding notability is contradicted by longstanding consensus. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by administrators since 2006. (talk) 22:04, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
That quote is from a discussion on what to exclude from PORNBIO and the consensus of it was to only exclude nominations, not any type of award category. Consensus is the outcome of a discussion, not a user's opinion in it. Not only that, you're also providing a quote on a completely different award that is irrelevant in this AfD. The quote also happens to be from a user who has voted to keep this article below, so you are totally misinterpreting it to refer to Jollee's awards when it clearly doesn't. Rebecca1990 (talk) 23:59, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
XRCO's Superslut category does not "exist only for publicity purposes". If that were the case, its recipients would only be performers with publicists. It is very unlikely for Jollee to have had a publicist during her career, otherwise an AVN search for "Ariana Jollee" under "Company News" (aka "Press Release") would yield results for PR about her. There is only one result for Jollee in the search, and it's by a company promoting a film she happens to be in the cast of, not by a publicist promoting her. That PR was also released many years after she won the awards, so her wins were in no way influenced by any publicity at all. The entire XRCO Awards aren't influenced by publicity. If they were, performers like Aurora Snow, who has stated on numerous occasions (interviews, Daily Beast articles, college speeches, etc.) that she initially entered the adult film industry only to pay for school and planned to have a short-term/low-profile career she would forget about after quitting, wouldn't have won so many XRCO Awards early in her career. Rebecca1990 (talk) 01:51, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Why? Rebecca1990 (talk) 01:51, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NOREASON, vote null. Subtropical-man talk
(en-2)
22:23, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
"Superslut? Really?" is a perfect example of what I was referring to when I said "mock the category's name all you want, but that isn't a reasonable argument to exclude it from PORNBIO" above. Rebecca1990 (talk) 01:51, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The notability guideline for pornographic actors is "Has won a well-known and significant industry award. Awards in scene-related and ensemble categories are excluded from consideration." XRCO is a well-known and significant industry award and Superslut is not a scene-related or ensemble category. PORNBIO only requires one win and Jollee has two. Rebecca1990 (talk) 17:39, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Boy, that sure looks like an attempt to commit a WP:CANVASS violation, since editors "must not be selected on the basis of their opinions". And there are quite a few editors who have no sympathy for your position, but I don't go around trying to call their attention to deletion discussions or cast pseudo!votes in their name. Even for porn promoters, this is a new level of shenanigans. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by administrators since 2006. (talk) 00:03, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
1 editor who I admit raises concerns, the other being nonsensical and invalid ..... Nice try tho!. –Davey2010Talk 00:43, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:Canvassing means NOTIFYING users of a discussion, which I did not do. Rebecca1990 (talk) 02:22, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Did you actually read the discussion? Because then you should precisely explain why there are absolutely NO independant sources in your opinion although two books dealing with a rather "exceptional" not common scene were stated above. --SamWinchester000 (talk) 23:34, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I previously closed this as "delete", but after discussion on my talk page I have come to the view that if one counts only the "delete" and "keep" opinions that actually discuss the sources rather than merely assert notability or non-notability, we have near parity. Previous contributors are invited to discuss why precisely the notability guidelines are or aren't met.  Sandstein  09:49, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein  09:49, 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 keep. (non-admin closure) Mhhossein (talk) 05:07, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Houzan Mahmoud[edit]

Houzan Mahmoud (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 doesn't meet WP:NOTCSD. This article doesn't have enough sources to prove that the person is notable. Also, there is no enough information about the person Ferakp (talk) 09:41, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 09:57, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iraq-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 10:11, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 11:42, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 11:42, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 11:42, 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 keep. Sarahj2107 (talk) 13:30, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mohamed Omar Dubad[edit]

Mohamed Omar Dubad (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)

Somali politician and diplomat, previously deprodded by DGG (talk · contribs). This article is unverifiable, failing WP:V. The one cited source is a dead link. Google finds something on a blog ([32]) that reads like an obituary written by his family, but that's not a reliable source. Moreover, his notability is not clear. He was supposedly a member of parliament, which would make him notable, but even if that could be verified, Somalia is an anarchic, failed state fought over by many groups and regimes, and so it's not clear whether he was member of a parliament in any meaningful sense rather than just a pro forma member of some administration in exile. Add to that the generally promotional / obituary-like tone of the article, and I think it's clear that we should delete it until some good sources become available.  Sandstein  09:40, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Joseph2302 (talk) 13:06, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Joseph2302 (talk) 13:06, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Somalia-related deletion discussions. Joseph2302 (talk) 13:06, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
And another minute brings the expected additional source: an official UN yearbook at [34]. Sandstein, please look at this again. DGG ( talk ) 18:55, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
OK, so what we can verify is that he was chargé d'affaires for Somalia. That isn't enough for notability and not enough to support an article. The awdalpress.com text can't be taken seriously as a reliable source, as it appears self-published: the site's "About" page reads, in its entirety: "The most trusted Somali News and analyze [sic] web site".  Sandstein  19:04, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • How do you verify that he was an MP? Of which parliament?  Sandstein  19:23, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
That is an important and legitimate point. The rationale appears brash to me though. If his status as an MP could be verified, would you still argue he was non-notable? You suggested you would. However, searches need to be conducted in Somali and Arabic. AusLondonder (talk) 20:35, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@AusLondonder: As I wrote in the nomination, if he was a member of parliament, he's notable. That's not an issue. The issue is verifiability: We have one reliable source, cited above, stating that he existed and was a diplomat. There's nothing else we can say with certainty about him. We can't for instance verify that he was a MP, and that the body he might have been a member of was in fact a parliament in any meaningful sense. If he was, for instance, member of a parliament-in-exile, which may or may not have been elected by anybody, then his notability would be much more questionable. And the people who would need to make any necessary searches are those who want to keep the article, per WP:BURDEN.  Sandstein  07:15, 12 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 List of The Transformers (TV series) characters#Dion. czar 14:10, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dion (Transformers)[edit]

Dion (Transformers) (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 character from the Transformers universe. A number of primary sources are cited, but I'm seeing no real-world notability. The article is mostly made up of in-universe information. Josh Milburn (talk) 09:36, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:10, 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 delete. The consensus is that there is a lack of reliable sources which are independent of the subject, and so this should be deleted. PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 15:42, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

City Commander[edit]

City Commander (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable character from the Transformers universe. Well, no, not quite- it's "a third party Transformer", but "[a]n unlicensed reproduction of the toy has been released". Fancruft. Josh Milburn (talk) 09:32, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closing admin: Mathewignash (talkcontribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this XfD.
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:52, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:52, 15 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 as a blatant hoax (WP:CSD#G3). Max Semenik (talk) 20:01, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Erina language[edit]

Erina language (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)
Erina var (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

The language didn't exist - I didn't find anything in search about it, as well as links in article are all dead Arthistorian1977 (talk) 08:58, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Musa Talk  09:32, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 09:53, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It's a redirect to this one. Arthistorian1977 (talk) 10:40, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
At the moment it's a duplicate. I've nominated it for deletion. Uanfala (talk) 10:42, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Uanfala: Please check this redirect page as well Erina var language. Thank You – GSS (talk) 10:59, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'd caution against using, in future discussions like this, either the ISO 639-2 codes (from the LoC link) or the ISO 639-3 ones (from your github link) as they don't aim at being extensive (not all varieties are covered) and they are maintained by Ethnologue, which has been notoriously slow in catching up with current research. The only database that I know of that aims to be extensive is Glottolog and it's already linked from the language infoboxes. But other than that, I'd agree: the ISO codes provided in this article are clearly made up. Uanfala (talk) 13:01, 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 keep. Nomination withdrawn as we know that DarthBotto has shown willingness to take up with the article. (non-admin closure) Mhhossein (talk) 04:11, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

List of Alien characters[edit]

List of Alien characters (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 is redundant. It has been in existence for 10 years, has 2 references after being tagged for 8 years and suffering from in-universe problems tagged 6 years ago. It offers no information that is not or could not be covered in the relevant articles. If necessary the cast list table can be merged into the central Alien series article, but the rest of the article is in-universe plot and all of it is unsourced. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 08:48, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Musa Talk  09:32, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Musa Talk  09:33, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep: I only recently came across this article and have thus far worked to include missing content. This article has significant notability and context, as it serves as a character list for a prominent franchise. It definitely deserves to stay, but I agree that it requires significant cleanup and referencing, which I will be taking up. So, I say we should dismiss this AfD and I'll look to improve the quality of the article and add the references, which most certainly can be found like the boat load, so it's not just pure in-universe jargon, as Darkwarriorblake's implying. DARTHBOTTO talkcont 23:23, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Anyone of note from this series has their own article, like Ripley and the Alien. Everyone else is relevant to their own film article, existing is not an excuse for a list. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 21:23, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Existing isn't an excuse, but the fact remains that we're dealing with one of the most prominent science fiction franchises of all time, which does warrant companion articles, such as one detailing characters. Either you can agree with this perspective, or you could apply your reasoning across the wiki and nominate for deletion List of Jurassic Park characters, as well as every article in this category. With the state of things, there simply is not just enough cause to delete this specific article. DARTHBOTTO talkcont 21:49, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
WP:OTHERSTUFF. Because I'm not aware of those articles and have not the time to nominate them, isn't an argument for "why bother getting rid of one". And as I said, there are already companion articles, for the alien and its varians, and significant characters like Ripley and Bishop. The rest of the character entries are regurgitating plot, there's no value you can add to them that isn't already present in the relevant film articles, so then you're just repeating information. Your additions to the article alone in just the last few weeks are huge amounts of just repeating plot, such as Shaw's section, so why would there be any indication that you will elevate this article beyond what it is right now? Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 17:38, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'm disappointed in your hostile tone, Darkwarriorblake; there have been numerous times in the past that we've constructively worked together and that I actually defended you against users who criticized and called for blocks on you. To answer your question, I first needed to incorporate the materials from the Prometheus article, which was a sizable undertaking. I was about to start referencing this article and clean up the redundancies when I saw you nominated it for deletion. As I stated earlier, this is a very prominent franchise with plenty of resources available out there, which you have not yet addressed in the defense of your AfD. If you read Wikipedia:Deletion policy, there really isn't any applicable reason for this article to be deleted. Your basis is that there aren't reliable resources out there? Simply because I haven't conducted a cleanup of the article does not mean that, as the priority is to prevent it from being needlessly deleted. You can do a simple Google search for most any element in the article and you'll see results. DARTHBOTTO talkcont 21:31, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
My issue is not lack of sources, it's that I don't see what this article does or can do, that the main character and film articles do not already do. And there was no tone implied, so i apologise. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 21:39, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, it's all good about you and I, man. I added a courtesy break beneath for a new angle I have. Let me know what you think, please! ;) DARTHBOTTO talkcont 21:46, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep: Per DarthBotto and the list just needs some improvements. Alien: Covenant ‎ is filming now, which will also feature some new Alien characters and we have to put those all characters somewhere together. --Captain Assassin! «TCG» 02:39, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Why do we have to put all these characters somewhere together? Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 21:23, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please re-consider the word "we". If you don't wish to be part of it, then relax and let others do it --which they've done-- and don't interfere. --AVM (talk) 00:19, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please re-consider your tone. It's disgusting and immature. And they haven't "done" it, that's the point. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 17:38, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep: This article serves as a guide to those fictional species depicted in this very significant franchise. The fact that some issues haven't been taken care of is no reason for deletion; whoever proposed such harsh measure ought to help by taking care of those issues, instead of plotting against the article. For sure, it took the effort of several editors to build, and definitely has a certain degree of merit and usefulness, while there are hundreds of other articles out here in Wikipedia that have either lesser or almost none, thus, I disagree about it being 'redundant'. --AVM (talk) 00:19, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Courtesy break - After examining this list and examining the character list on Wikipedia:Featured lists, I definitely can agree that this article needs some serious refocusing. So far, its emphasis is upon the plot elements, when it should have a great deal of focus upon the writing and design of the individual characters, one-by-one. Therefore, I believe we should essentially rewrite each and every character section to include the necessary elements for character lists. Should this page be deleted? Absolutely not; its subject matter is very notable, prominent and can be sourced, which, to Darkwarriorblake's credit, I should have taken care of when I started editing in the Prometheus section recently. But regardless, the subject matter remains out of the bounds of deletion, though emphasis should be drawn far beyond the plot. What do you guys think? DARTHBOTTO talkcont 21:43, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If you are willing to get this done (remember, this page has been tagged for 6 years in some cases), then I am happy to withdraw the deletion request. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 21:57, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'd definitely be willing to take this up as my main focus for Wikipedia until it's up to par. You know, I only watched the movies in the Alien franchise two years ago and started editing related articles last fall. I've been systematically approaching the articles and retrofitting them to be more in-line with the franchise, as they have generally been a discombobulating mess, mixing together with Predator and AvP, then treating Prometheus like a separate entity... Ugh. I came across this page like, oh, I don't know, a month or so ago? It's a hefty task, but I think it's a page with necessary subject matter, so it deserves better than the shitty state it's in. Six years? Too long, indeed. Let's make this article chime. DARTHBOTTO talkcont 03:51, 18 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. Michig (talk) 07:30, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Tena Palmer[edit]

Tena Palmer (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)

PROD removed because of one source added but it's not actually detailed and, not simply that, but I still questionable the article overall. I still confirm my PROD here. SwisterTwister talk 06:41, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:46, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:46, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ (talk) 19:04, 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 delete. North America1000 03:01, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Stage Accompany[edit]

Stage Accompany (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)

PROD removed with the explanation of three links being added to the talk page but I'm simply not thoroughly convinced by that and my searches simply found a few links at Books. I still confirm my PROD here. SwisterTwister talk 06:46, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:46, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:46, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:46, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:46, 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 delete. Sarahj2107 (talk) 13:26, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Pam Seatle[edit]

Pam Seatle (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)

PROD removed because of the first nomination (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hugh Burrill where it was included) which is clearly not applicable to today's Wikipedia and I still confirm my original PROD [37] here]. I can certainly imagine that the only still active AfDer DGG would've changed his perspective of these articles so I'm certainly welcoming his analysis. SwisterTwister talk 06:47, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:47, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:47, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:47, 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). clpo13(talk) 15:25, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Boxing at the 2015 European Games – Men's 64 kg[edit]

Boxing at the 2015 European Games – Men's 64 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) 19:20, 17 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) 19:53, 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]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 12:20, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 03:01, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:27, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Azerbaijan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:27, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
And has now been relisted! So we'll have another 7 days of nothing, meaning that one month since the listing started, no-one applied common-sense and was just bold enough to redirect it in the first place. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 08:38, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Omni Flames (talk contribs) 06:44, 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 no consensus. One can return to the deletion discussion in a couple of years, trying to add sources in the meanwhile.--Ymblanter (talk) 08:02, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Angela Ryder[edit]

Angela Ryder (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 couldn't establish that she meets WP:BIO or WP:GNG. Boleyn (talk) 20:14, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:00, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:00, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mary Blight NYS, which part of WP:BIO or WP:GNG do you think it meets? Best wishes, Boleyn (talk) 06:42, 3 April 2016 (UTC) Boleyn,Angela has received several well-known and significant award or honors has made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in his or her specific field. She has contributed greatly to the Noongar Community of Western Australia and continues to do so.Mary Blight NYS (talk) 14:54, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein  07:45, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
VanEman, how is it clearly notable? How does it meet WP:BIO or WP:GNG? Best wishes, Boleyn (talk) 06:42, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Omni Flames (talk contribs) 06:43, 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 delete. The concensus is that the company does not meet the criteria for inclusion, and the platform (which is one of their products) likewise fails to meet this. PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 15:45, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Haulmont[edit]

Haulmont (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable company not referenced at length in independent, third party sources, so it fails the general notability guideline. -- Patar knight - chat/contributions 06:02, 10 April 2016 (UTC) I am also nominating the following related pages because it's a product made by the company which similarly fails the WP:GNG---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 06:06, 10 April 2016 (UTC):[reply]

CUBA Platform (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Vipinhari || talk 06:48, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Vipinhari || talk 06:48, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note that Aleksey.stukalov identifies as a technology evangelist for CUBA, and has an obvious COI. Guy (Help!) 14:38, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Guy, I don't hide my position (it even appears on my user's wiki page) and don't see any problem sharing my own opinion and facts that I can prove. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aleksey.stukalov (talkcontribs) 14:49, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Btw, Haulmont is a finalist of European IT and Software Excellence Awards in nomination of Vertical Market Solution of the Year. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aleksey.stukalov (talkcontribs) 21:07, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Do you have any independent, reliable sources that discuss the company/product at length? Just being a finalist in one competition without any further elaboration hardly counts as significant coverage and isn't enough to build a Wikipedia article. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 04:36, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

— 62.69.22.17 (talkcontribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:53, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:53, 18 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. Sarahj2107 (talk) 13:23, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Dawn and Drew Show[edit]

The Dawn and Drew Show (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 podcast. NPR is a listing, and who knows what's mentioned in Time. Google reveals no RSes. Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:00, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:05, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:06, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per below - Sources aren't amazing but notability's certainly there.... –Davey2010Talk 14:49, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vipinhari || talk 05:14, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

References

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 consensus is that this individual does not meet the notability guidelines for a stand-alone article. As there is no mention of Shat in the FaZe Clan article beyond in a list of managers (none of whom have articles), a redirect would not seem to be appropriate at this time. PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 15:51, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nordan Shat[edit]

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

Biography of a YouTuber. Fails WP:ANYBIO for lack of significant coverage in reliable sources. - MrX 13:49, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Indeed, the nomination is badly argued because WP:ANYBIO is a set of two additional criteria complementing WP:GNG, which is the guideline related to significant coverage in reliable sources (and which Shat unquestionably fails, from what I can see). Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:26, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89(T·C) 23:07, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89(T·C) 23:07, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:02, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:03, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vipinhari || talk 04:56, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Youtube subscribers" is not a valid criteria for notability on Wikipedia. Please read the WP:GNG. Sergecross73 msg me 13:53, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
WP:ITSPOPULAR is not an argument. soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 10:49, 15 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 consensus is that there is a lack of reliable independent sourcing to demonstrate her notability - writing multiple books is not in and of itself sufficient is the message given here - and so she does not currently meet the criteria for inclusion. PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 15:53, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Janet Turpin Myers[edit]

Janet Turpin Myers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:BLP of a writer with no strong claim to passing WP:AUTHOR. The strongest claim of notability here is that she was a shortlisted nominee for her local arts council's local literary awards in 2014 -- however, a literary award has to be national (on the order of the Governor General's Awards or the Giller or the Pulitzer), not local, for a nomination to constitute an AUTHOR pass in and of itself. She might still qualify for an article if she could be sourced over WP:GNG, but virtually zero of the sources here represent any sort of media coverage -- every single reference here is to a primary source or to a commercial sales page on an online bookstore, with the exception of one single solitary citation to one review in a college literary zine (and even that citation fails to provide the title of the review, or the specific issue in which it was published.) So WP:GNG hasn't been passed here either. As always, Wikipedia is not a free public relations platform on which any writer is automatically entitled to an article just because she exists -- reliable source coverage, supporting a claim of notability that satisfies WP:AUTHOR, must be present for them to earn one. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 17:18, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Notability or lack thereof is a factor of how much reliable source media coverage the topic has or hasn't received. No number of books is enough in and of itself to give their writer an exemption from having to be the subject of media coverage. Bearcat (talk) 03:33, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89(T·C) 22:47, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Quebec-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89(T·C) 22:47, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment for RhettFester - There are some problems with the sources that are here: many are not reliable sources (blogs, member profiles, etc.). Also, you have created references for her own works. References should be limited to sources about her. Her own works are given as a bibliography, but they are not cited. For the poems, you can use a form like "in: (name of journal), v.n, (date), (page)". Photographs and sound files of her reading are not about her, so those do not support notability. It is easier to see the reliable sources if non-reliable sources are removed from the article. LaMona (talk) 22:28, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment for LaMona - Understood, thank you. I appreciate your guidance. I will try to improve the references. RhettFester (talk) 01:55, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:43, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vipinhari || talk 04:55, 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 Delete. Michig (talk) 07:38, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Waldo Cabrera[edit]

Waldo Cabrera (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Biography fails WP:BLP. Not a single independent source. A Google search turns up little to be able to help, and if I get rid of every unsourced statement there would be almost nothing left. Despite the bold claims in the article, it appears that this person is completely non-notable. Bradv 04:15, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. — Omni Flames (talk contribs) 06:49, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. — Omni Flames (talk contribs) 06:49, 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 keep. Sarahj2107 (talk) 13:16, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Koi and the Kola Nuts[edit]

Koi and the Kola Nuts (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not entirely sure what this is. Contested prod. Bradv 04:02, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Vipinhari || talk 07:00, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 10:15, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 10:15, 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 no consensus. (WP:NPASR) per limited participation here. North America1000 03:10, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Fauxtography[edit]

Fauxtography (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)

Written as a dictionary entry (Previous successful deletion) Music1201 (talk) 06:08, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 12:48, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 12:48, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 01:12, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mz7 (talk) 03:59, 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 no consensus. North America1000 03:11, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

David Olivera[edit]

David Olivera (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 photographer. Greek Legend (talk) 08:51, 26 March 2016 (UTC) confirmed blocked sockpuppet Atlantic306 (talk) 16:32, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:28, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:28, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:28, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 00:59, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep Should stay since they have contributed to many images accross the board. KingOfKingsTheAssassin (talk) 21:14, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Striking meatpuppet !vote JMHamo (talk) 22:11, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mz7 (talk) 03:57, 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 Delete. Michig (talk) 07:44, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

European Law Group[edit]

European Law Group (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NCORP. Highly promotional in tone; no references, two external links to related sources. No independent in-depth coverage found with internet search. Near orphan (only linked article also proposed for deletion). MB (talk) 03:48, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:54, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:54, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:54, 11 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 consensus is that there is insufficient reliable, independent sourcing which could show that this record label meets the notability criteria at this time. PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 16:00, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Paper Garden Records[edit]

Paper Garden Records (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article topic lacks significant coverage from reliable, independent sources. (?) It had nothing but passing mentions in my music reliable sources custom Google search. I see no worthwhile redirect targets. czar 23:07, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. czar 23:07, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:12, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America1000 15:43, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America1000 15:43, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
As preempted above, Wikipedia doesn't establish notability for the topic—that's the job of reliable, secondary sources. The new sources are either primary (not independent, such as a press release), unreliable (blogs without fact-checking reputations), or passing mentions (not about the label, but mentioning the label incidentally). As it stands, there isn't enough sourcing for an article. czar 05:56, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I will have to respectfully disagree on a comparative basis across Wikipedia, regarding notability. MetropolisHearts (talk) 06:04, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Each article is addressed on its own merits—the adage here is "other stuff exists". If you have other things to nominate for deletion, go for it, but we don't keep articles just because we haven't addressed others. czar 16:05, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Your selective interest in content quality is inane. If you wanted to actually show interest then why not check out Category:Record label stubs? MetropolisHearts (talk) 17:41, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
No need for the tone. Record label stubs are no more special than any other collection of stubs—we do one article at a time, each on its own merits. You're welcome to work on those stubs if you feel so inclined. czar 18:33, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Tennessee-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:31, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:31, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 06:44, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 03:47, 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 delete Rlendog (talk) 01:18, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Connor Goggin[edit]

Connor Goggin (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:NHOCKEY Joeykai (talk) 03:46, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Being All-Ivy League Second Team does not count for passing NHOCKEY. Joeykai (talk) 18:50, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:30, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:30, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:49, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:49, 18 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 Rlendog (talk) 01:28, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Andy Taranto[edit]

Andy Taranto (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:NHOCKEY Joeykai (talk) 03:44, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 11:06, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 11:06, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Being named to the CCHA Second All-Star Team does not count for passing NHOCKEY. Joeykai (talk) 18:52, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:46, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Alaska-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:46, 18 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. Sarahj2107 (talk) 13:14, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Tommy Mele[edit]

Tommy Mele (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:NHOCKEY Joeykai (talk) 03:43, 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 delete.  Sandstein  20:57, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Shavit Bar-On Gal-On Tzin Yagur[edit]

Shavit Bar-On Gal-On Tzin Yagur (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:NCORP. Promotional article has no references, just a list of external references that fail as independent, in-depth coverage. Article was tagged with notability and unref in 2010 and tags were removed by IP editor a few months later without improvement. MB (talk) 03:38, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:44, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:44, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:44, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:44, 18 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. Sarahj2107 (talk) 13:14, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Justin Davis (ice hockey)[edit]

Justin Davis (ice hockey) (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:NHOCKEY Joeykai (talk) 03:34, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:56, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:56, 11 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. Sarahj2107 (talk) 13:14, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Garet Hunt[edit]

Garet Hunt (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:NHOCKEY Joeykai (talk) 03:30, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:43, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:43, 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 delete. Yamamoto Ichiro (talk) 12:44, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Darren Lynch[edit]

Darren Lynch (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:NHOCKEY Joeykai (talk) 03:29, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:41, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:41, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:41, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:41, 18 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. Sarahj2107 (talk) 13:13, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Adam Courchaine (ice hockey, born 1989)[edit]

Adam Courchaine (ice hockey, born 1989) (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:NHOCKEY Joeykai (talk) 03:21, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 11:11, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 11:11, 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 delete. Sarahj2107 (talk) 13:12, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dan Gendur[edit]

Dan Gendur (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:NHOCKEY Joeykai (talk) 03:13, 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 delete Rlendog (talk) 01:15, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Patrick Sanvido[edit]

Patrick Sanvido (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:NHOCKEY Joeykai (talk) 02:56, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:05, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:05, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:05, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you kindly, no reminders needed. I expect you noticed that no such reason was proffered, "in itself," for deletion. Ravenswing 19:54, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Correct, I did. I'm just saying that the fact that it was written "in a rah-rah fannish manner unsuitable for the encyclopedia" is not cause for deletion. I agree with the rest of what you said. Smartyllama (talk) 20:03, 18 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. The article at it's current state at the time of closing, does meet our notability guideline, if only by a very minimal margin. Yamamoto Ichiro (talk) 12:29, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Samantha Massell[edit]

Samantha Massell (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)

Self-created article which doesn't appear to meet WP:ENT or WP:GNG, possibly a case of WP:TOOSOON Melcous (talk) 02:10, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:28, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:28, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I think it depends on what subject that BroadwayWorld.com is being used for. In the entertainment industry, I believe tabloids have a useful role in helping us get the story right; it's show business, we don't need peer-reviewed academic journals, which don't cover this anyway. Here is a report from BroadwayWorld....--Tomwsulcer (talk) 11:51, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Samantha Massell was featured at Feinstein's/54 Below's "Broadway Princess Party" earlier this month, singing "God Help the Outcasts" from Disney's THE HUNCHBACK OF NOTRE DAME. ... Samantha Massell is currently playing Hodel in this season's revival of FIDDLER ON THE ROOF. Samantha made her Broadway debut at age 12 in Baz Luhrmann's production of Puccini's La Boheme. Most recently, Samantha originated the role of Florika and understudied Esmeralda in the US Premiere productions of Disney's The Hunchback of Notre Dame at Paper Mill Playhouse and La Jolla Playhouse. At the St. Louis MUNY, Samantha starred as Princess Jasmine in Aladdin, Rapunzel in Into the Woods opposite TONY winner Heather Headley, and Ursula in Bye Bye Birdie. Off-Broadway, she has appeared in the New York City Center Encores! productions of Little Me and It's a Bird, It's a Plane, It's Superman.Film/TV: Beatbox, ZUG, How to Be a Man. Samantha started her career in the children's chorus of The New York City Opera, where she appeared in a number of productions and made her soloist debut as Elizabeth in The Ballad of Baby Doe. Samantha is a Phi Beta Kappa graduate of The University of Michigan, where she double majored in Musical Theater and English. -- (source: BroadwayWorld.com)

These details rings right. I doubt BroadwayWorld would make up stuff that she graduated Phi Beta Kappa from U. Michigan, or fabricate that Massell played Ursula in Bye Bye Birdie. There's no incentive for fabrication. Is it promotional, yes, but I think we can trust it, plus this information is consistent with other sources such as the NY Times and USA Today and Washington Post.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 11:51, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Update: I emailed the Phi Beta Kappa chapter of U. Michigan and they responded that Samantha Massell was, indeed, inducted into it.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 14:18, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:59, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Two events: Fiddler and Hunchback, plus a solid acting resume.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 20:14, 17 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.