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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 00:39, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Elena Choo[edit]

Elena Choo (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 WP:TOOSOON. The subject fails GNG as there is hardly any coverage in reliable and independent sources. The subject doesn't pass WP:ENT either as it requires significant roles in multiple notable films. From what I can see, the subject has performed minor roles in a few productions. The movie "Epiphany" is actually a short film which was a final year project of a group of university students. Overall, looking at the lack of coverage and the fact that the roles are all minor roles, I would go with a delete. -- Lemongirl942 (talk) 23:57, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 (talk) 23:58, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 (talk) 23:58, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 (talk) 23:58, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete and this should have been PRODed, nothing at all for substance. SwisterTwister talk 03:33, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete unless evidence of roles in non-student productions turns up. A Train^talk 11:24, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete My searching did not find much.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 21:50, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete As noted above, I tried to work on this article and I failed to find much of anything for this. -- Dane2007 ^talk 22:31, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 00:39, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Kooboo[edit]

Kooboo (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 would've frankly speedied or PRODed, but because chances are there's no symmetrical contents, here we are again; all sources are essentially both PR and their own websites and my own searches found this also, PR and their own websites; none of that actually amounts to substance. SwisterTwister talk 23:08, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 23:09, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 23:09, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 23:09, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2016 August 7. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 23:25, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete -- typical advertorial / product brochure / corporate web site content, much of it uncited or self-cited. 3rd party coverage is insufficient to meet GNG and sustain an encyclopedia entry. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:59, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:39, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:39, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:39, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Needs third-party sources in a big way. A Train^talk 11:33, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Reads like an advert. -- Dane2007 ^talk 22:30, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 00:39, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Parent Report[edit]

The Parent Report (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)

Completely unsourced article about a syndicated one-minute interstitial radio segment. Something like this does not get a free pass over WP:NMEDIA just for existing, but must be sourced well enough to pass WP:GNG -- but all we've got here for "referencing" is the program's own self-published website about itself. For added bonus, there's a probable conflict of interest here, as the creator's username is "Mi7ch182" and the "marketing assistant" listed on the program's website has the given name Mitch. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 03:05, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:20, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:20, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete – Several source searches have provided no coverage in reliable sources thus far; fails WP:N. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:52, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete a search reveals a lack of coverage in reliable sources. Lepricavark (talk) 00:46, 8 August 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  19:37, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yuri Avalishvili[edit]

Yuri Avalishvili (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)

Can't see how this person passes WP:ARTIST - difficult to understand much of the content that may hint towards notability, but (as a basic test), the only non ex-soviet bloc organisation to engage with him (the boston one) doesn't seem notable in itself, and a google search of subject + gallery throws up no results (also note entire list is unreferenced).
almost no references. SPA/COI editor. horrendously written article. orphan article since its creation. many other issues. Rayman60 (talk) 22:56, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:31, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Georgia (country)-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:31, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:32, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment There is a significant claim to notability that would satisfy WP:ARTIST. If Avalishvili's work has indeed been collected by the Art Museum of Georgia and the National Gallery of Armenia, 4(d) would be met. I have not been able to find any sources that corroborate that claim, mostly because I understand neither [Georgian nor Armenian. Both museums have a searchable database of their collections, so perhaps someone who can read those languages has better luck than I did. If I have to go by the sources available in English, I cannnot find Avalishvili him or the Museum of Modern Renaissance notable. The Museum of Modern Renaissance seems to have anticipated this, as their website proudly states "Modern Renaissance is not to be found in any Encyclopedia of Art"^[1]. Perhaps it should remain so. Mduvekot (talk) 00:23, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

References

• Comment - I tried looking through google to help with sources, but found nothing with my limited English-dependent search abilities. I do assume there might be some good coverage in another language, unfortunately I'm not good at guessing which translation of his name to use for a search term in those cases. Yvarta (talk) 01:12, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong delete It's an extremely interesting case. So, I think we do have a good reasons to delete in article. First of all it does look like a PR article - an author's only work, which is the same for Russian wikipedia, in which creator with the same user name made the only contribution. The Russian article is also of very poor quality, tagged as non satisfying Wikipedia standards. Second, taking into account all the claims of notability in Russia, including competitions and gallery shows, I'd expected to find quite a lot of sources on Russian, which I didn't. Almost no mentions in any secondary sources, not related to PR articles from galleries. Third, for a such celebrated artist it's quite a funny to have a site, made on schoolchild level and located on narod.ru platform - a simple amateur website platform for Russian internet. And the last one - the claim for notability is made by showing permanent collections - on his site there are scans of documents, showing him making donations to Art Museum of Georgia and the National Gallery of Armenia. A bit of a weak claim for notability. Arthistorian1977 (talk) 11:50, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 00:39, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Town Congress - Nagercoil[edit]

Town Congress - Nagercoil (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 for verification, or to show notability. Article is badly written, but cannot be fixed without references. Article claims subject is a "wing" of the Indian National Congress, but the INC article does not mention it. ubiquity (talk) 11:34, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. ubiquity (talk) 12:31, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. ubiquity (talk) 12:31, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• No Notability found. --βα£α(ᶀᶅᶖᵵᵶ) 20:01, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Could not find anything to establish notability. Appears more like an offshoot of Indian National Congress but still no refs to provide that connection. Lakun.patra (talk) 05:56, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 00:40, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Bahniwal[edit]

Bahniwal (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)

Lacks notability. All the clan articles in the category of 'Jat Clans of Punjab' face the same issue. Most of them are as if there are listed in a clans directory, WP:NOT. Regards, KCVelaga _{☚╣✉╠☛} 12:41, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. Uanfala (talk) 12:56, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Uanfala (talk) 12:56, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, pending evidence of significant coverage from reliable publications, with the added note that this article has managed to go five years without any. Regards, Yamaguchi先生 (talk) 19:50, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - I have been unable to find anything in reliable sources that would suggest this meets WP:GNG. - Sitush (talk) 04:51, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to a list of (real or fictitious) Jat clans of Punjab. Sources (if unreliable) do exist, so this is a term that readers are likely to encounter in the literature and come here looking for information. Uanfala (talk) 07:57, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• We have had this discussion before, Uanfala. You were !outvoted then and should be now. We are not a repository of trivia, nor of what unreliable sources say. There is a long-standing consensus to delete articles such as this where the only sourcing is that from the Raj era. That is because the Raj writers knew bugger-all about their subject matter and usually just accepted the myriad of contradictory claims, stories and aspirations that they encountered. Their methodology was flawed, their expertise virtually nil and their ability to critique absolutely so. - Sitush (talk) 08:15, 13 August 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 one "keep" does not address the notability of the topic, except to admit that the content is in fact not notable.  Sandstein  19:35, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Children of Passions[edit]

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

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

Delete as it fails WP:FICT, WP:NOTE and WP:RS. While I respect and admire the work put into this page, the children of the show's main characters do not have enough notability for their own page. Instead, the information about the children can easily be covered in the page about his or her parents. Aoba47 (talk) 22:55, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Aoba47 (talk) 22:57, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions Aoba47 (talk) 22:57, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep WP:CSC clause 2 specifically calls out minor characters lists like this: we absolutely do not want individual articles for these NN elements of a notable fictional franchise, so we lump them all together in one place where they can be watched and trimmed appropriately. Jclemens (talk) 04:52, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - This does not establish notability. There is no need to cover every single character in a series. Some series may have hundreds of named characters (especially something that can go on for decades like a soap opera), but only the most core characters need any coverage. If these characters are not important, they don't need anything more than a brief inclusion on an episode list summary if they're even that relevant. Saying that a containment article is necessary is pointless. The main article can be watched and trimmed appropriately TTN (talk) 23:33, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - The article itself is poorly referenced and can easily be merged with, like what Aoba47 said, the respective articles for his or her parents. Carbrera (talk) 21:33, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge into List_of_Passions_characters_and_cast, Minor Passions characters, or respective articles on their parents. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 02:28, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - No notability and poorly referenced article. -- Dane2007 ^talk 22:26, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 00:40, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

AVL Tree in CSharp[edit]

AVL Tree in CSharp (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)

Large computer science original research; POV fork of AVL tree article - üser:Altenmann >t 15:26, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:58, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete WP;NOT —Ruud 11:06, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Patently ridiculous to have another AVL tree article, and especially one to be a holder for huge amounts of computer code (whether in CSharp or any other language). --R. S. Shaw (talk) 06:48, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Agree with the comments above...WP:NOT definitely applies. -- Dane2007 ^talk 22:27, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 00:40, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

List of smartphones supporting GLONASS navigation[edit]

List of smartphones supporting GLONASS navigation (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 this list has a pretty clear inclusion criteria, it isn't a discerning feature of the phones involved. Many of the products listed aren't referenced here, and aren't notable enough to merit their own articles. Mikeblas (talk) 16:36, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:58, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:58, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep as the nom doesn't make a compelling argument for deletion. Jclemens (talk) 04:54, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:02, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete -- too many red-linked articles and no clear purpose for the list. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:32, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Seems to be directory. Thoughtmonkey (talk) 22:58, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete List doesn't seem to make sense to be included in the encyclopedia. -- Dane2007 ^talk 22:28, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Yngwie Malmsteen . MBisanz ^talk 00:41, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yngwie Malmsteen Stratocaster[edit]

Yngwie Malmsteen Stratocaster (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 variation of a commercial product. No viable, non-trivial references are forthcoming for this configuration of Stratocaster. After deletion,w e can leave a redirect to the main Stratocaster article. Mikeblas (talk) 17:49, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I no longer give a crap Mlpearc (open channel) 17:53, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

While Yngwie is notable, this guitar model isn't; notability is not contageous. -- Mikeblas (talk) 14:12, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

::@Mikeblas: There are many specific modifications to his signature model which is quite unique. Mlpearc (open channel) 00:14, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:36, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Unique isn't notable. -- Mikeblas (talk) 04:27, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge albeit a tiny one. This probably merits a one-line mention in the Yngwie Malmsteen article but definitely not a whole article onto itself, given the paucity of sources. Happy to do it myself. A Train^talk 11:38, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Selective Merge to Yngwie Malmsteen Yngwie Malmsteen Stratocaster. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:40, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Huh? This is the Yngwie Malmsteen Stratocaster article. How can we merge it into itself? -- Mikeblas (talk) 14:58, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, fixed above. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:44, 13 August 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. MBisanz ^talk 00:42, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

List of sinkholes[edit]

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

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

The article, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sinkhole, already contains a list of notable examples. Sinkholes are pretty common place, I don't think this requires a dedicated list. EditorDownUnder (talk) 21:49, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Agree with EditorDownUnder, this doesn't need it's own list. -- Dane2007 22:16, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I don't know of any WP policy that says we shouldn't have a list of sinkholes.Thoughtmonkey (talk) 22:54, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment @Thoughtmonkey: My thinking is that WP:NOT and WP:SAL may apply in this case. I could be wrong though, but just giving some insight into where my decision came from. -- Dane2007 ^talk 23:58, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I don't see anything there that's a problem. Sinkhole is well defined, and the items are notable and not that numerous. I do agree with you that we don't need the list, but that's not a reason to delete it.Thoughtmonkey (talk) 00:39, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I also agree with EditorDownUnder that a dedicated list is not required.Thoughtmonkey (talk) 13:20, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

But sink holes are numerous and common place. EditorDownUnder (talk) 23:25, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That has nothing to do with anything. Only the notable ones have been listed. Not every sinkhole is notable. -- Tavix ^(talk) 23:30, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:23, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:23, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:23, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep – Qualifies for an article per WP:NOTDUP relative to Category:Sinkholes. Also qualifies as a functional navigational aid per WP:LISTPURP. This is a more comprehensive list compared to the one at the main Sinkhole article. Another option is to merge the list to the Sinkhole article, rather than deleting. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:24, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, this is an acceptable way to present notable sinkholes. I think it needs a bit of clean-up, but the fact that sinkholes are "common place" (sic) is a pretty nonsensical reason to want to delete a list. -- Tavix ^(talk) 02:31, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - it's a reasonable way to organise the information. An article on sinkholes as a topic, a category for notable sinkholes with their own article, a list for sinkholes reported in media but not notable enough for their own article to keep the main sinkholes article concise is a reasonable way to present this topic. Blythwood (talk) 11:45, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - mountains and rivers are fairly commonplace too and there are loads of lists for them, so that's not a strong argument. The article, sinkhole, should probably not have a list though, unless it's very short and specific. Bermicourt (talk) 08:52, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. As Tavix said, this article might need cleanup, but AfD is not cleanup. Ditto North America. -- Anarchyte (work | talk) 12:10, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 00:42, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yendri[edit]

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

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

Does not meet WP:MUSICBIO or WP:GNG. Source searches are providing no significant coverage. The first AfD discussion in January 2012 was closed as no consensus. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:31, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:33, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:33, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete No news articles I could find about this group and no song hits that have been on top musical charts. Fails WP:BAND. — JudeccaXIII (talk) 22:52, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 00:42, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dyna Records[edit]

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

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

An earlier PROD tag was placed on the article but removed by the article's creator. Here is my initial concern:

I wish them all the best but this record label is a few weeks old and has only released music by one of its founders. Quite clearly, the label is not notable enough. In fact there's another record company with the same name that was founded in the Philippines in 1957 and is probably more notable than the Dyna Records of the present article. (see [1]) Finally (and this is just a minor point as far as deletion is concerned) the username of the creator suggests a potential conflict of interest. Pichpich (talk) 21:43, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I agree this is not notable enough and it's way too recent. -- Dane2007 22:20, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:11, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:11, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete fails WP:GNG. Wikipedia is not a vehicle for advertising. The Banner talk 19:50, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- RoySmith (talk) 12:48, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Go Goodwins[edit]

Go Goodwins (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 bus company again Fails GNG, (I had tagged it under G4 assuming it was created recently however after being rollbacked I've realized it was created back in April), Thanks –Davey2010^Talk 12:03, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Also there was a first AFD however that for some reason deleted hence it not being above, cheers, –Davey2010^Talk 12:05, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• I've moved the 2nd AFD to 1st and this nom to 2nd as the 2nd nom should've technically been the first anyway, Thanks, –Davey2010^Talk 21:41, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:24, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:24, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:24, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as by all means simply a local transportation company, I'm honestly not finding anything else better. SwisterTwister talk 22:28, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep small article, well cited in both local and industry press. Cygnes64 (talk) 09:44, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That's not actually convincing for convincing substance, however. SwisterTwister talk 22:36, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete -- advertorial on an unremarkable company. Sources are insufficient to meet CORPDEPTH and GNG. K.e.coffman (talk) 07:22, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Unremarkable local outfit. Fails WP:CORP.Charles (talk) 08:30, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2016 August 7. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 21:38, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 00:42, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

HPE Mobile Center[edit]

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

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

Does not meet WP:GNG. References do not establish notability. ubiquity (talk) 15:06, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. ubiquity (talk) 15:07, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak delete - Some coverage in reliable sources but nothing significant. Meatsgains (talk) 15:25, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• a bunch of references have been added. Forrester is certainly significant and calls it our specifically. Not sure why you would want to delete the entry — Preceding unsigned comment added by D landsberg (talk • contribs) 11:46, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Many references there explaining the mobile testing tools space include analyst report that cover the entire market, as well as link to Mobile application testing in Wikipedia. please do not delete this page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Theman285 (talk • contribs) 13:30, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 00:42, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Tyson Sullivan[edit]

Tyson Sullivan (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 two articles (2014 and 2016) are in fact actually the same, but apparently G4 has been declined because of the levels of consensus (which I frankly believe it's still deletion-worthy); regardless, my searches and examinations have sitll found nothing actually convincing, the longest works he's had are only each 5 and 4 episodes, there's essentially nothing else actually convincing. SwisterTwister talk 20:56, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2016 July 31. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 21:14, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 10:17, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 10:17, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete non-notable actor that isn't the subject of multiple articles in reliable sources, seems pretty clear cut CrispyGlover (talk) 19:43, 14 August 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 DGG. Rebbing 22:34, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

KickassMovieTorrents[edit]

KickassMovieTorrents (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)

Alexa rank 11,000, no significant news coverage or other significance, the article is written like an advertisemen. Seems to be a site seeking to use the fame of defunct website KickassTorrents for its own purpose. Also, the article was created by GKurupt. In this article, the creator of the website is listed as "Kurupt". rayukk | talk 20:36, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete per A7 as an article about a website without a credible claim of significance. I tagged the article, but I'm voting to save myself the trouble in case it doesn't stick. Rebbing 21:14, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 00:43, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Andy Boyle[edit]

Andy Boyle (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 that the article fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTY, [as he] has not played first-team football in a fully professional league or received significant media coverage. This remains valid. Sir Sputnik (talk) 20:07, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 20:07, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Request for info: I don't like this article because it uses lots of peacock words and the references are pretty light considering the praise they're heaping on him. But according to the article and one of the sources, he has played for Dundalk F.C. and even won their "Player of the Year" award. Could someone please explain to this soccer-know-nothing why that's not "first-team football in a fully professional league"? Thanks. ubiquity (talk) 21:44, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Ubiquity: Gladly. The relevant notability guideline here is WP:NFOOTBALL, which says that a footballer is notable if they've played in one of the fully professional leagues. Broadly, this means all players in the league are full time professionals. For use with this guideline, the WikiProject football has compiled a list (see WP:FPL) for which the fully pro status can be reliably sourced. You'll note that the League of Ireland is listed under Top level leagues which are not fully professional. This means playing that league explicitly does not satisfy the subject specific notability guideline. I hope that clears things up. Sir Sputnik (talk) 23:31, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Correct - the majority players in the League of Ireland are only part-time (they also have "day jobs") ergo it is not a fully professional league -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 13:13, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete does not pass the notability guidelines for footballers, and fails GNG otherwise.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:31, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom as clarified. ubiquity (talk) 01:44, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:23, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:23, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:23, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Fails NFOOTY as has not played senior international football nor played in a fully professional league. No indication that subject has garnered significant reliable coverage for any other achievements to satisfy GNG. Fenix down (talk) 12:54, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. GiantSnowman 17:48, 8 August 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 Myles Standish State Forest. MBisanz ^talk 00:43, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Three Cornered Pond[edit]

Three Cornered Pond (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 came across this via A7, which doesn't really cover geography per se, so I'm bringing this here. A search brings up nothing that would show that this pond is ultimately remarkable enough for an entry on Wikipedia, so this looks like it would overall fail notability guidelines - although I will admit that I'm not as familiar with the notability guidelines for geography as I am with other facets of the guidelines. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 19:59, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I ran a search on the subject in an effort to find information to improve the article and add some references which the article lacked. The searched produced 0 results other than the Wiki article. The search did produce another, more prominent lake with the same name in the state of Maine. The only link on the page is a dead link so that was no help either in establishing significance or importance of the subject. I vote for deletion of the article or alternatively, merge it into the Myles Standish State Forest article. Cbs527 (talk) 02:24, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:19, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge and redirect: to the Myles Standish article. I grew up in that forest and love it to pieces, but there are several dozen kettle ponds in it, and even in my biased opinion they're not all notable. Three Cornered Pond is one of the more teensy and non-descript of the lot. (Could be worse; there could be an article on the teensy pond that was called "Nigger Pond" well into the 1970s.) Ravenswing 20:30, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Merging sounds like a good idea. That someone wrote about this does show that there's an interest of some type. As for the name of the other pond... I'll just say that I'm not surprised that it took them that long to rename it. Over in Virginia we had a hospital for children with severe mental health issues that until 2001, bore the name of Joseph DeJarnette, a die hard eugenics advocate who endorsed the sterilization of anyone they deemed "mentally unfit". Which also included the family of anyone they deemed "mentally unfit". I love supernatural horror, but Freddy Kreuger has nothing on some of the people who have walked this earth. (shudders) Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:42, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge as suggested DGG ( talk ) 15:50, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedied (NAC). SwisterTwister talk 21:37, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Biocool[edit]

Biocool (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)

Fails WP:GNG. I am unable to find reliable, secondary sources about this; in fact, I can't find any sources about the lab, other than its website. All other sources I found are unrelated. JudgeRM (talk to me) 19:44, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment, may have been created by a lab member, username is close to one of the staff listed here - [2]. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:54, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:10, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:10, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:10, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete by now, the article is plain advertising The Banner talk 19:45, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as failing ORG. I found passing mentions of it (by its full name), but no coverage, significant or otherwise, directly addressing the subject. I removed the promotional material (I don't know why); it no longer satisfies G11. Rebbing 10:58, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: The underlying page BioCOOL was speedy deleted per A7 (log), but I suggest this discussion should run the full week and have a non-speedy close so G4 would apply to a recreation. Rebbing 22:03, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Pip Donaghy. (non-admin closure) -- Dane2007 ^talk 22:21, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Philip Donaghy[edit]

Philip Donaghy (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 clearly fails WP:ENT. Suggest delete. 5 albert square (talk) 19:38, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ah thanks Sam, I didn't realise it was the same person. Suggest redirecting to Pip Donaghy.--5 albert square (talk) 01:29, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:38, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:38, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:ENT, he has not had multiple significant roles. anemoneprojectors 08:06, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Pip Donaghy per Sam Sailor. I failed to find anything substantial but clearly I failed to spot that Philip is Pip. anemoneprojectors 12:14, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Pip Donaghy, the name he is most often credited as. It's the same guy.^[1][2][3] Courtesy ping (5 albert square—AnemoneProjectors). — Sam Sailor ^Talk! 11:59, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 00:43, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Librex[edit]

Librex (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)

Actually PRODed once before by WikiDan61 but I also still confirm my own: Searches, including with its other name Hexatek, are not finding anything actually convincing and substantial, the listed sources here are either simply not convincing or unacceptable; there's still no substance for independent notability. There's still nothing actually convincing. SwisterTwister talk 19:16, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 19:16, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 19:16, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as failing GNG. Rebbing 21:30, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete -- no notability here. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:51, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:22, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 00:43, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ejiro Okosieme[edit]

Ejiro Okosieme (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)

Disputed PROD. Doesn't meet the football notability guideline as he's never played a professional game. — foxj 19:15, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. — foxj 19:19, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — foxj 19:20, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. — foxj 19:20, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Fails WP:NFOOTBALL having never played in a fully professional league and does not have enough coverage to pass WP:GNG. Kosack (talk) 19:25, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:NSOCCER and WP:GNG --Cameron₁₁₅₉₈ ^(Talk) 23:00, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete non-notable footballer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:35, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• I created this account with some of the information stated being false. This page should be deleted — Preceding unsigned comment added by Robertb11 (talk • contribs) 10:36, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - he has not played in a fully pro league or received significant coverage, meaning the article fails WP:NSPORT and WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik (talk) 19:46, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 00:43, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Baba Maharramli[edit]

Baba Maharramli (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)

Can't find evidence of notability. Adam9007 (talk) 19:02, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Central Asia-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:37, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Azerbaijan-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:37, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:37, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:37, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. No cites to be found on GS, possibly due to another incompetently written BLP not saying what name the subject publishes under, but until this is clarified, no pass of WP:Prof. Xxanthippe (talk) 07:03, 8 August 2016 (UTC).[reply]
• Delete and this should've also been explored with PROD as I would have considered, nothing for applicable notability and only 2 listings at WorldCat. SwisterTwister talk 23:25, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Academy_Awards#Awards_of_Merit_categories. (non-admin closure) -- Dane2007 ^talk 22:19, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

List of Academy Award Winner[edit]

List of Academy Award Winner (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)

another unsourced contentfork The Banner talk 18:35, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:43, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:17, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete and redirect to Academy_Awards#Awards_of_Merit_categories. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 07:37, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete or move It should be titled "List of Academy Award winners", but I won't change it if it's going to be deleted -- and I agree that it should be, because it's not sourced and the info can be found elsewhere (and the years aren't linked). —Musdan77 (talk) 23:14, 8 August 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 (deleted per WP:BLPPROD by A Train). (non-admin closure) nyuszika7h (talk) 10:06, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

David Adekiyesi[edit]

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

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

Non-notable football player Marvellous Spider-Man (talk) 18:29, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment – @Marvellous Spider-Man: The article was already tagged for WP:BLPPROD, which still applies. I've restored that tag as it seems to have been removed by Twinkle. nyuszika7h (talk) 18:45, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:11, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:11, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:11, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:19, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - He has not played in a fully pro league or received significant coverage, meaning the article fails WP:NSPORT and WP:GNG. I also have no objection to deletion per BLPPROD, should the tag expire before this discussion is closed. Sir Sputnik (talk) 19:49, 8 August 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 Arrivederci, Fiero. MBisanz ^talk 00:43, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Zitch dog[edit]

Zitch dog (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 indication of significance Marvellous Spider-Man (talk) 18:17, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete This could have easily been put under PROD. This is a Wikia-style entry with no claim of external notability. Johanna^{(talk to me!)} 19:18, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Nonnotable catchphrase without coverage. If anything, it might warrant a mention on the How I Met Your Mother episode summaries. Yvarta (talk) 00:39, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete a fake game on a TV show is hardly notable. Lepricavark (talk) 00:54, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 05:13, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 05:13, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, does not meet WP:GNG, a g search yields lots of you tube/personal blogs and other no useable bits ie. "Zitch Eastern Europe"[3] (cute but no), did find these: LA Times - "Bro! Here are 'How I Met Your Mother's' best long-running jokes .. Other miscellaneous picks: ... the road trip game Zitch Dog,"[4], Rolling Stone - "HIMYMania: The 30 Best 'How I Met Your Mother' Moments .. 15. "I'm Gonna Be (500 Miles)" (Season 2, "Arrividerci, Fiero") .. frizzy-haired Ted (aka Doctor X) gets his ass kicked in Zitch Dog by Marshall, a champion game player even then."[5], and a book How I Met Your Mother and Philosophy - "About The Authors: Elize de Mul gets violently competitive when playing Zitch Dog."[6], but not enough for a stand alone article, if need be, some extra words could be added at Car game. Coolabahapple (talk) 05:53, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge (as in, mention it once and leave a redirect) in How I Met Your Mother. The delete !voters above are correct that there's simply not enough in-depth coverage for this to remain a standalone article. Yet, the title is unlikely to be used for anything else, ever; redirects are cheap; and merging non-notable elements is preferred to deletion under WP:ATD-M. Jclemens (talk) 06:48, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete for the reasons already stated above. Aoba47 (talk) 20:07, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:17, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:17, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to Arrivederci, Fiero, which is stated as its first appearance in the series. Not sure this is important enough to deserve a mention on the main series page (I don't watch the show), but if it is a recurring in-universe element, having it on the episode page is fine. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 02:25, 13 August 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 withdrawn (speedy keep #1). Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 20:12, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Gutteridge[edit]

Peter Gutteridge (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)

NN musician. It would appear he qualifies on #6, but he does not, as the criteria reads, Is an ensemble that contains two or more independently notable musicians, or is a musician who has been a reasonably prominent member of two or more independently notable ensembles. Gutteridge, based on when he was with the bands listed, apparently did not record with either The Clean or The Chills, and thus does not appear to be a prominent member of either act (both of which have extensive discographies). His later indie act, Snapper, appears to be notable only because he was in it, which is a WP:NOTINHERITED problem - the band itself appears not to be notable on its own. It also seems improbable that he has WP:SIGCOV as required in #1, given that the sources cited are all survey works of the genre over a period of 30 or more years, and he is only referenced on single pages. MSJapan (talk) 18:17, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - Subject charted a single for two weeks (at #49 and #50), and the single was not included in the article information (it was incorrectly labeled as an album charting). However, the chart in question is listed as Top 40 and lists to 50. That creates a question as to whether it was really on the chart or not. I'm going to leave this AfD open until I clarify, because barring that, the article subject meets no other criteria. If he does, I will withdraw as clearly meeting a criterion. MSJapan (talk) 18:42, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. A Google search would probably have avoided this. Obituaries and news items on his death from many publications including Exclaim!, The Stranger ("a key figure in New Zealand's shockingly strong rock scene from the '80s and '90s"), SPIN ("New Zealand Indie Rock Icon"), Rolling Stone ("One of New Zealand's indie-rock pioneers...Artists including Yo La Tengo, Ducktails and Wooden Shjips have all covered Gutteridge's music"), Radio NZ, The Quiteus ("a key figure in the development of the Dunedin sound"), The Guardian, ("one of New Zealand music's spiky heroes...he was an important musician"), New Zealand Herald ("underground music legend...He later went on to form the legendary noise-drone outfit Snapper and make his own solo recordings"), etc., etc., and Snapper are plenty notable ([7], [8], [9], [10], [11] and 2 albums on Flying Nun are enough to satisfy WP:BAND), and his solo work also received significant coverage ([12], [13]). --Michig (talk) 19:28, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Withdrawn Fair enough. MSJapan (talk) 19:48, 7 August 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. CSD G3 as a blatant hoax, none of the references to this person containing any information about them at all, and absolutely nada to support any of the claims made here. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 09:21, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Kuei Kuei[edit]

Kuei Kuei (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)

If he is Australian musician (according to the article), then we must find better sources. Marvellous Spider-Man (talk) 18:13, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Genuine notability highly questionable. Blablabrbrbrbrbrbrhuhuhuhuhuh (talk) 18:43, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:55, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:55, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:55, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:55, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete: almost entirely fictitious article about a 15-year-old kid, very likely created by the subject. Sections on music, film, and list of awards all point to the correct websites but with no evidence that the subject has had anything to do with them. So-called "viral" vine has fewer than 400 "likes"... hardly viral. Fails WP:GNG by quite some distance. Richard3120 (talk) 15:01, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete- article contains promotional wordings. Mentions does not establish notability. —Oluwa2Chainz »» (talk to me) 18:45, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. This has been under discussion for a full month, and shows no sign of converging to a consensus. The keepers are arguing that there are sufficient sources. The deleters counter that, yes, there may be citations in the literature, but they're not worth much because it's a small set of papers/authors circularly citing each other. In any case, neither side seems to have convinced the other, and I can't see how relisting this again will make any progress. -- RoySmith (talk) 01:06, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Glowworm swarm optimization[edit]

Glowworm swarm optimization (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)

Yet another "nature-inspired" metaheuristic. This is a field of computer science where citation circles seem to be the norm rather than the exception, so the few references in the article do not convince me. Without a well-respected overview article or book mentioning this, this doesn't pass WP:GNG. —Ruud 20:41, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Intelligent Water Drops algorithm and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cuttlefish Optimization Algorithm. —Ruud 20:44, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose for each of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Intelligent Water Drops algorithm, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Glowworm swarm optimization, and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cuttlefish Optimization Algorithm. For each of these there are multiple publications in academic journals over a period of years. That seems to establish WP:GNG. If these are to be deleted I would want a counterargument to the default assumption that the articles cited are not reliable. Peer reviewed academic research which addresses a topic by name is usually considered to meet WP:RS and establish WP:GNG. Why demand a higher standard in this case? Blue Rasberry (talk) 19:51, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  @Bluerasberry: See Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Firefly_algorithm, Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/State transition algorithm and Talk:Artificial bee colony algorithm#Deletion proposal for some additional background (especially concerning the reliability of those articles). —Ruud 20:20, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ruud Koot It seems like the argument for deletion is a subjective judgment that the academic journals cited are not reliable sources in their claimed field of expertise. AfD is usually a process for determining notability, not for checking the reliability of sources which seem to be reputable. Among these 6 deletion discussions there is a challenge to at least 10 academic journals and 20-30 different articles published over years. It is beyond the scope of a typical AfD review to challenge what are usually the most trusted sources. Can you think of a way to briefly say why so many sources should not meet RS criteria? I see that another academic says this is bad science, but I am unable to easily process this debate. Blue Rasberry (talk) 21:02, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's very hard, if not impossible, to distinguish highly cited "good" science (that is highly cited because it's good) from highly cited "bad" science (that is highly cited because it's part of citation circle, but otherwise mostly ignored) by some objective criterion. This distinction, and whether we want to include that science in Wikipeida, must thus depend on tacit knowledge and a subjective judgement. For me that would be:

1. that this whole class of algorithms has been called out as being "bad" science in other papers (which I believe to have been published in more reputable venues) and by other academics, and has been barred from at least one reputable journal [14][15][16][17][18][19];
2. the observation that these algorithms are "obviously" equivalent to other older and already well-established algorithms (and thus don't add to the sum of human knowledge);
3. the fact the most of these articles wouldn't have existed if they wouldn't have been created by single-purpose account that are, more probable than not, the authors of these papers (and that the articles on this topic that currently exist on Wikipedia are only a fraction of the articles that could potentially exist, if we would use just citation count as a criterion);
4. the pragmatic consideration that we're not serving our core goal of educating our readers if we distract them from the good science with an overwhelming number of articles that present bad science as good science.

—Ruud 21:41, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Bluerasberry:, you write, "AfD is usually a process for determining notability, not for checking the reliability of sources which seem to be reputable," but you may be overlooking the fact that determining the sources' reliability is a prerequisite to determining a topic's notability. Recall that notability is generally determined by "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject", so it is absolutely proper in a deletion discussion to mount a challenge to notability based on the reliability (or coverage, or independence) of the sources. Furthermore, per our guideline WP:SCHOLARSHIP, claims that a particular source is peer-reviewed should be critically examined, particularly in light of the recent explosion in predatory journals. —Psychonaut (talk) 06:32, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I agree that it is vexatious to see poorly researched optimization algorithms dressed in fun new metaphors and terminology somehow gain traction in the academic world. David Eppstein's description as junk science is a good one. But we are here, not to right great wrongs, but to determine notability. A quick search found a pretty solid review in PLoS One A Comprehensive Review of Swarm Optimization Algorithms that goes in some depth into GSO. There are a couple of GSO specific reviews in Glowworm Swarm Optimization (GSO) Algorithm for Optimization Problems: A State-of-the-Art Review and A Survey of Applications of Glowworm Swarm Optimization Algorithm in less well known journals. Multiple secondary reviews by authors independent of the GSO's creators show notability of the topic. The article isn't in great shape with only primary sources, but is capable of improvement. Or we could merge into Swarm intelligence#Glowworm swarm optimization to place it in context. But either way, I don't see a good case for deletion. --Mark viking (talk) 11:58, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think the list of algorithms in Swarm intelligence is just unnecessary dragging the quality and usefulness of that article down. Encyclopedic articles should give a balanced overview, making clear what the most influential work in a particular field is. Instead, I will likely merge most of those metaheuristics that are deemed to be "notable" into a chronologically ordered List of metaphor-inspired metaheuristics, while also adding a beefy introduction stating the problems with that class of algorithms in general for context. —Ruud 14:32, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 04:30, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:13, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organisms-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:13, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Unencyclopedic preaching to the converted. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:18, 31 July 2016 (UTC).[reply]
• Redirect to Swarm intelligence. There may be some content here to merge elsewhere in a sentence or two about the biological underpinning of the method and what it's intended to do, but I'm not seeing a degree of coverage in secondary sources to warrant that mention in the article yet much less it's own standalone article. Kingofaces43 (talk) 04:55, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep It is easy to find more coverage in respectable sources such as Natural Computing Algorithms. Andrew D. (talk) 11:06, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment There is also an entry for this algorithm at List of metaphor-inspired metaheuristics § Glowworm swarm. This would be a good candidate for a merge or redirect. —Ruud 14:09, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to the target suggested by Ruud. The notability of this topic is beyond doubt: in addition to the source provided by Andrew, there is this and [20], both of which give the topic significant coverage. However, in my view the coverage is not large enough that a merge is unreasonable: indeed an article examining all of the metaheuristics inspired by nature seems to me to be slightly more useful than separate stubs or start-class articles on each. Vanamonde (talk) 17:59, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 00:44, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Alarice Keesick[edit]

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

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

Delete. Poorly sourced and advertorially-toned WP:BLP of a youth activist with no strong claim of encyclopedic notability per any of Wikipedia's inclusion rules. The only references here are the primary source web page of an organization she's directly involved with and a single article on a non-notable news blog, and even that "news" article verifies only that the subject made her high school honour roll. But making your high school honour roll isn't something that gets a person into an encyclopedia in and of itself, and nothing else written or sourced here makes a credible claim of notability either. Also probable conflict of interest of some sort, as the article was created by User:Theaboriginalinspiredteen (which clearly implies the creator is either the subject herself, or someone she knows who's trying to promote her.) As always, Wikipedia is not a free public relations platform on which people are entitled to have articles just because they exist. Bearcat (talk) 17:54, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:00, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Manitoba-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:00, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete non-notable activist.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:29, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. Graham (talk) 03:10, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete – Clearly not notable. And the creator is almost certainly the subject given that one of the headings is in the first person. Graham (talk) 03:18, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as non notable and as said above there's a strong possibility its an autobio. Paste _{Let’s have a chat.} 07:41, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Hamish Kilgour#Discography. (non-admin closure) -- Dane2007 ^talk 22:15, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A Trip Thru Monsterland[edit]

A Trip Thru Monsterland (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)

Indie album sourced solely to discogs. No assertion of notability, and fails WP:NALBUMS. I am not choosing redir at this time because there's a WP:WALLEDGARDEN here, and I don't know what the primary is going to end up being, if there is one at all - it could go up to the band, but it might just as likely go up to Hamish Kilgour because it looks like the band is going to fail WP:NBAND. However, Kilgour might fail NMUSIC as well - I have to deal with each "piece" separately. Any pertinent info from these album articles already exists in the band article.

Also nominating, for the same reason:

• Sealight (album) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Blip (album) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

-- MSJapan (talk) 17:50, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:42, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:42, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• redirect to Hamish Kilgour. He's definitely notable; in fact a national treasure. -- haminoon (talk) 10:03, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, much of the issue was poor sourcing on many of the articles related to him - I was able to find better information overall, so his article certainly meets necessary criteria. MSJapan (talk) 19:47, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Hamish Kilgour#Discography. Album not notable and/or no evidence of it. Ajf773 (talk) 13:13, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Hamish_Kilgour#Discography The albums are not notable enough that we have to keep their own articles. But the artist is notable, so a redirect will suffice here. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 06:03, 12 August 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. -- Tavix ^(talk) 23:42, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Idriss M. Bennani-Baiti[edit]

Idriss M. Bennani-Baiti (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)

Deceptive puff piece. Before I did some cleanup (see here) the article claimed that he was a "Howard Hughes Medical Institute (HHMI) Scholar". That already made alarm bells go off, because the correct term is "HHMI Investigator". Indeed, Bennani-Baiti is not listed on the HHMI website. It looks like he worked in the lab of an HHMI investigator, nothing more. The article further claimed that he is "the Editor or Executive Editor" of several journals. Two of these are newly established (and actually don't list any editorial board; articles were deleted -by me, that's how I got here- as copyvio), the third one actually does list him, but only as an editorial board member. The article further claims that "Bennani-Baiti has published or reviewed hundreds of peer-reviewed research articles and reviews". I don't know how many articles he has reviewed, but conflating that with articles published is rather unusual. So I checked the Web of Science. WoS lists 42 publications, that have been cited a grand total of 565 times (h-index = 13; three highest-cited papers score 125, 63, and 50 citations). For high-citation density fields like epigenetics and oncology, that is decidedly unimpressive. A Google search finds a link that says that he currently works in Vienna (so much for being an HHMI investigator) and as this information is user-contributed, we can assume that this is correct. The editorial board listing here says that he's an "associate investigator". All references are to articles by the subject himself. No other sources found on Google or elsewheer. Does not meet WP:PROF or WP:GNG, hence: Delete. Randykitty (talk) 16:49, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:53, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:53, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. As per nom. The subject of the article is a named author in all seven of the journal articles currently included as sources. The fifth of these is one of Human Pathology's most cited articles (published since 2011). Otherwise, there doesn't appear to be any independent coverage of this person provided that would offer support to any claims of notability. As such, notability has not been demonstrated. Drchriswilliams (talk) 17:45, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. The efforts to clean up this article feel like the you-tube video of a raccoon washing cotton candy - once it's clean there's nothing left. for (;;) (talk) 11:35, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know why any raccoon would be trying to "clean up" my entry. I have myself within one day asked for the entry to be deleted. So why are raccoons wasting their time (and more importantly mine) with this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ibennani~enwiki (talk • contribs) 12:19, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete This fails GNG so we need to evaluate solely on the basis of WP:PROF. The h-index of 13 is much less than what is desired. I do not see any other claim - path breaking research or awards or any contribution outside academia. Neither is the subject the chief editor of a well established journal. None of these satisfy WP:PROF. In addition to all of this, I am concerned that the incorrect claims in the article implies that Wikipedia is possibly being used to promote the "achievements" of the subject and maybe legitimise it. A clear delete for now. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 01:27, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• There is no deceptive puff as suggested by Randykitty above. First, The correct term for an HHMI scholar is not HHMI investigator. These are two different things. An HHMI investigator is an HHMI group leader. An HHMI scholar is a scientist how was selected for an HHMI scholarship. I was an HHMI scholar from 1993-1997, and there is no amount of claimed "puff" that can change that. Second, Randykitty goes on to say: that I am only listed as an "editorial board member" on one of the journals, not as an editor. It is clear that Randykitty has a limited understanding of the editorial board structure of journals. Editorial board members are editors of a journal (as opposed to academic editors). In addition, I listed only three journals on which I am an editor or executive editor, but had stated that I am an editor at several journals including those three. It means that I am an editor (or executive editor) at many more journals. I did not list them because I actually want to avoid too much fluff "or puff" as Randykitty would put it. The entire list is as follows: Cancer Epigenetics, Clinical Cancer Epigenetics, Journal of Proteomics and Genomics Research, Cancer Informatics, Gene Regulation and Systems Biology, Genomics Discovery, International Journal of Clinical Therapeutics and Diagnosis, Journal of Carcinogenesis & Mutagenesis, Journal of Data Mining in Genomics & Proteomics. And this leads me to my third point: as an editor of these journals, and reviewer (and ad hoc reviewer) of many more, I on average review one article per week. I reviewed my first article in 1991; I'll let Randykitty do the math on whether I have reviewed hundred of articles since he/she seems to have a lot of time (but not enough to thoroughly research things). Fourth, yes I work in Vienna and this is not a secret (this can be seen not only on Researchgate but also on my public profile on LinkedIn), and again, I never claimed I am/was an HHMI investigator. I am an HHMI scholar. If Randykitty were privy to the working of the HHMI, she/he would know that while being an investigator has an expiration date, once one had an HHMI scholarship, it is for life and cannot be taken away. So independently of what Randykitty may think or believe, I did not just work in some HHMI lab, I am an HHMI scholar. Finally, the "user-contributed" information on researchgate is outdated and obselete(for many years now), and I am not longer (and have not been for years) an associate investigator (no shame in that, it is just not my current status). My current status can be looked up on LinkedIn. Finally, once I realized that someone was mocking around with my entry, I am the one who initiated a call for "delete" on the entire entry: as can be seen from my long list of functions and duties above (only a very partial list), I just don't have time for this.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Ibennani~enwiki (talk • contribs) 12:19, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

And one more thing: my references are peer-reviewed publications in some of the most respected journals in the world of scientific publishing. These can be looked up on PubMed, Google, Google Scholar, and directly in the concerned journals. In science, this as high of a bar for scientific contribution than anything else.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Ibennani~enwiki (talk • contribs) 12:24, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Another thing: I don't know who changed my functions from Editor/Executive editor to "Editor-in-chief"! I do not fulfill this function and have never stated so! I guess it speaks poorly of Wikipedia's "curators" who would take an accurate account of one's functions, change it extensively, and include several inaccuracies making the account useless, if not fraudulent. I can just imagine what my colleagues would think of me seeing my so-called "Editor-in-chief" function (knowing that there is none) and thinking I contributed that entry!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ibennani~enwiki (talk • contribs) 13:02, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Comments 1/ Any evidence for this "HHMI scholarship? 2/ An editorial board member is a very different thing from an "editor" and an "executive editor" is usually just another name for "editor-in-chief". The two journals listed in the article have updated their websites and although they don't list any board members, they both list you as "executive editor", meaning that apparently you are the head honcho. As for your other editorships, I Googled some of the journals that you list above. Almost all are predatory journals and being on their boards is more something to be ashamed of than to put forward as evidence of notability. You are "executive editor" on the Journal of Proteomics and Genomics Research. For what that means, please see here. I recommend that you separate yourself from that seedy outfit as soon as you can. 3/ As the peer-review process is confidential, it is very easy to claim that one has reviewed hundreds of articles. The thing about it being confidential being that this is a claim that cannot be verified (there is now a service called Publons that allows verification of such claims, but only for recent reviews). 4/ Nothing I said was intended to belittle your scientific contributions. However, the citation data do not indicate any notability according to WP:PROF (which is not the same thing as saying that your contributions are not valuable, it actually has nothing to do with "quality"). --Randykitty (talk) 13:50, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Like I said, I don't really have time for this as this has taken much more of my time than I've ever intended. I have early on placed a request to delete the entire entry. Would you please go ahead and delete it? Thank you in advance for your help! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ibennani~enwiki (talk • contribs) 16:06, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Request SNOW close Given the above comment by the article creator and the unanimous !votes to delete, I request a SNOW close. Thanks. --Randykitty (talk) 16:16, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. It's not as much of a slam-dunk case as the above discussion would suggest — he appears to be on-track for a successful academic career, has citations to his publications, and is editor-in-chief of two journals, suggesting a plausible case for WP:PROF criteria #C1 (citations) and #C8 (journal editorships). However, the citation counts are too low and the journals too new and not-well-established for him to actually pass these criteria. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:59, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 00:44, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

KD (rapper)[edit]

KD (rapper) (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 RS-cited evidence of meeting any of the twelve possible claims under WP:MUSBIO, no WP:RSes (sources primary or blogs), most claims not even backed by unreliable sources, grossly insufficient sourcing to have as a WP:BLP. I'm willing to be convinced, but it'll take the good sourcing, well-cited evidence of meeting WP:MUSBIO, etc. David Gerard (talk) 16:47, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as nothing at all convincing, still no actual substance and the sources are certainly not convincing. SwisterTwister talk 17:42, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:57, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Alabama-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:57, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete non-notable rapper.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:38, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete no evidence of notability. Lepricavark (talk) 00:55, 8 August 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) -- Dane2007 ^talk 22:14, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

List of LocalWikis[edit]

List of LocalWikis (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)

none of these arenotable projects by WP standards. wp articles are not directories, see Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not Mercurywoodrose (talk) 16:45, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

collectively they are notable, the list article is to avoid clutter on the main page.Jonpatterns (talk) 17:51, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:57, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:57, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, because it is okay for a comprehensive list of all examples to be split out of LocalWiki article. But sort of reluctantly, because the current version of the list is poor, almost mind-numbingly so. While it could conceivably tabulate useful or interesting information about the local wikis (dates of creation, size, number of active editors, evidence on any observable effects in their communities, links to reliable sources about the local wikis), it in fact provides no information at all. It does not even provide links to the local wikis! --doncram 18:53, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• comment this isnt even a list of wikis. its just a list of places, with a localwiki name, not even an external link. the reference is just the single website. is even one of these notable. the reference is really just as good as an external link on the localwiki article.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 02:17, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep If LocalWiki stands, then I don't see why this shouldn't too. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:54, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep – My impression is that this comes across as a reasonable branch of the LocalWiki article. Perhaps this can be merged into the LocalWiki article, which is not too long, with a present size of 10kb (see WP:SIZERULE). The article has also realized significant copy editing after being nominated for deletion. For example, it was converted into a table format and now includes links. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:32, 14 August 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 Withdrawn by nominator. (non-admin closure) Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:30, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yuva Sena[edit]

Yuva Sena (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)

Clearly fails WP:GNG.The subject is already covered in a section of its parent organization Shiv Sena. No much references available. The information available on the Shiv Sena's page would be enough. Regards, KC Velaga ✉ 15:21, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

 I withdraw my nomination . Regards, KC Velaga ✉ 13:33, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:25, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:25, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:25, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• You may well be right, yet I do see quite a bit of coverage on the Google News link and we do have articles on notable youth wings of parties, such as Young Republicans? Based on the Gnews coverage linked above, I would disagree what the statement "No much references available." They seem to be available! Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:29, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Shawn in Montreal: I agree with you, but the article I have nominated has no significant coverage in the news as Young Republicans has. I think that a section in the parent article would be enough. Regards, KC Velaga ✉ 15:31, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

And you've clicked on the Afd-generated Gnews link above, right? Just curious. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:33, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep It would be possible to merge this article, which would avoid having the same information in 2 places. However the youth party seems to be notable on its own and by policy its article should not be deleted.Borock (talk) 15:39, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - I can find numerous references in reliable sources such as [21], [22], [23], [24], [25]. Searching for "Yuva Sena" at Indian version of google emits 300 thousands results. Seems to pass WP:GNG easily. Hitro talk 18:33, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep yes, I'll !vote too. While I would otherwise yield to your superior knowledge as an Indian Wikipedian, based on WP:ORG, we do seem to have a bona fide article topic, within Category:Youth wings of political parties in India. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:08, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Hitro's research. Yvarta (talk) 00:56, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

 I withdraw my nomination . Please close the discussion. Regards, KC Velaga ✉ 13:35, 9 August 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 List of Greyhawk deities. MBisanz ^talk 00:44, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Geshtai[edit]

Geshtai (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 character article fails to establish notability. TTN (talk) 14:41, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 14:41, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:13, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep or merge to List of Greyhawk deities. BOZ (talk) 00:41, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge Per BOZ. Jclemens (talk) 04:53, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge is appropriate. Josh Milburn (talk) 01:30, 11 August 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. Nobody actually makes a "keep" argument.  Sandstein  19:33, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Rudolf Rojahn[edit]

Rudolf Rojahn (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)

BLP that has been unsourced since it was created by an apparent single-purpose account 10 years ago, and tagged as such for almost 2 years. I took this on with a view to improving and sourcing it but simply didn't find enough to justify keeping the article. The subject is co-artistic director of a Chicago opera company that has received some coverage in local press, but none that I can find from further afield, and itself doesn't have clear notability. I don't see a case for keeping this article, the best coverage I found being [26], [27], [28], and [29] - generally brief mentions from local press (admittedly some with large circulation) in the context of performances by the company. I redirected to the company, which was reverted on the basis that discussion was needed, so here we are. Michig (talk) 13:53, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: We have scores. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:36, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Yes, but these appear to be self-published so would not affect WP:NOTABILITY.--Smerus (talk) 15:55, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:19, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:19, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Wrong forum  This is a content discussion, which can be fixed by normal editing.  As per WP:Deletion policy, "Disputes over page content are usually not dealt with by deleting the page, except in severe cases. The content issues should be discussed at the relevant talk page, and other methods of dispute resolution should be used first, such as listing on Wikipedia:Requests for comments for further input. Deletion discussions that are really unresolved content disputes may be closed by an uninvolved editor, and referred to the talk page or other appropriate forum."  Unscintillating (talk) 19:11, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• This isn't a dispute over page content. I don't think we should have a page on Rodolf Rojahn at all. If the article on the Opera company is also deleted (not covered by this discussion), we wouldn't even have a redirect. --Michig (talk) 19:45, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• I understand your nomination argument to be a discussion about a non-deletion redirection.  Unscintillating (talk) 21:30, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• You mean that you're choosing to cast it in that light, and ignoring the part where Michig set forth the proposition that the subject was not notable and lacked significant coverage? If you say so. Ravenswing 21:37, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• "Not notable and lacked significant coverage" is a notability argument, not a deletion argument (WP:DEL8).  Michig is capable of agreeing or disagreeing with what I said.  His workmanship in the nomination deserves respect from the AfD community.  Thank you, Unscintillating (talk) 22:21, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• DEL8 clearly states that failure to meet notability guidelines is a reason for deletion. I don't follow whatever point you are trying to make. Lepricavark (talk) 01:39, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• You can start by looking at WP:BEFORE A1, to which the edit notice advised you when you posted here.  You will find that part of WP:Deletion policy is the Alternatives to deletion, by which we protect the work of our content contributors from deletions-by-committee.  This is a policy, which all editors should normally follow.  Anything else?  Unscintillating (talk) 02:35, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• I read WP:DEL8, and it was quite clear that failure to meet notability guidelines is a reason for deletion. So yes, this is a deletion argument, and it certainly is not a content dispute. I understand the desire for alternatives to deletion, but in this instance I find deletion to be the appropriate outcome. Lepricavark (talk) 04:10, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• WP:DEL8 does not exist out of the context of WP:Deletion policy.  Your claim that "it certainly is not a content dispute" is not policy based.  What source of authority do you accept for your understanding of deletion policy?  Unscintillating (talk) 23:54, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• I've admittedly been having trouble following your statements here, so I'm going to summarize my position very succinctly: I believe that this article fails GNG and therefore should be deleted. Does that answer your question? Lepricavark (talk) 01:55, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Yet your "trouble" stonewalls a remedy.  So I'll simply say, WP:N is not a deletion policy, and you've not made a WP:Deletion policy argument since you've not refuted the possibility of alternatives to deletion.  In the current context, this is a hole in your argument.  Anyway, thank you for the response.  Unscintillating (talk) 06:37, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• I did address alternatives to deletion when I said that I considered deletion to be the best outcome. Lepricavark (talk) 10:52, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete We lack any RSs on this person. The scores are not enough to show he is notable, the same goes for his own webpages.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:02, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per lack of sufficient coverage in reliable sources. Lepricavark (talk) 01:38, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Like the other editors, I failed to find reliable sources supporting the subject's notability, and certainly don't count a mere list of works on International Music Score Library Project (which is a user-submitted wiki) to be one. As far as Unscintillating's dissent goes, it seems to focus very heavily on not caring for the first sentence of Michig's nomination while completely ignoring the perfectly valid deletion grounds which follow. One would think a much surer way of saving the article would be to produce evidence of significant coverage in reliable sources, rather than arguing for the sake of arguing over semantics. Ravenswing 06:13, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. Michig originally boldly deleted the article and substituted a redirect to Guerilla Opera. Ths seemed to me rather too bold, so I reverted his deletion and suggested he take the article to AfD. I think the case is marginal - there ought to be sources, since the subject has won various awards etc. for which I am willing to AGF - but I find no convincing argument at present as regards WP:NOTABILITY in the article's favour. Therefore I incline to the view that Michig's original decision (delete and redirect) was in principle correct. But at least we've opened it to discussion.--Smerus (talk) 07:48, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Not quite right. The article has never been deleted. It was simply redirected. --Michig (talk) 16:07, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• I agree with Michig that referring to this action as a deletion is not a good use of terminology.  "Delete and redirect" has a specific technical meaning, which is that the edit history is deleted and a new redirect is created.  Delete and redirect requires the use of admin tools.  This is the diff in which Michig redirected the article.  Here is the deletion log for this page, and it says, "No matching items in log."  Unscintillating (talk) 23:54, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedily deleted as a creation by a blocked or banned user in violation of block or ban.. (non-admin closure) Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:21, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Chairperson of Samajwadi Party[edit]

Chairperson of Samajwadi Party (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

This article is not required, when we have Samajwadi Party. Marvellous Spider-Man (talk) 13:17, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 00:45, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ken Pentel[edit]

Ken Pentel (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 politician who was only a gubernational listed-person for a few times, there's essentially been nothing else, not only for this article but for coverage itself; my own searches are barely finding anything and, anything there actually is, only for that time and even the sources that were past mentioned as being "big" and "significant" are no longer actually convincing (they barely even were, at the time). For example, the 2nd AfD said "I believe consensus on individuals such as Pentel has shifted since the first AfD" which it in fact had even at the time, and certainly is known now. The history itself also speaks for itself considering there's barely been anything and what was ever even listed was not actually convincing. SwisterTwister talk 05:53, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 11:46, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Minnesota-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 11:46, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. As always, candidates for office do not get Wikipedia articles just for being candidates — if you cannot make and reliably source a credible claim that he was already notable enough for an article for some other reason besides his candidacy itself, then he must win the election and thereby hold office to get an article because election. But nothing here constitutes a credible claim of notability, and the volume of reliable source coverage here is not enough to claim that he passes WP:GNG in lieu. Bearcat (talk) 18:19, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete non-notable perennial candidate.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:42, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]