The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. self-penned spam for non-notable artist Jimfbleak - talk to me? 05:52, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Joeyep[edit]

Joeyep (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)

Ref seach does not support notability. HappyValleyEditor (talk) 23:19, 20 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" 12:03, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

My Tree Challenge[edit]

My Tree Challenge (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 references except mere notices of people contributing a tree. DGG ( talk ) 23:09, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete unfortunately as my searches found nothing better. SwisterTwister talk 00:37, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 00:37, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 00:37, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Few sources and doesn't seem notable. Perhaps merge with Ice Bucket Challenge. May be notable in India, however there is only a Malayalam wiki page and no Hindi one, which suggests it was only short fad EllsworthSchmittendorf (talk) 05:45, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I can find no reliable sources that provide any detailed coverage of this, and I see no other argument for notability. Vanamonde93 (talk) 17:22, 23 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) –Davey2010^Talk 21:24, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

HotCopper[edit]

HotCopper (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 website failing WP:NWEB. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 22:52, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete definitely appears as though this page is advertisement. Non-notable also. EllsworthSchmittendorf (talk) 05:40, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:14, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:14, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:14, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep – See WP:NEXIST. The topic passes WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:WEBCRIT, as evidenced by simply using the Find sources template atop this discussion and then reading the articles. Promotional tone can be addressed by copy editing the article (I added a Press release-section template to the article). Source examples include, but are not limited to those listed below. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:19, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep It's about to be listed again on the ASX, is a notable Australian website, and has plenty of independent significant coverage, as listed above and in the article. The-Pope (talk) 15:35, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep -The topic's press coverage supports notability and since it's about to be a publicly traded company, so I think the deletion discussion is a little premature, though the article's content could be improved Burroughs'10 (talk) 18:01, 22 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 Deleted. by Bishonen per G4 as a re-creation of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ritik Vardhan. (non-admin closure) Sam Sailor ^Talk! 14:50, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hrithik Vardhan(Entrepreneur)[edit]

Hrithik Vardhan(Entrepreneur) (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)

Promotional article by likely COI editor on non-notable company. HappyValleyEditor (talk) 22:27, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, not notable, no independent sources. The intentions of the creator (who I have hardblocked for promotional username and promotional edits) are made clear in these edit summaries which promote his services. Bishonen | talk 22:46, 20 April 2016 (UTC).[reply]

Thanks for taking care of that so quickly!HappyValleyEditor (talk) 22:52, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - no sources found. Hrithik Vardhan has been WP:SALTed, too. Grayfell (talk) 23:58, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Non-notable individual running non-notable businesses. Possibly taggable with G5 as a re-creation by a sock of the already blocked Hrithik Vardhan account, but an AfD with a Delete outcome will make future re-creations potential G4 candidates. Sam Sailor ^Talk! 13:27, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor ^Talk! 13:28, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor ^Talk! 13:28, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: I notice that we had Ritik Vardhan discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ritik Vardhan and deleted in February 2015. Could Tokyogirl79 or Bishonen confirm it it's the same person? Would G4 apply to Hrithik Vardhan(Entrepreneur) when Ritik Vardhan was deleted under A7/G11? Sam Sailor ^Talk! 13:44, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedied, salted. Very nice catch, User:Sam Sailor. Yes, it's the same person. I've speedied per G4 and preemptively salted, in view of the history of persistent recreations with slight name variations. Bishonen | talk 13:56, 21 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 by Anthony Appleyard – Speedy deletion criteria A7, G11. (non-admin closure) ☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(ring-ring) 00:10, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

TheBudderBravo Fazbear[edit]

TheBudderBravo Fazbear (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 going to put this as a BLP prod, but youtube is considered a ref (even if questionable), anyway, youtube person to which I can tell is non notable. Wgolf (talk) 22:09, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Delete Unambiguous advertising and no claim to notability. User openly admits to just being out to promote his channel here JDDJS (talk) 20:53, 21 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) –Davey2010^Talk 22:38, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

UrbanClap[edit]

UrbanClap (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 simply found nothing better at all to suggest this can be better notable and improved and those searches only found expected links at News and WP:INDAFD with none of it being convincing enough. SwisterTwister talk 06:22, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:23, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:23, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:23, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:23, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Author is WP:SPA. Possibly a brand exercise by the company itself, violating WP:PROMO. A simple linkedIn search for the company matches the initials of the author with an employee. ChunnuBhai (talk) 10:21, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete The articles are published in Times of India and Tech-Crush, but they all seem to be news press releases. Just more WP:CORPSPAM crap editorEهեইдအ😎 00:49, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - although COI is not ok and the article requires special attention, the subject meets WP:GNG. DaltonCastle (talk) 23:41, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep & Comment Notable Indian Startup. Google search can get thousands of News coverage. Notable enough to be here. Need more references. Zedopuppy (talk) 22:07, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep – WP:CORPDEPTH pass. Source examples include, but are not limited to those listed below. The sources provide significant additional information about the company in addition to the subject of the headlines. Most of these sources were found by utilizing the links in the ((Find sources AFD)) template atop this page, and then reading the articles linked. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:48, 20 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 keep !votes are weak indeed. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 02:19, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As Cities Burn EP (2002)[edit]

As Cities Burn EP (2002) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

As Cities Burn EP (2003) (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 don't see any reason these EPs should have been resurrected here. Both EPs were discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/As Cities Burn EP (2002) in 2013, both userified to an active editor, both untouched (except to remove the non-free album image) and then brought back here in February for some reason. Nothing has actually improved since the last discussion. Ricky81682 (talk) 18:44, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Keep or Merge The band is notable, which makes me think that this deserves a mention, or it could be merged with As Cities Burn. ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 19:21, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I moved to mainspace on the basis the band was notable and I believe the albums were redlinked. Legacypac (talk) 04:49, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Keep or Merge - agree with PlatypusofDoom. Its not completely non-notable, but needs improvement. DaltonCastle (talk) 22:49, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete or merge with As Cities Burn. Per WP:INHERIT, the notability of the band does not ensure the notability of the band's individual albums; that being said, I could find no convincing evidence that this album is particularly notable. Thus, I am inclined to favor deletion with a mention at the article of the band as appropriate. Colonel Wilhelm Klink (^Complaints|_Mistakes) 23:44, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete There is no sourced content and the articles consist of just a single sentence. The EPs are listed at the bands page and I don't see what more information needs or indeed can be merged. Strongly leaning delete as not seeing these as a likely search string. AIRcorn (talk) 03:39, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and not merge as there's nothing actually suggesting a better separate article. SwisterTwister talk 22:52, 26 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. Sufficient consensus. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 23:57, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Loubna Berrada[edit]

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

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

I'm listing this per WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE due to this edit. The subject is barely (if at all) notable and the only coverage relates to whether her religious beliefs (WP:BLP1E). SmartSE (talk) 20:39, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 05:54, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 05:54, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 05:54, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as nothing actually suggesting any applicable notability. SwisterTwister talk 05:54, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep - Certainly needs to be reworked. They are a Dutch politician, so improving the article could answer notability questions. That said, it still doesn't address everything. DaltonCastle (talk) 22:28, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• As a politician she fails WP:NPOL. As an activist she's only notable in the context of Central Committee for Ex-Muslims (WP:BLP1E). Move whatever material and refs are worth keeping to the committee's article, then delete. Bazj (talk) 13:00, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• While being the leader of an organization can get a person into Wikipedia if the article is sourced and substanced solidly enough to pass WP:GNG, it is not a claim of notability that gives a person automatic inclusion rights in and of itself. But the sourcing isn't particularly strong, and she's not so high-profile that the need to have a standalone WP:BLP about her trumps her own expressed concerns about the article's accuracy — so I'm simply not seeing why she needs a standalone article as a separate topic from the organization. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 23:59, 22 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 deleted per G3 and redirected to Thomas Lunsford Stokes. (non-admin closure) Sam Sailor ^Talk! 15:53, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas Stokes[edit]

Thomas Stokes (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 a biography of a footballer who does not and has never existed. Thus fails at the very least WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTY. Ytfc23 (talk) 21:44, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Musa Talk  21:51, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Musa Talk  21:52, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Musa Talk  21:52, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Musa Talk  21:53, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Musa Talk  21:53, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Appears to be a clear hoax. No Google references exist for this player in conjunction with Yeovil Town, a virtual impossibility for any recent player with a League One club. The supposed 15 January 2010 match between Yeovil and Mansfield Town did not exist; see 2009–10 Yeovil Town F.C. season, which also makes no mention of Thomas Stokes. Similarly, Google searches reveal absolutely no indication of the subject appearing for either of his alleged subsequent clubs, Grays Athletic and Southend United. Calamondin12 (talk) 22:47, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, the given refs in that article don't seem to exist or demonstrate the subject's existence, even via archives. However, there is Thomas Lunsford Stokes and potentially others, so without prejudice to repurposing for a redirect or disambig page. Dl2000 (talk) 23:19, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete as blatant hoax. As Calamondin12 says above, if he played for a League One club in recent times, Google would have heard of him in that context: it hasn't. The match in which he suppsedly made his debut didn't happen; Yeovil weren't even in the same division as Mansfield: see Yeovil's results for that season. If subject had made league appearances for Yeovil Town, he would appear in this list of Yeovil players and in this list of Yeovil players and on this website: he doesn't. It's a hoax. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 09:36, 21 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 17:53, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Menon Holdings Group[edit]

Menon Holdings 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)

When I fist started editing this page it had a half-dozen "world heritage encyclopedia" references, which are bogus crowd-sourced refs. One those and the paid PR entries were removed, the only notable refs (and I would strongly quesiton those too) are for the Jolie frangrance line, not Menon holdings. Article reeks of COI. HappyValleyEditor (talk) 21:36, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Musa Talk  21:57, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mauritius-related deletion discussions. Musa Talk  21:57, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment The community may please View history of previous edits done to the article immediately before the article was put up for deletion. Prior to those edits, the article had relevant references and valid links - as per WP:ORGIND and in adherence to WP:ORGDEPTH. AM (talk) 03:51, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as searches found nothing better, still questionable overall. SwisterTwister talk 06:26, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:28, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete The only reliable reference I found [1] (and its reprints) talked about the company briefly and in context of "jolie's fashion". This was way back in 2009. Fails WP:ORGDEPTH. If this company was indeed notable, I would have expected to see some more references in reliable sources after 2009. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 06:47, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• delete fails GNG by a mile. created by a fan who didn't know what they were doing yet and should never have existed; this would not have passed AfC. Jytdog (talk) 11:30, 26 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" 12:08, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Bishesh Silwal[edit]

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

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

An autobiography based on blogs and soundcloud. Fails WP:GNG. Theroadislong (talk) 21:24, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Musa Talk  21:29, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Borderline speedy delete were it not for the unsourced claim of fame. No reliable sources whatsoever to support assertions of notability. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 03:48, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per above. Widr (talk) 10:23, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as clearly simply nothing actually suggesting the necessary improvements to thus keep, classic example of a not yet acceptable article. SwisterTwister talk 22:53, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete nothing suggests this 16-year-old is actually notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:33, 24 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's subject is found notable enough to merit inclusion. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 09:15, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Multiverse (Magic: The Gathering)[edit]

Multiverse (Magic: The Gathering) (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 large list of random plot details without any references to solidify it as an actual notable topic. The main Magic: The Gathering article has a four paragraph storyline section that should be adequate in properly summarizing the story from an encyclopedic standpoint. TTN (talk) 20:26, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 20:27, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - There are plenty of lesser-known properties in Category:Fictional universes or Category:Continuity (fiction). This page needs cleanup, but its main value is it prevents a large number of smaller articles from being created, namely for the settings, books, comic series, and other works listed on it. Its the target of 25 incoming redirects which are storyline focused and wouldn't find a good home on the main Magic: The Gathering article because it is so extensive and focused on the game itself. This franchise has 23 year history and, I don't say this often, but this kind of article is inevitable for something that lasts this long. -- Netoholic @ 05:54, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Netoholic: See WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, the existence of "lesser-known properties" is not an adequate reason to keep. It's a ton of in-universe fancruft that needs to be deleted outright, not merged. WP:NOTINHERITED means the franchise's 23 year history is irrelevant. Satellizer el Bridget ^(Talk) 02:27, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Keep - WP:DINC, This article needs more sources, but they do exist and just need to be added. (Edit - Not logged in) Apriestofgix (talk) 14:25, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Grudging Keep - Normally I would be all about deleting an article this long with almost no sources, but Netoholic (talk · contribs) makes a good point. I would rather have one poorly sourced yet cohesive article than 25 poorly sourced articles doing their own thing. ubiquity (talk) 14:30, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• The article's existence isn't some sort of gateway keeping out even more cruft. It being removed won't suddenly make people create articles. The idea presented up above that this kind of article just needs to exist is just sort of off. The information is either encyclopedic or not. In this case other than the weirdly placed list of books, it's just a bunch of summaries that provide no real context as to anything else. I don't see that improving. If this information was newly added to the main article, it would simply be pared down as being too extensive rather than split out. One "list of books" and one "list of characters" may be viable splits depending on available sources, but this is sort of the random junk article. TTN (talk) 19:25, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• It is common practice to include summaries of books and TV shows without citation as long as they are summaries of the source material. Because all the information included here is from the books/articles I believe the same logic should apply. Hence my vote above about the sources being there, they just need to be referenced. Apriestofgix (talk) 21:14, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Brief summaries would certainly be appropriate for something like List of Magic: The Gathering novels to give encyclopedic context to novels that probably don't have enough individual notability for the most part, but the summaries in this article are just "here's a giant blurb of plot without any real context." Within the framework of this article as a "gathering of all the MtG minutiae", there's just no room for improvement. There's certainly a place for plot, but the topic of the "Magic: The Gathering world" is not that place. TTN (talk) 21:44, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per all the above "keepers". BOZ (talk) 04:53, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. As usual, the nom ignores the fact that the subject satisfies applicable notability guidelines in order to enforce their idiosyncratic editorial standards. This is not constructive behavior. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by administrators since 2006. (talk) 22:06, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Care to explain what the "applicable notability guidelines" are? Keeping poorly written fancruft out of Wikipedia is certainly constructive. Satellizer el Bridget ^(Talk) 02:27, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong delete. None of the the arguments above advance a policy-based rationale for deletion or demonstrate how Multiverse meets WP:SIGCOV, and should thus be discounted. Fails WP:FANCRUFT as no sources can be found that demonstrate notability independent of the MTG franchise (or any notability at all), thus failing WP:NOTINHERITED. Satellizer el Bridget ^(Talk) 02:27, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Magic (The Gathering) instead as this is still questionable for its own article. SwisterTwister talk 22:54, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The page isn't perfect, that's for sure. But a quick search revealed a couple of sources that could be used to improve it. Omni Flames ^{let's talk about it} 05:40, 1 May 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 Alpha Centauri. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 09:10, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Alpha Centauri Bc[edit]

Alpha Centauri Bc (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 planet is unconfirmed and basically undiscussed by third-party sources. Fails WP:NASTRO, in other words. jps (talk) 20:08, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• DeleteRedirect to Alpha Centauri. As I mentioned in the last discussion, the researchers themselves are unsure if the planet exists, and until someone verifies its existence (which as far as I can tell has not happened) it is a hypothetical body of little significance. Primefac (talk) 01:43, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Astronomy-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:54, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:54, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep or merge mergable content & redirect to host star, similar to Tau Ceti f & Tau Ceti e AfDs.   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  14:30, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Technically there is nothing to merge (the paragraphs are pretty much identical between the articles), so would a redir be an acceptable option? (as a note, I've changed my !vote above). Primefac (talk) 14:49, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If there's in fact no mergable info, then #R to host star, yes.   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  15:06, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep, Alpha Centauri Bb is notable and has received exquisite media attention, In fact the latest news attention it received was on April 14th 2016, (click here). This planet, although a false detection has received a huge amount of media attention (search Alpha Centauri Bb on Google News) and therefore passes Wikipedias Notability Guidelines (WP:GNG). Davidbuddy9 Talk  23:07, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to parent star's article, woops I thought this was Alpha Centauri Bb's AfD. Davidbuddy9 Talk  23:24, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect as where it is currently mentioned, not yet convincing for its own article. SwisterTwister talk 22:57, 26 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. MelanieN (talk) 23:42, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Susan McReynolds[edit]

Susan McReynolds (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, based entirely on primary sources with the exception of a single namecheck of her existence in an article about her graduating class in university, of a radio host with no strong claim to passing WP:CREATIVE: her role with the BBC was with a local radio station rather than the national network; her role with RTÉ is completely unspecified; and her role with CBC Radio One has been as an irregular guest host rather than a permanent one -- all of which means that nothing here is substantive enough to grant her an exemption from having to pass WP:GNG. Delete, without prejudice against recreation in the future if her notability and sourceability improve (e.g. she gets named as the permanent new host of Cross Country Checkup.) Bearcat (talk) 19:30, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 19:36, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 19:36, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 19:36, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 19:39, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Support I probably jumped the gun on this one. Verne Equinox (talk) 10:57, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as not yet convincing for the applicable notability yet. SwisterTwister talk 22:58, 26 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 deleted A1 Peridon (talk) 21:16, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dankestcopyofrect[edit]

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

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

Seems to be a personal essay or something like that. Peter Sam Fan 18:51, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete, but the closest I can come to is "patent nonsense" - and yet, this makes sense. This said, it's not an essay, it's a writing prompt for an essay. Or a syllabus. Either way, Wikipedia is not at all the place for this stuff. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 20:03, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete per WP:G2, more or less identical to Aidan copy by same editor before they blanked that. No need to open an AfD discussion for this. Sam Sailor ^Talk! 20:23, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete, it's some sort of homework assignment. GAB^Hello! 20:51, 20 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" 12:22, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Rebecca Kiser[edit]

Rebecca Kiser (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)

Actress with very questionable notability, none of her films seem to be that notable yet either Wgolf (talk) 18:36, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Google News only brings up a pastor with the same name, Can't be arsed to search Google Books although I won't be surprised if there's nothing there anyway, Fails NACTOR & GNG. –Davey2010^Talk 19:15, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I put it as a BLP prod over a year ago but it didn't go through as the IMDB was technically a ref, I should of considered a AFD then! Wgolf (talk) 19:33, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Technically the IMDB link is considered a source so I prod wouldn't of worked unfortunately, Meh late's better than never :). –Davey2010^Talk 19:46, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I believe you're mistaken: From WP:BLPPROD:

A common source of confusion in application is the different treatment of presence of sources for placement of the tag, versus removal of the tag. The requirements can be summed up as: Only add a BLPPROD if there are no sources in any form that name the subject, but once (properly) placed, it can only be removed if a reliable source is added.

As WP:USERGENERATED uses IMDb as an example of an unreliable source, the tag should not have been removed.  Rebbing  20:25, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah I know about the BLP thing-I got rid of the BLP prod due that too, and that was over a year ago anyway. (I do think BLP prod should be eligible if there only links are to Twiter/Facebook/Linked In/Instagram though) Wgolf (talk) 20:29, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well I was told BLPPROD doesn't apply to those who have even 1 external link (Although it's not a source as in cite it's still considered a source anyway), And I'm more or less sure had a passing admin seen the prod they probably would've declined because of the link. –Davey2010^Talk 20:37, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You're half-right (see "A common source of confusion" quoted above): You can't add BLPPROD to an article with a relevant external link, but the tag, once placed, remains valid until a reliable source has been added. That is to say that the standard for placing the tag (no sources whatsoever) is different from the standard for removing the tag or deleting the article (no reliable sources). By the policy, no one—administrator or otherwise—is to remove the tag without a reliable source being present, so, while a passing sysop could have chosen not to delete the article, another likely would have.  Rebbing  20:53, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. I can't find coverage that would come close to meeting GNG, and her involvement in Adamant, Soulmate, and 2020 isn't enough for NACTOR point 1.  Rebbing  19:34, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 19:37, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Only feature film has only 490 ratings on IMDb. Also seems to have been a non speaking role. EllsworthSchmittendorf (talk) 06:24, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and I would've explored PROD, nothing at all for WP:ENTERTAINER. SwisterTwister talk 05:12, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:TOOSOON. Not yet there. Bearian (talk) 19:35, 25 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" 12:37, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Derek Ramsey (Wikipedian)[edit]

Derek Ramsey (Wikipedian) (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)

While it goes into more detail regarding the single claim-to-fame, it's still essentially the same single-claim-to-fame. Having one's Commons photos used for other purposes does not satisfy WP:BIO or any other notability criteria. This time around, a merge discussion was started here, but it was suggested that because this relevant content is already merged a second AfD be opened.OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 17:41, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:BLP1E. Also, the main topic of the secondary sources is the creation the bot and resulting controversy, not primarily the author, and this is/can be covered elsewhere. Also, an autobiographical article written in marshmallow tone (author/subject does not have perspective; if he ran across this article about anyone else, he would nominate it for deletion). Suggest not redirecting to List of Wikipedia controversies (current merge discussion target) or History of Wikipedia#Hardware and software (previous redirect target before article was recreated) or any page because no one is going to search for the term "Derek Ramsey (Wikipedian)".added later: (OK, redirect in order to keep page history) I can see why a redirect from Rambot to one of those two article might make sense. I've created Rambot to temporarily redirect to the appropriate section of this article, but it should be redirected to List of Wikipedia controversies or History of Wikipedia#Hardware and software if this AFD results in article deletion. --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:12, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I get the anger, I really do. But please don't misrepresent me. I thought long and hard before deciding to draft this after comparing it with others that survived AfDs. For a long time I thought it wouldn't pass BLP1E, until I actually read the policy. #1: There is coverage in multiple reliable sources covering multiple events. #2 I've given three interviews (WP:LPI). #3: It is well documented and significant enough to be included in List of Wikipedia controversies. So, no, I wouldn't nominate another article for these reasons because it doesn't apply. And on the topic of "one event", the coverage has continued over 11 year period. -- RM 19:40, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Like it says at WP:AUTOBIO...

Assuming you're notable, you should have let someone else realize that and create the article. Eleven years + no article should tell you someothing. EEng 19:07, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It tells me nothing because someone else already did think this was notable enough to make an article. By citing a content guideline you've established what everyone already knows: it is stupid to write your own article. The least we could do is be up front that this is the real reason for deletion, and not a policy which notably does not apply. I followed the "proper way". -- RM 11:09, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This is getting weird. Your "someone else" link leads to an earlier AfD which was closed 1E, merge to History of Wikipedia -- the opposite of your claimed "someone else already did think this was notable". EEng 18:20, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Because for an article to be deleted, it must have been created. User:Margavriel created the page and defended its notability here. Considering the systemic bias at work (comment), who creates an article has about as much bearing on notability as who deletes it. There are plenty of notable subjects without articles and plenty of non-notable subjects with articles. -- RM 22:05, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"Your honor, even though the jury found me guilty my lawyer stands behind me, so at least someone thinks I'm innocent. That should count for something." EEng 05:26, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Userfy Vanity biography that got promoted because of the face value precieved notability. There might be a justification for a mention on the List of Wikipedia controversies, but the rest of this belongs as a userpage or as a user's biography. Hasteur (talk) 18:16, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, but I don't need it. Just delete it. -- RM 19:40, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete since the subject/user doesn't want it back per previous comment. Hasteur (talk) 13:23, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. I echo Floquenbeam's remarks. Ram-Man is an important person in the history of Wikipedia, but their sourceable notability is chiefly tied to Wikipedia, specifically to Rambot and the subsequent events. Other than the nice Philadelphia Inquirer piece (which doesn't really work to establish notability) most of the other sources are really small beer. The Wikipedia material is better covered in context at List of Wikipedia controversies and History of Wikipedia#Hardware and software than at an unavoidably shallow mini-bio. Once that's done, I don't imagine Derek Ramsey (Wikipedian) would be a very likely search term, so the name should be probably be deleted.--Cúchullain ^t/c 19:12, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above - Ironically you could argue the bot deserves the article and not the bloke running it ...., Anyway regardless of all that it's better covered at Wikipeia controversies so there's no need to keep this article around and as noted above no one's going to search for the author, Anywho fails BLP1E & GNG .–Davey2010^Talk 19:22, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 19:34, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 19:34, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. I have to agree with the above in general. Derek may have contributed significantly in the early days and ongoing, that's only notable in terms of Wikipedia per se - and damn cool, might I add. But that grade of notability and "cool factor", for lack of a better term, do not match up with the general notability guidelines. It would have to be something else that makes Derek notable, in this case. I think his userpage pretty well covers everything, so merging content is not the Right Thing. I don't think a userfy is the Right Thing either, on the basis that (as per my understanding of the rules) this is not what a user page is for. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 21:01, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Delete The reference seem to be reaching. Given true notability, there would be better, higher-quality references available.HappyValleyEditor (talk) 02:45, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Well, it looks like the merge proposal is now moot. This seems like a classic BLP1E to me. He made a bot, the bot caused a bit of a stir, and then he faded back back into obscurity. Since the bot is described elsewhere, I don't see any reason why we need a vanity autobiography on the person who operated the bot. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 04:59, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect somewhere now, I guess, since someone has made the attribution requirements murky. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 21:34, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: creating the article was certainly a very bad decision, and it would need tons of cleanup, but the question is what we do now that it exists.

The thing is, there are sources out there that IMO reach (barely) GNG criteria. However, all the interviews given and pieces written were made on the criterion of "#1 article creator for a while", which is a consequence of an event (the rambot spike) that is itself non-notable. So I would call WP:MILL on it; being a top WP editor for a while is not in itself notable, and newspaper coverage based on this is not "significant" in the sense that any top editor could have been chosen. Similarly, when something big happens in a given location (violent crime, terrorist attack, whatever), journalists will interview at length the neighbours, but that brings little if any notability to them.

In any case, I disagree with the arguments that sources are insignificant, or that we should have a prejudice against inclusion for Wikipedians (though of course we should be careful not to have a prejudice for it). And I strongly object to userfying, as there is no way this could qualify under "Limited autobiographical content". Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 11:12, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per Tigraan. While Wikipedians could certainly be notable enough for inclusion, this person is not one of them. ZettaComposer (talk) 12:24, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Non-notable individual except for one event. Just like the first AfD on an article on this topic wound up as a selective merge, so should this one.David in DC (talk) 17:14, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. The bot run by the article subject is an important piece of Wikipedia history and ought to be mentioned at History of Wikipedia, but this would require no more than one sentence. The gentleman himself hasn't met the notability threshold, no offense being meant to him. 64.105.98.115 (talk) 18:03, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. I think it might not be possible to delete the page for attribution reasons for the selective merge of the controversy. See WP:COPYWITHIN. A redirect to List_of_Wikipedia_controversies#2002 can work. QuackGuru (talk) 18:50, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Classic 1E. EEng 19:07, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Why not have an article on Rambot Rambot did raise controversies, but the subject in itself is not a controversy. The rambot section is well referenced with secondary sources and I think we should create a standalone article on it. BLP1E and related concerns won't be applicable to it as it's not a biography. 103.6.159.65 (talk) 04:04, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well, WP:EVENT exists for non-biographies. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 07:59, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well, WP:EVENT is regarding the notability of events. Rambot is not an event. 103.6.159.73 (talk) 08:56, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

OK, but any notability claim for Rambot comes from the spike in article creation it made. If anything the spike, not the bot, is notable. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 11:44, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Selective merge to List of Wikipedia controversies#2002, where there is already related content. Otherwise this falls under WP:BLP1E. ansh666 04:14, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
•  Note: I've split Rambot into a separate article. And also considering the partial content merge of some stuff to List of Wikipedia controversies#2002, the deletion of this page would cause GFDL violations. The other option is to redirect to Rambot which I support.

Also, I should note that since the discussion here is primarily regarding the deletion of the page Derek Ramsey (Wikipedian) as a biography (which is clear by the arguments made regarding it being a BLP1E violation and not meeting BLP notability policy), Rambot would require a separate AFD if anyone wants it to be deleted. It would be really silly to club it into this AFD. 103.6.159.73 (talk) 08:56, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That looks like a dodge tactic to me, especially considering the split is almost a move. In the hypothesis that Rambot gets AfDed and delete !votes start to pile up, will you go and create Rambot spike and insist it should be treated separately? If here, in this AfD, consensus appears that the event (not the person) was not notable, demanding that a new AfD be made would be WP:LAWYERing.

Just to be clear, I am not convinced any such consensus has been reached, and I am convinced you have good intentions. Nonetheless such actions in the midst of a heated AfD are somewhat disturbing to me. Why not simply !vote to move and refocus the article, if the basic content is to be kept? Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 12:14, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The "rambot spike" is a statistical anomaly only mentioned (as a term) in one source. It would have no chance. -- RM 16:29, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If an article is about to be deleted, copying the whole thing to another article and demanding a new AFD is dishonest and cheating. If this AFD is closed as by an uninvolved admin as "move to Rambot and refocus article", then that's fine. If it is closed as "delete", then that needs to actually mean something. --Floquenbeam (talk) 13:39, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@103.6.159.73: and @Ram-Man: Are you the same person? WJBscribe (talk) 14:32, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Looks unlikely, the IP is from India (Bangalore). While former edits for that IP imply good knowledge of WP (e.g. posts at ANI), likely an editor when not logged in, they are mostly India-related. Moreover, going from a shaky self-bio through AfC to such unsubtle sockpuppetting seems fairly radical. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 14:44, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No, I'm not socking. I'd retire from Wikipedia before doing that. -- RM 16:29, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: that the article has been selectively merged into List of Wikipedia controversies#2002, but not by me. I have redirected the original article and added the missing attribution to the edit history. The merger committed a copyvio by not doing the latter. 86.149.141.166 (talk) 14:25, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Noting that now this has been merged (and to multiple locations), whatever the outcome of this discussion the actual history of this page must not be deleted because it is required for attribution. Unfortunate that people couldn't just wait for an outcome here. Jenks24 (talk) 15:40, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  If the outcome of this discussion is that Derek Ramsey (Wikipedian) should be deleted but Rambot should be kept, it would make sense to merge the history prior to the cut and paste move into Rambot and delete the rest. Ideally participants in this discussion would now express an opinion on the Rambot article, and whether its creation addresses their reasons for deleting Derek Ramsey (Wikipedian). WJBscribe (talk) 16:43, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  Considering that it's essentially the exact same subject matter, just reworded, I think previous-to-date comments in favor of deletion for this page should be interpreted as comments in favor of deletion of the article at Rambot. Otherwise it's essentially having a third AFD discussion. If people supported moving the page to Rambot they'd have said so. Rambot could redirect somewhere (I don't really care where, or even if it is); this page normally shouldn't, but in order to preserve page history I guess it should be a redirect too, so I've altered my comment above. --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:20, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  I disagree. It's not "the exact same subject matter". It's not even the same subject. The article being discussed here is a biography apparently violating BLP1E whereas Rambot is a split-off that is not a biography. Per WP:BLP1E, it is usually better to ... redirect the person's name to the event article. Most of the comments here argue for deletion of the page on the basis of BPL1E, that it's a "vanity bio", not meeting BLP notability criteria (which are of course higher than the notability criteria for other stuff), COI etc. To interpret all these as arguments for deletion of Rambot, for which they are not valid, is a desperately deletionist sentiment. 103.6.159.79 (talk) 12:45, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  A bit of clarification is needed here. Looking at the current size of Derek Ramsey (Wikipedian), Rambot may indeed look like a straight copy. But we keep the original version of the article in mind (which included a lot of material other than about Rambot) then I think it would not be unreasonable to say that Rambot is a split-off. 103.6.159.70 (talk) 00:45, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge selectively (although it looks like this may have been done already) and Redirect to List of Wikipedia controversies and/or History of Wikipedia. There are some sources, but per WP:NOPAGE it's better handled elsewhere. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 17:38, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - As an aside, it's interesting how much an article being an autobiography will change these discussions. This is far better sourced than many other Wikipedian biographies (like Seedfeeder, which was somehow overwhelmingly kept at afd, or Angela Beesley, who despite being only marginally notable -- and despite her repeated requests to have it deleted -- was kept a staggering seven times before it was deleted). I mean there's a peer reviewed journal article (First Monday) about the guy and several pages in reputable books and other sources. Don't get me wrong, I agree it should be merged/redirected rather than kept...but I'm [surprised?] by all the delete !votes. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 17:38, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I suspect some of what you're seeing is a normal reaction to an editor creating an article about themselves. We give non-Wikipedians a pretty hard time about such behavior. David in DC (talk) 19:23, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Indeed, that's what I'm saying re: autobiography :) — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 20:35, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge very selectively. He isn't notable enough to pass WP:GNG, but some of the sourced content can be added to the page. Joseph2302 (talk) 22:37, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Per Floquenbeam. While I very much appreciate their work on the encyclopedia, I don't think it justifies an article in an encyclopedia. HighInBC 00:24, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Per Floquenbeam. Non notable naval gazing even though I note than Raman should be recognized *internally*. Ceoil (talk) 02:28, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge, given the historical importance of the technology developed, and its impact, and the significantly lower importance of the individual outside of that specific context. More on which articles for the merge, see following. As more a subject matter expert than a technocrat/bureaucrat, I would note that I and many outsiders would also appreciate an article on the individuals that have made significant historical contributions to WP. The bar for inclusion I leave to this august tribe, but would suggest it include various kinds of contributions, and not just page counts. (As one who has now amassed 42 edits, after sustaining 4.2 for years, I would offer to write the section on limitations to the concept of edit counting.) Otherwise, I echo the observations of Rhododendrites in their aside, regarding the quality of this stub's sourcing, over many, many others. I would further note—having come here from an Admin page discussion regarding a return of admin privileges—that some editor's comments here and there appear to reflect possible personally felt animus rather that pure WP policy-based considerations. As such, and for other reasons others have already touched on, I vote in favour of deleting this page, and maintaining Rambot and a section at Controversies. It should not be easier for the world to inform itself about the least character of the least television programme of passing interest, than to inform itself about the history, technologically and individually, of a revolutionary online encyclopedia. My opinion. And please do not count this as edit 43. Cheers. Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 08:56, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"given the historical importance of the technology developed, and its impact" - huh... We are talking about a bot on Wikipedia. Few people care about this. Don't get me wrong, it was extremely important for the community here, but the impact outside was virtually zero. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 07:38, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge/Delete Having an article on a person notable only for their contributions to Wikipedia is too self referential. His bot to incorporate more information on cities etc in the United States explains why we still so heavily rely on the 2000 census, and the majority of locality articles have not been updated with the 2010 census data. On another matter, I have made over 290,000 edits to Wikipedia, and have never used a bot to do so. I think his actions are worth mentioning in an article on the history of WIkipedia, but WIkipedia should not have a free standing bio on Ramsey.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:04, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well, Jimmy Wales has an article, and not for his trader career. Notability by Wikipedia could be achieved (though I doubt it is the case here). Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 07:45, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Whilst there are certainly Wikipedians who deserve their own articles for their work on Wikipedia (e.g Justin Knapp) this person is not one of them. Omni Flames ^{let's talk about it} 07:56, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. While Mr. Ramsey is probably a very fine man in real life (I can't say for sure, since I don't know him), there are a lot of primary and secondary sources from Wikipedia itself, talking about his work on Wikipedia, which seems to be Mr. Ramsey's key notability. There are very few third-party sources describing his work. epicgenius: unlimited epicness (talk) 14:42, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete' and then perhaps consider redirecting to List of Wikipedia controversies#2002 where he's currently mentioned, not yet convincing for a separate article. SwisterTwister talk 23:00, 26 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. —SpacemanSpiff 03:55, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mei (2016 film)[edit]

Mei (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)

This article does not meet the requirements for inclusion. It has no sources and no notability as far as I can see. I tried to move it to Draft:Mei (2016 film) but the editor reinstated it in article space. Darwinian Ape ^talk 17:00, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note that the article was the redirect that automatically created when I moved it to draft. Darwinian Ape ^talk 17:02, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:06, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:06, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Draftify and protect it as such for now. The film may become notable once it is released, but it seems to be WP:TOOSOON for an Wikipedia article on this film. editorEهեইдအ😎 21:19, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

alts:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

WP:INDAFD: Mei Movie Nishanth Varma Hari Narayanan Vasanth Jijo Thomas Joshua Newton

• Delete per being TOO SOON. I did find its offical website but it does not offer anything more than does the premature stub. I'm okay if it gets userfied as a draft-in-progress. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 04:29, 21 April 2016 (UTC).[reply]
• Note: The original creator of the article is an account called ‎Meithemovie, most likely created for the sole purpose of this article. That makes me think there might be COI issues here, and the article is for promotional reasons. Darwinian Ape ^talk 06:41, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Simply Delete for now altogether as there's nothing suggesting a solid article yet. SwisterTwister talk 23:01, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, citing WP:TOOSOON as the film has yet to be released and appears to lack significant coverage from reliable publications at this time. Regards, Yamaguchi先生 (talk) 16:16, 27 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 Deleted by Widr . (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 19:25, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

INFORMATION AND DATA ANALYSIS[edit]

INFORMATION AND DATA ANALYSIS (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 encyclopedic, merely a recycling of the dust cover (copyvio?) and the contents page. Bazj (talk) 16:18, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Non-nbotable textbook, promotional tone, no refs.HappyValleyEditor (talk) 16:19, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:39, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:39, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:39, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete WP:CSD#G11 (unambiguous promotion), same as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/BUSINESS ENGLISH AND STUDY SKILLS. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:44, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete A textbook example of unambiguous promotion WP:CSD#G11 and probably has some copyright violations, too. --Mark viking (talk) 18:02, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete as G11. Sam Sailor ^Talk! 18:38, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete This isn't Pearson Education editorEهեইдအ😎 18:52, 20 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 Deleted by Widr . (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 19:25, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Peter Samfan had orriginally closed the AFD however they've not used the correct template etc so I've reclosed. –Davey2010^Talk 19:27, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

BUSINESS ENGLISH AND STUDY SKILLS[edit]

BUSINESS ENGLISH AND STUDY SKILLS (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 encyclopedic, merely a recycling of the dust cover (copyvio?) and the contents page. Bazj (talk) 16:17, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete WP:CSD#G11 (unambiguous promotion), same as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/INFORMATION AND DATA ANALYSIS. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:44, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete as G11. Sam Sailor ^Talk! 18:41, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete. This isn't Pearson Education editorEهեইдအ😎 18:52, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete I G11'd it. Peter Sam Fan 18:56, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete ASAP per G11. Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ (talk) 18:57, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 23:51, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Kourosh Moaddeli[edit]

Kourosh Moaddeli (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)

Previously deleted 5 years ago after AfD, recreated by WP:SPA and mostly edited by SPAs. Does not appear any more notable than he was back then. List of references are low quality or not independent of subject. FuriouslySerene (talk) 15:55, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 19:38, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete for now at best as there's nothing suggesting the applicable notability and also of the necessary improvements. Notifying 1st AfDer DGG. SwisterTwister talk 23:03, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 23:03, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 23:03, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 23:03, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. non notable, promotional article for his neurolinguisticprogrammming practice. DGG ( talk ) 00:06, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:52, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:52, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:52, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. WP:PROMO. Agricola44 (talk) 13:42, 27 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 sources indicate that Malayan Premier League is not a fully professional league (Malayan Super League is).--Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 12:50, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Khair Jones[edit]

Khair Jones (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)

Recreation of an article previously deleted by PROD. Concern was Article about a footballer who fails WP:GNG and who has not played in a fully pro league. This remains valid. Sir Sputnik (talk) 14:58, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 14:58, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. GiantSnowman 17:22, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Prior to joining Melaka United, yes, he was playing in the semi-professional ASB Premiership League (New Zealand's first-tier football league) and an article of him (created back then) would have not met wiki criteria. However, he is currently playing in the Malaysian Premier League which is a fully professional football league. He is a registered player under Football Malaysia LLP (the organization which runs the Malaysian Premier League) for Melaka United Premier League squad, and have thus far (as of 21 April 2016) played in 6 league matches for Melaka United. --Shadoa (talk) 02:12, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The claim that the Malaysian Premier League is fully pro is not supported by reliable sources. (See WP:FPL). Sir Sputnik (talk) 20:39, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Information in WP:FPL about the professional status of Malaysian leagues require an update. There are many reliable sources which would substantiate the professional status of the Malaysian Premier League. Just need (a) wiki editor(s) to link them in the said article. --Shadoa (talk) 03:15, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Here is one reference: see Football_Malaysia_LLP for citations to reliable sources. --Shadoa (talk) 04:53, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the Premier League is semi-pro and 2nd tier - fails WP:Football NealeFamily (talk) 23:29, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Based on the Wikipedia association football notability guidelines for players, the tier which a player plays in is not a requirement for notability. A bit of history: the Malaysian league (M-League) transitioned from semi-pro to professional status in 1994 (See Malaysian_League, Malaysian_Semi-Pro_Football_League, Football_in_Malaysia), albeit experiencing change in format along the way. The current league format has been established since 2007 (See Malaysian_football_league_system, Malaysia_Premier_League, Malaysia_Super_League). --Shadoa (talk) 09:13, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete As the Malaysian Premier League doesn't appear to be fully professional, so fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTY. Joseph2302 (talk) 07:34, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Joseph2302 (talk) 07:37, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. Joseph2302 (talk) 07:37, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. Joseph2302 (talk) 07:37, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - hasn't played in a fully pro league Spiderone 10:54, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete for now as still questionable for solid independent notability. SwisterTwister talk 23:04, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:50, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:50, 27 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. Mojo Hand (talk) 13:52, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Gregg Vance[edit]

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

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

Seems like his sole source of notability is a single sentence from a 1996 Variety article. Article was created by WP:SPA called Greggygregps114, so I'm guessing this is an WP:AUTOBIO. Does not appear to meet WP:GNG or WP:BIO. FuriouslySerene (talk) 14:51, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I can't find anything else on him either. Empamazing (talk) 16:02, 20 April 2016 (UTC) (strike !vote by now-blocked sock per this SPI Jytdog (talk) 10:36, 23 April 2016 (UTC))[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 19:35, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as nothing suggesting the applicable notability and improvements. SwisterTwister talk 05:14, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete; fails WP:GNG. FoCuS contribs; talk to me! 17:04, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:49, 27 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 qualifies for speedy-delete. --Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 12:56, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mak Tower[edit]

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

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

Contested WP:PROD. Fails WP:GNG, an "article" of just seven words about a project that never got off the ground. Donnie Park (talk) 13:32, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - The building was never constructed. Subject is far from being notable. Meatsgains (talk) 14:22, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 14:30, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mongolia-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 14:30, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. No sources to indicate notability. And unless the fact that construction was never finished was notable in the news, there is no encyclopedic value to this article. GabeIglesia (talk) 14:32, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Notability of the construction's failure cannot be verified since there are no sources covering it. Meatsgains (talk) 01:36, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy/Snow Delete: This should've been CSD A7'd. Completely non-notable, WP:CRYSTALBALL, WP:NOT, et al.. Chrisw80 (talk) 05:20, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• (EC) Delete as nothing at all suggesting the necessary improvements and I myself nearly tagged it as A7. SwisterTwister talk 05:21, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 20:40, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jason Manly[edit]

Jason Manly (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 MMA fighter/trainer. Non-notable as an MMA fighter and the claims of being trainer to notable fighters are not supported and in any case WP:NOTINHERITED. Only one of the notable fighters he trained actually links to this article. Only working reference is to his unimpressive fight record. Peter Rehse (talk) 13:12, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 13:12, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 14:33, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 14:33, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete BLP without sources. No indication of meeting either WP:MANOTE or WP:NSPORT and notability isn't inherited from who he might have trained--especially when there's nothing to show he was the primary trainer of any of them. The only mention from anyone on the list is that one person got their BJJ blue belt from him--that's hardly enough to show notability. Papaursa (talk) 01:14, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:19, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as still questionable for solid independent notability. SwisterTwister talk 04:57, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete No sources except for a link to his MMA fight record which shows he hasn't even competed for a second tier promotion. Nothing to show notability as a trainer or martial artist. Fails GNG, MANOTE, and NMMA.Mdtemp (talk) 16:15, 29 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 deleted WP:CSD#G7 at author's request JohnCD (talk) 14:08, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Timothy Ihemadu[edit]

Timothy Ihemadu (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 was deleted last December but then recreated soon after by one of the delete !voters who considered that WP:BASIC was indeed met. Based on the sources cited, I see no evidence that this is the case since none of them come close to providing substantial coverage of the subject. My own searches also support this position. SmartSE (talk) 12:42, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Bearcat and SwisterTwister: Pinging previous participants. SmartSE (talk) 12:43, 20 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" 12:59, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Lenox Tillman[edit]

Lenox Tillman (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)

On 17 April, the article was PRODed for deletion by User:2601:241:0:ea46:d946:844a:9926:6b16 (reason = "Subject is of little notability outside of the context of the show.") On 18 April, it was un-PRODed by the creator, User:LAL22, then re-PRODed today by User:Aoidh (reason = "Article fails WP:GNG and WP:BIO."). Per WP:PROD, I have converted the PROD to AfD.
Delete - Combined with the COI, the subject fails WP:NMODEL. The news coverage shows virtually no notability outside of America's Next Top Model (cycle 21), which she did not win. Linguist 111^talk 12:20, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, I had looked for a previous PROD but I guess I overlooked the IP. - Aoidh (talk) 12:23, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Article fails WP:GNG and WP:BIO. Reality World is a site that covers every single little detail of (seemingly) every single reality show, so being mentioned there is nothing more than routine coverage. - Aoidh (talk) 12:24, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:37, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:47, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:47, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as nothing suggesting convincing solid independent notability. SwisterTwister talk 04:54, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 23:46, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Lou M. Jacobs[edit]

Lou M. Jacobs (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)

Notability not established per WP:BIO; article's independent sources basically consist of a wedding announcement and a local blog's story on a historic house. A supposed San Francisco newspaper source that might help establish notability was removed on BLP policy grounds, and anyway really documented actions of the corporation that don't establish personal notability. - Brianhe (talk) 12:05, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 14:34, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 14:34, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete and Redirect to the company as this is still then questionable for its own solid article but linking it to the company may be acceptable. Keep or at least Redirect to the company as DGG and I have suggested that CEOs of multi-billion dollar companies can be considered and although this may still be questionable for solid improvements, I am although pensively thinking Keep. SwisterTwister talk 05:46, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Not enough coverage here about him specifically. The company's notable, but he doesn't meet the criteria in my opinion. Just include info on him in the company article. RockyMtChai (talk) 19:54, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete.Though I think generally that presidents of multibillion companies should indeed be considered notable, this is a special case where a member of a rich family is president of the family business. In general the presidents of multibillion dollar companies must have manifested notable characteristics or done notable things or they wouldn't be in their position; this isn't necessarily true for the family member who heads a family company. Had I just read the afd and not the article, I would not have seen that. Possibly redirect to the company, in case someone should happen to be looking for him and not know the company. DGG ( talk ) 19:15, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:21, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Uncontested. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 02:15, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

R. Shanea Williams[edit]

R. Shanea Williams (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 producer who won a minor award. Some minor coverage but still not notable imo Gbawden (talk) 10:54, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:37, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Simply not enough sources to satisfy WP:GNG. -- RM 15:30, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as nothing at all actually insinuating solid independent notability. SwisterTwister talk 22:22, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:45, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per SwisterTwister st170e^talk 01:41, 28 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" 15:29, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hepotoma Research[edit]

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

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

Does not appear to be a notable research journal. The journal (which is Hepatoma Research; the title is a typo) has not been covered in reliable sources, and is not listed on either Scopus or Web of Science. A7 was declined by Graeme Bartlett. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 09:13, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 09:18, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 09:18, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 09:18, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 09:18, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 09:18, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. A7 is not really intended for academic journals (even though one could argue that an on-line only journal like this one is a "website"). I just PRODded the article at almost the same time that this was nominated for AfD. This is a non-notable new journal. Not indexed in any selective databases, no independent sources. Does not meet WP:NJournals or WP:GNG. As an aside, the only claim to fame here is being published by OAE Publishing, which is on Beall's list of predatory publishers. --Randykitty (talk) 09:20, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - I would say being published by OAE is almost a claim against notability... Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 11:07, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. WP:SOAPBOXy article, especially considering the predatory publisher. PS, the article is spelled incorrectly; it should be Hepatoma Research. - HyperGaruda (talk) 12:30, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Randykitty. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 00:49, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as not currently convincing for the needed notability. SwisterTwister talk 04:50, 27 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 due to DGG's reassessment of the ATLA, which on reflection I agree with. (non-admin closure) Cordless Larry (talk) 15:11, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sara Myers[edit]

Sara 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)

Subject appears to fail to meet WP:NACADEMICS, as discussed with the article's creator and others at User:Jcstanley/my articles. Cordless Larry (talk) 14:14, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment -- still looking around for sources. Before going to CTS, she was full professor at Union Theological Seminary, which is Columbia University's theology school, and director of their library, one of the largest theology collections in the US, so it's not a simple, "not all librarians are notable" case. We're probably debating a member of one of the top few hundred important librarians in the country and a full prof. at an Ivy League school (though UTS and Columbia's official relationship is weird). I'm on the fence about whether this is enough, but there may be more still to find. -- Michael Scott Cuthbert (talk) 15:29, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Confusing that we now have Columbia University and Columbia Theological Seminary both in this debate; I'll try to distinguish better than I did in my first edit. -- Michael Scott Cuthbert (talk) 15:30, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep as President of ATLA; clearly passes WP:PROF #6. StAnselm (talk) 19:05, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 01:59, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Concern was expressed at User:Jcstanley/my articles#Sara Myers that the society is not "major" in the sense required by the notability guideline. Cordless Larry (talk) 07:10, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"Concern was expressed", eh? Well it's absolutely ridiculous. ATLA is far and away the most important organization in its field. StAnselm (talk) 09:10, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Anselm -- I'm really close leaning towards keep, but if you could give a sense of the scope of ATLA and theological libraries in general in theology/religious studies, it'd be helpful. I know scholarly societies that are the most important organizations in fields that are too specialized for that to be enough. I also know societies which are important where being president requires such leadership that the person becomes notable, and societies where the president doesn't do much (the executive director does, or the society "runs itself") but where being president indicates that the person is already notable. Like Larry, I'm to figure out where ATLA and Dr. Meyers are in all this. One of the things I recently learned (from Googling) is that ATLA runs a parallel system to JSTOR for 700 theology journals that is extremely important, and that when they change how they do their indexing, it's news that is picked up by many other indexing services (EBSCO, Worldcat, OCLC, etc.). I'm leaning strongly towards keep, many on other grounds (full profs. at Columbia University (i.e., Union Theology School) don't get that way without being notable in their fields) but would like to have the ATLA PROF#C6 as a slam dunk. I'm convincible and I think Larry might be too. -- Michael Scott Cuthbert (talk) 13:53, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging StAnselm, as Michael missed out part of your username. Cordless Larry (talk) 13:58, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Theological librarianship is a distinct and significant academic discipline. Unfortunately, we do not have a separate article on it, only Christian library, which needs a lot of work. But there are many professional theological library organizations around the world - Bibliothèques Européennes de Théologie, the Association of British Theological and Philosophical Libraries, the Australian and New Zealand Theological Library Association, etc. (Yes, we have a lot more work to do here!) ATLA is the most significant, partly because of its journals, but mostly because of the ATLA Database. StAnselm (talk) 19:19, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Considering I'm currently uncertain, I'm asking DGG for his analysis. SwisterTwister talk 04:01, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Head of the major professional society in her field in the US. The heads of other national associations, at least in major countries, would be notable also. This is the way we've always handled Presidents of significant academic societies: the head of each national one is notable, but not heads of subnational branches. DGG ( talk ) 04:45, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hi DGG. Over at User:Jcstanley/my_articles#Sara_Myers, you stated "Important society, yes, but not 'major' in the sense we usually use it for WP:PROF. ALA is major". Could you clarify? Cordless Larry (talk) 06:26, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ALA is major in the sense it covers all librarians; ATLA is the major one in its special field. I should perhaps mention I have some minor acquaintance with it: I gave given a presentation on WP at one of its meetings. I have !voted to delete a number of the articles on this group of faculty--one was even kept despite my opinion. But this is one of the clearer keeps. DGG ( talk ) 07:57, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per StAnselm. ATLA is the major society in its field. --Mark viking (talk) 10:32, 20 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 Toužim. The article's subject lacks the required notability for an independent article. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 09:08, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Aeroklub Toužim[edit]

Aeroklub Toužim (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 evidence of notability from what I could see; however, most sources are Czech and I cannot read that language. Top results are the aeroclub's and the town's wepages. Tigraan (talk) 15:31, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Additional comment - this page was speedily deleted as WP:G11 a day ago, and the same user recreated it...

I did not see that when AfDing. The current version seems OK-ish to me in that respect, because "unambiguously promotional" is a high threshold to meet. Tigraan (talk) 16:31, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Czech Republic-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:13, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:40, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:40, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - does not meet the WP:GNG. It's a little club of 55 members based on a little grass airfield next to a little town of 3800 people, I doubt that there would be very much to find even in Czech, let alone in English. Mere existence is not enough to justify a WP article. YSSYguy (talk) 03:16, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Selective Merge to Toužim. The club has received some coverage (e.g. [2]), but does not appear to have received enough to qualify for a standalone article. The merge target article presently has no mention of this, so a merge will enhance it per WP:PRESERVE. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:08, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by nom - agreed. I do not like WP:GEOLAND; I do not think minor towns like Toužim should have an article in the first instance, but since the guideline mandates one, we can as well use it. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 08:05, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete instead as I've been watching this and considered the merge but I frankly am not convinced for it. I would suggest redirect perhaps if needed though. SwisterTwister talk 04:48, 27 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. Notability not established. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 09:05, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Christian Distefano[edit]

Christian Distefano (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 fails WP:GNG and WP:NACTOR. The only source that mentions him in any kind of detail is this local piece from his hometown, which per WP:AUD is not sufficient. Regardless, articles require multiple third-party sources; it is WP:TOOSOON to have an article on this individual. Aoidh (talk) 16:12, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• KEEP - Various articles and tv shows and films that this person has been in. Just look him up, easily find many things he's been in and even the various sources back it up. And even if you want to, just watch a film or TV show that he has been in.Thursby16 (talk) 16:15, 31 March 2016 (UTC) ADDING.... Also look at this page, it has only one reference and the external link is IMDB and apparently that isn't reliable when it is. If that's the case, why hasn't this page been deleted? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Johnny_Bennett ? Thursby16 (talk) 16:18, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Having been in films is not a criteria for notability. Does the individual meet any of the notability criteria, which is required for an article on Wikipedia? Also see WP:WAX. Just because another article may have issues does not give this one a free pass. - Aoidh (talk) 16:19, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. WP:NACTOR . He has had significant roles in multiple tv shows. He was one of the main voices in Creative Galaxy, PAW Patrol and Peg + Cat. That passes it.Thursby16 (talk) 16:23, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Which sources, exactly, support that claim?- Aoidh (talk) 17:23, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt3121722/?ref_=nm_flmg_act_3 , http://www.imdb.com/title/tt3012540/?ref_=nm_flmg_act_5 , http://www.imdb.com/title/tt2402500/?ref_=nm_flmg_act_2 . Thursby16 (talk) 18:43, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

IMDb is not a reliable or notability-conferring source for an actor. It's media coverage or bust, no exceptions ever. Bearcat (talk) 17:56, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This other source also says he has the lead role. http://www.moviefone.com/tv/creative-galaxy/281564/main/ Thursby16 (talk) 18:47, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete for actors who are 11 we require significant coverage. We totally lack that here. Even if we look at a few of his roles, they are utterly unnotable. Super Why is a good example. It is a CGI-animated show, so we are dealing with the rules for voice acting not regular acting, which means the role is never going to be as clear an indication of notability. That said, Distefano not only does not have one of the 5 central roles, he does not have a major role at all, appearing in maybe 2 episodes. This is the level of his roles, either in unnotable works or unnotable roles in notable works. This is not the level of roles let alone the level of coverage that we need to justify having an article on a minor.19:28, 31 March 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnpacklambert (talk • contribs) 19:28, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

He has also done live action tv shows and films too.Thursby16 (talk) 19:31, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:03, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:03, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep had the lead in two series: the voice role in Peg + Cat tv series and voice role in Creative Galaxy tv series, ( both notable series having wikipedia articles) he was also in 38 episodes of Paw Patrol as well as a number of live acting roles.The references could be improved but criteria1 of WP:NACTOR is passed, having prominent roles in notable productions.He is very notable for having a large number of roles at such a young age, 18 credits at age 11.there should be no age discrimination on wikipedia- the rules are the same for an actor whatever their age. Also, there should be no discrimination against voice acting credits, after all Hollywood's top stars do voice roles.Atlantic306 (talk) 16:30, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak delete: I also feel there needs to be significant coverage because of this actor's age, but I also see that Distefano's IMDb page (while not a reliable source) lists him as having been nominated for the 2016 ACTRA Awards. In other words, I agree it is WP:TOOSOON as of the moment, but because of his ACTRA nomination I am on the verge of supporting this article being kept. Derbundeskanzler (talk) 18:15, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In their current form, the ACTRAs are a purely local award for which a nomination or even a win doesn't necessarily confer notability in and of itself — while they were the main Canadian television awards prior to 1985, that role was taken over by another award and the current ACTRAs are a completely different thing. Bearcat (talk) 18:04, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Move to Draft instead as I'm also quite familiar with him and it's still too soon and this is common with these subjects anyway, consider Alex Ferris who has also had other PBS works, Draft instead for now and wait for a better article later if needed. SwisterTwister talk 04:47, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nominator. 64.114.128.119 (talk) 01:18, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

*Strong Keep per the de-nominal fact in which he has portrayed main protagonists in various children's television entertainment. Also, this youngster shall most probably participate in various other roles.KingOfKingsTheAssassin (talk) 21:06, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Striking meatpuppet !vote JMHamo (talk) 22:16, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• An actor does not get an automatic inclusion freebie just because he exists, or even just because he's had roles — having had acting roles is part of an actor's job description. What gets an actor over WP:NACTOR is reliable source coverage about him, but none has been shown. The closest thing to a valid source here is a profile on CBC Music, but that's on a part of their website where artists get to repost their own EPKs and thus gets clobbered as a primary source — that service's main front-page news feed counts as valid and notability-supporting referencing, but its artist bios section does not. And nothing else here counts as valid sourcing at all. Delete, without prejudice against recreation in the future if and when he can be sourced better than this. Bearcat (talk) 18:04, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as lacks notability and most of the article is a poorly sourced list. Omni Flames ^{let's talk about it} 03:19, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP Absolutely keep this boy has done many large projects many more compared to other kids with the Wikipedia page currently on the database long was his anti-bullying song you should be recognized with the Wikipedia page of a person of extraordinary abilities. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.12.77.25 (talk) 10:58, 26 April 2016 (UTC) — 74.12.77.25 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

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

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

The result was delete. A snowball is rolling here. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 14:29, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

2009 Joy Flight crash[edit]

2009 Joy Flight crash (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Not notable aviation incident. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 08:53, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 09:53, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 09:53, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 09:53, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 09:53, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete cant see anything that would make this worthy of a stand-alone article, it would have had to kill somebody important or hit something important to pass the bar as helicopter accidents are unfortunately common and mostly unencyclopedic. MilborneOne (talk) 15:50, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete There are a ton of news references that covered these events, including national coverage (WP:GEOSCOPE), but that's just not enough. -- RM 16:00, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - routine helicopter crash. No need to have an article here. Mjroots (talk) 18:24, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete News coverage does not notability make!!!--Petebutt (talk) 02:50, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - news reports, then silence. Australia is a country where a Qantas flight turning around and going back to its point of departure will generate news coverage; where every single aircraft crash will get news coverage, even a single-seat ultralight (I discovered a couple of hours ago that the light aircraft crash in Sydney I was involved in, was mentioned in the Singapore Straits Times newspaper). As Petebutt says, "News coverage does not notability make" especially in the Australian context. YSSYguy (talk) 09:33, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Commonplace and not notable. We don't have articles on each individual car accident around the world, why would we have this? - Ahunt (talk) 13:43, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Most of the information here already appears in the "Incidents" section of Dreamworld. Also, the title of the article is an unlikely search term, so redirecting seems inappropriate. NewYorkActuary (talk) 03:09, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• SNOW Delete as nothing convincing of better independent notability. SwisterTwister talk 04:30, 27 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. —SpacemanSpiff 03:51, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Amandeep Singh (Suniara)[edit]

Amandeep Singh (Suniara) (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 model, actor also claimed as a singer who recently won a reality show Mr. Punjab. I fail to find much in-depth about this biography. The references are only talking about his last winning nothing else. Possibly a case of WP:TOOSOON. The article also has the issue G5. Thank You – GSS (talk) 07:55, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk) 08:07, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk) 08:07, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• All sources are press releases, and this is a G5 case. Also, I doubt it could survive GNG. Finally, Mr. Punjab does not appear to be sufficiently notable to pass the MUSICIAN requirement. I'm thinking delete. GAB^Hello! 15:06, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as this clearly contains no better information and sources to suggest better notability. SwisterTwister talk 05:15, 22 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  08:38, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Saksham - everyone is capable[edit]

Saksham - everyone is capable (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)

PR piece created by a social media marketeer who along with promoting clients has also been doing self promotion. On the face of it, this looks like it has reasonable references, but then on deeper look (English and Hindi) it's completely based on regurgitated press releases. The Tribune piece is in it's internet section "Gyan Zone" which is for user submitted content, the Punjab Kesari (Hindi) piece is in the local entertainment section as a PR piece, The Dainik Jagran link is also a web consolidation of the PR piece. There's also been a lot of socking involved with different socks addressing different article groups (some of which is visible in the history of this article and that of the director/creator) —SpacemanSpiff 07:37, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. —SpacemanSpiff 07:38, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. —SpacemanSpiff 07:38, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete'"' per nom. Clubjustin (talk) 07:46, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Promotional piece with no independent sources. --regentspark (comment) 14:57, 20 April 2016 (UTC).[reply]

  Also, it does not satisfy any of the criteria laid out in WP:NF. No reviews. Neither the actors nor the producers/directors are significant. Not yet released. And no independent sources that assert its notability. --regentspark (comment) 16:55, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 04:29, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as too soon it seems, not yet convincing for a Wikipedia article. SwisterTwister talk 04:29, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

in looking:

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

music/camera/editor:(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)

WP:INDAFD: Saksham Everyone is Capable Snehil Sharma Akhil Kumar Yadav &gsc.sort= Inside Motion Pictures

• Keep as filming has begun and the project is getting some actual coverage in reliable sources. For instance, Tribune India is a news article, not PR schlock. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 05:16, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • • Um. The Tribune article is the very definition of PR schlock. Almost every statement in that article is attributed to someone on the film. All it is saying is that the film concept exists because the director says so. And it is likely that the writer of the article hasn't even seen the film. --regentspark (comment) 17:13, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • As I have explained above Tribune's Gyan Zone is submissions area. —SpacemanSpiff 05:17, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes, you stated so above and no offense, but where does it say Gyan Zone is so anywhere besides you saying so in this discussion? THIS is somewhat enlightening. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 14:53, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • And I do dislike the multiple press releases improperly used in the WP:COI of article author Snehilsharma, but Newznew appears to be authored and independent, as does Mangla Times, United News of India, Web India 123, and some others. Author should really study WP:NOTABOUTYOU. Just sayin'. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 23:50, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]