< 11 February 13 February >
Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was Snow Keep/Withdrawn Non-admin Closure As the article now has enough references to prove some sort of notability I withdrawn my nomination and with no outstanding delete arguments close this discussion McMatter (talk)/(contrib) 20:02, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Stadionul Municipal (Turnu Măgurele)[edit]

Stadionul Municipal (Turnu Măgurele) (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 sporting venue fails WP:GNG McMatter (talk)/(contrib) 22:58, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. McMatter (talk)/(contrib) 23:01, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions. McMatter (talk)/(contrib) 23:01, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 15:44, 15 February 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. Although it's not unanimous, there seems to be broad agreement that the sources that are available for this person don't rise past the level required for WP:BLP1E. Lankiveil (speak to me) 04:53, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Katie Nelson[edit]


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

Procedural nomination. This was listed for prod, with the rationale "not notable" but no further detail, which was then deprodded by an anonymous IP -- however, after reviewing the sourcing I'm on the nominator's side. Of the 27 sources here, 10 are not about her in any substantive way -- a couple of them briefly namecheck her existence in the process of failing to be about her, while most of them fail to even include her name at all. Another 10 are sources, such as user-generated discussion forums or university student newspapers, which cannot count toward meeting WP:GNG at all. The real kicker here is that out of all the media coverage of the Roosh V drink-throwing incident, not a single one of those articles names Nelson at all: they all cover an unnamed woman throwing a drink at Roosh, and Roosh's own discussion forum is the only place where Nelson is claimed as the thrower. But if an unreliable source is the only place making that claim, then WP:BLP unequivocally prohibits us from repeating the claim here. And of the seven sources which are substantively about her in publications that do satisfy GNG, all seven of them are covering her in the context of a single incident. Accordingly, her encyclopedic notability has not been properly demonstrated: the majority of the sourcing here is total garbage, and the little bit that is acceptable just makes her a WP:BLP1E. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 22:02, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Its prominence in the article is the thing that's suspect: the timing of when the article got created (just nine days ago, within hours of Roosh naming her as the drink-thrower on his discussion forum) strongly suggests that it's the real reason somebody thought she was includable, and the sourcing for that linkage to her is a blatant WP:BLP violation. So no, you do not get to dismiss that issue as irrelevant or "suspect" — even if the article does get kept for other reasons, the entire Roosh section has to be entirely removed from it.
And incidentally, WP:CRYSTAL applies here as well: we can't deem her notable because of a user's prediction that the court case might make it to the Supreme Court someday, but rather have to wait until the case does hit the Supreme Court. And even if that does happen, what that will justify on Wikipedia is an event article about the case, to which Nelson would just be a redirect rather than a standalone BLP in her own right as a separate topic. Bearcat (talk) 06:17, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The Roosh V section apparently has been removed, though I honestly don't see why. Roosh named her as the beer thrower and unless you are suggesting that Roosh V is not notable (something I will wholeheartedly back you up on) the reference should be included. Minus the Roosh V incident, Katie Nelson is still notable, and not just via some blip of media coverage. Her case against the police may have brought her into the spotlight (it is, as far as I can tell the first time in Canada someone has sued the police for political profiling), but she has remained there and appears on morning radio talk shows and other media frequently. People in Montreal know the name Katie Nelson. Recently, she experienced another as you would call it "blip" when she was hospitalized during a protest. More national and international media coverage.08:19, 13 February 2016 (UTC)Theleaflord (talk)
The problem with the Roosh V section is that all of the reliable sources reported an unnamed woman, and Roosh V's own user-generated discussion forum was the only source that linked Nelson to it. It's not that Roosh is not notable — unfortunately he is notable, whether you or I like the fact or not — it's that the source which named her as the drink-thrower was a chat forum and not a reliable media source. And if she's notable for more than just the police case, then that certainly hasn't been demonstrated by the fact that virtually everything outside the police case is parked on unreliable sourcing. Bearcat (talk) 08:22, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It was actually Roosh`s verified Twitter account which named her and then linked to the forum. Regardless, minus the Roosh stuff, Nelson is still notable — Preceding unsigned comment added by Theleaflord (talk • contribs) 08:28, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The source cited here was the discussion forum, not Twitter. Regardless, Twitter isn't a reliable source for Wikipedia content either — until an independent, reliable media outlet publishes verification that she was the drink-thrower, Roosh's own self-published identification of Nelson as the drink-thrower doesn't get into a Wikipedia article about her regardless of what platform he claimed it on. And again, fully 66% of the sourcing here is unreliable sources that cannot make a person notable under WP:GNG, and the remainder is piled virtually entirely on the police case — if she's notable for more than just the police case, then she has to be reliably sourced for more than just the police case. Bearcat (talk) 08:34, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
— Gh78e34 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Please familiarize yourself with our WP:BLP1E rules: we do not keep articles about people whose notability is tied to a single blip of media coverage deriving from a single event. And Roosh isn't even the 1E I'm talking about — that's an outright WP:BLP violation that has to stay out of the article regardless of whether it gets kept or deleted for any other reason, because it's not reliably sourced that she was the drink-thrower, so if that were her main notability claim this would actually have been speedy-deleted as a BLP-zero-E. Also kindly read our no personal attacks rule: I'm one of the longest-serving and most prolific contributors to the entire project, and am quite well-known as a respected and trustworthy contributor who does not let my own personal feelings about a subject interfere with the facts of whether the article meets our inclusion standards or not — I've voted to keep people I personally dislike if the sourcing and notability was adequate (hell, I've even created articles about people I personally dislike, but who cleanly passed our notability standards), and I've voted to delete people I personally support if the sourcing and notability wasn't adequate. And my own personal politics are far closer to Nelson's than to any of her opponents, so this isn't an attack against her for any ideological reason: the notability and quality of sourcing just are not there under our inclusion and sourcing rules. Bearcat (talk) 07:08, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
That is my point exactly, it is not one single event, there are on going events - not just Roosh V. For example, the SPVM, Israel, Civil suits, activism, Occupy Wallstreet - it is on going.. I am sorry, but I think you may need to evaluate your position here. Plus, the roosh V incident has since been edited out of the page - the page consists of numerous long time events, seemingly since before 2010 - this is notable in itself. And as well, mentions from other pages. I would suggest the re-evaluation of your opinion on this page. I am familiar with the rules you have cited, and this page does not violate them. Objectively, you should reconsider your position. Until you do, this objection looks biased. You have not provided a sufficient argument for removal. If sourcing is an issue, than better source. But it appears this page falls in line with notability, with a few minor edits it would stand adequately against deletion - if this is your only problem, than simply edit the page.
The only sources here that count as reliable ones are covering her in the context of one event, not several events — all of the other events you list are sourced to unreliable sources, and/or passing namechecks of her existence in coverage which isn't about her in any substantive way. Even with the Roosh stuff stripped, the referencing is still fully two-thirds to sources that cannot support any topic's notability. And no, this is not a "personal bias" issue, and a brand-new editor who registered just to create this article does not get to tell me that they know my motivations better than I do. Bearcat (talk) 08:12, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The prod process and the AFD process are two different things. A declined prod does not make the article ineligible for AFD discussion — in fact, in most cases a declined prod virtually ensures that somebody will take it to AFD for wider discussion. A declined prod does not prove in and of itself that the article is "adequate", especially when the prod was declined by an anonymous IP number rather than an established editor. Bearcat (talk) 08:12, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Bearcat: Whether the prod was declined by an anonymous editor or by a registered editor, as I am sure you know, has no bearing whatsoever on whether the validity of the action or on whether the article is adequate or not. 72.94.61.22 (talk) 17:10, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Anonymous IPs quite frequently remove maintenance or project templates from articles without a valid basis for the removal, so no, the matter of whether an article was deprodded by an anonymous IP is not entirely irrelevant — it doesn't make a difference insofar as permitting anybody to restore the prod template a second time, but deprodding does not preclude the article from being escalated to AFD if other editors still disagree with your opinion on the matter. In fact, in most cases the very fact that two different editors have different opinions about the same content inherently demonstrates that a wider discussion is needed. Bearcat (talk) 21:19, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Quebec-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 08:40, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 08:40, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The student tribunals at Concordia are sourced to Concordia's own student newspaper — but student newspapers do not count toward WP:GNG (a newspaper has to be both general-market and daily to count toward establishing notability). Hospitalization after a protest is not a notability-conferring event at all, so that doesn't lift her from a BLP1E to a BLP2E. And radio content can only contribute to GNG if that radio content is (a) national rather than local (i.e. CBC Radio = yes, CJAD = no), and (b) archived somewhere that a reader looking to verify the sources can actually hear the entire piece for themselves. CJAD is a source that can be used for additional verification of facts after sufficient sourcing is already present to satisfy GNG — but it is not a source that can contribute to the passage of GNG. Bearcat (talk) 21:05, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Student tribunals were also reported on and Nelson interviewed by Global TV Global TV. The hospitalization, and in particular the fact that Nelson claims it was done by undercover police was carried by CBC, CTV, The Montreal Gazette, countless news websites around the world and yes, the student press as well, even though you don't count that. My point is that pretty much every time she does something or is part of something major, all three local TV stations, newspapers, websites and sometimes international press interview and/or report on her. Why? Because she is a notable person. How many people get interviewed by various establishment media outlets as well as independent media on various subjects? Theleaflord (talk) 01:54, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'm leaning towards delete but where does it say in our policy that a newspaper must be published "daily" to be considered RS? That's news to me. Surely weekly papers such as Georgia Straight are RS. And I'm not aware of any policy that disallows student-run papers such as the Link or McGill Daily as RS. Did I miss that? Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:35, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
* Comment . Don't delete this page please I just used it to cite a paper.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.114.98.228 (talk) 05:27, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Not true. she received considerable coverage in both French and English as well as some international coverage when she was knocked to the ground by (she claims) undercover police during a protest. While the coverage does mention her lawsuit (which is, I believe, the first of its kind in Canada), that is not the focus, the attack, a separate incident, is. She has also been covered for her work with the Concordia BDS Campaign, student tribunals, etc, etc. When there's a story that she is a part of, local media in Montreal seems to gravitate to her. If this article was improperly sourced, fine, but that demands a different type of box than delete for the subject not being notable. While I believe that bearcat and others are operating in good faith, I suspect the original person who flagged this page for deletion wasn't. In fact, a week before this discussion began, the page was vandalized to read "Katie Nelson is an terrorist" (bad grammar left in if only to suggest this was a hasty edit) and then repaired. I suspect the same person who vandalized the page originally flagged the page for deletion. I also suspect that they are a fan of Roosh V, whose acolytes have been in an online war with Ms. Nelson since he identified her as the beer thrower (which, incidentally, would prove her notability in a heartbeat if it was admissible, given the fact that the video of the incident went viral and was picked up by Vice, Buzzfeed, random media outlets in France, etc.). My point is that if this wasn't for a vendetta, we wouldn't be having this discussion. No one would have flagged this page which, it seems, could now be deleted on a technicality or due to the inexperience of the person who created it and their sourcing. Theleaflord (talk) 02:27, 20 February 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 Climate change mitigation. The default is Merging and then redirecting so closing just as Merge (non-admin closure) –Davey2010Talk 23:54, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Climate action[edit]

Climate action (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 concept is largely a duplicate of Climate change mitigation, which I would count as the main article. Having several articles on one subject is confusing. I suggest that any unique content is merged with the other article and this one deleted. Shritwod (talk) 20:33, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:48, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Aoziwe (talk) 12:59, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree on doing the same with Climate Action Plan, which is a distinctly different and worthy of its own article. --David Tornheim (talk) 02:56, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Let's have this discussion in the proper place. Please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Climate Action Plan. J♯m (talk | contribs) 16:11, 15 February 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 Prime minister. Not really sure if this needed a discussion but closing as redirect anyway (non-admin closure) –Davey2010Talk 23:55, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statsminister[edit]

Statsminister (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)

Basically, a "statsminister" is a prime minister in Nordic countries. Articles pertaining to the history of prime ministers of respectively Norway, Denmark, Finland and Sweden are already listed in their own, separate entries on Wikipedia. In addition, there's nothing which sets Nordic prime ministers apart from the PM's of other countries, or anything else that would require them to have an own article under the banner of "Statsminister". Furthermore, this article has been unsourced for a decade, leading me to wonder whether this entry is just an original research piece. —♦♦ AMBER(ЯʘCK) 20:07, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 22:06, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Denmark-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 22:06, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Finland-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 22:06, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 22:06, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 22:06, 12 February 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. Spartaz Humbug! 07:12, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Superbrands[edit]

Superbrands (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 Superbrands conducts some surveys whose results are widely reported, I cannot find significant coverage of Superbrands itself that would indicate it meets Wikipedia's standards of notability, particularly in light of WP:CORPDEPTH. The current article is extremely spammy and largely based on primary sources including themelves and press releases by those they called "superbrands". Huon (talk) 09:07, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. —UY Scuti Talk 09:12, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. —UY Scuti Talk 09:12, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
most of those hits do not cover superbrands in depth. LibStar (talk) 09:23, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti Talk 19:37, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • That comment misrepresents the book sources found by my search above, with only a handful of the 46 results quoting a spokesman for Superbrands. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 20:04, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy delete as WP:A7. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 06:50, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

After money forevaa records[edit]

After money forevaa 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)

Non notable record company. Fails GNG. Gbawden (talk) 07:36, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 13:04, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 13:04, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 13:04, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti Talk 19:37, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. North America1000 00:34, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Conrad (actor)[edit]

Chris Conrad (actor) (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)

Unsourced BLP, no major roles, fails actor notability guidelines and general notability guideline for want of significant coverage in multiple reliable, independent sources. (?) czar 02:41, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. czar 02:41, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Tough call, but yeah, he has no notable roles to speak of (supporting parts in Next Karate Kid and MK Annihilation being his biggest, and those were in the '90s). Article itself is badly written and unsourced. sixtynine • speak up • 18:20, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment He has had some prominent roles such as in Atilla 2nd billing, Lovers and Liars 3rd, Airborne 3rd, Next Karate Kid 4thbilling ref allmovies/RT. IMDb are unreliable on this actor as they give him 2nd billing in The Promotion whereas RT and allmovies have him down about tenth. Haven't checked for reliable sources yet.Atlantic306 (talk) 01:59, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 00:24, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti Talk 19:36, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
IMDb is not a reliable source czar 18:01, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Doesn't meet GNG. It's unsourced for a reason. Philafrenzy (talk) 11:34, 19 February 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. Lankiveil (speak to me) 05:06, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ScholarCon[edit]

ScholarCon (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)

Seemingly non-notable local student conference. No mainstream coverage - almost all of the sources are blogs and PR, with the remainder consisting of student newsletters/papers. Nothing to establish the notability of the conference. Bilby (talk) 20:36, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti Talk 19:36, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:52, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:52, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 14:37, 17 February 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. sourcing has not been providing and keep votes based on assertions unfortunately carry no weight Spartaz Humbug! 07:15, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Urban Book Circle[edit]

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

A Gnews search result for the organization name yields no results. There are a couple of Serbian refs but with the benefit of Chrome's translation function, the print refs don't appear to confer any notability on this organization, which appears to fall well short of meeting WP:ORG. I have also nominated its category for deletion. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:29, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:32, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:32, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:32, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Serbia-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:32, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I think conflict of interest most likely applies here: this article was created by an editor whose substantive contributions to Wikipedia all consistently revolve around the person named in this article as the group's founder. Bearcat (talk) 21:18, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Excuse me sir but before you "think" that conflict of interest "most likely" applies, how about you do your research? I have nothing to do with this literary organization or with any of the people associated with it. My favorite writers do however happen to write for it. How about next time you assume good faith? – Tempo21 (talk) 12:39, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
— Note to closing admin: Tempo21 (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this XfD. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:01, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Then let me ask: you say say "if the references can be made up to par." What if they can't? Because as it stands nows, the references aren't up to par and Google news search shows zero reliable sources? Could you please expand on why this article and the category should both be "definitely" kept, in your view, in light of the fact that you do admit that right now, WP:ORG isn't being met? thank you. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:03, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Reliable source coverage is what makes something a keeper or a throwaway — even the most impressive claim of significance in the history of human expression counts for nothing if RS coverage doesn't support that claim. Bearcat (talk) 21:30, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti Talk 19:32, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • @N Jordan: Do we know that Tempo21 is affiliated? Because he has been quite active in creating articles, a category and a navbox, offering keep !votes at Xfds, populating bio articles with links, etc. If he is using Wikipedia as a soapbox for himself, I'd want to start tagging the articles with connected contributor tags, at the very least. @Tempo21: would you care to declare an affiliation? Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:18, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Shawn in Montreal: Tempo21 is Djuradj Vujcic, the owner of the Urban Book Circle. He is an independent sports journalist. He is fluent in Serbian, lives in Toronto, a fan of Partizan Belgrade soccer club... If you check Tempo's contributions at Wikipedia - they match his profile. It would be difficult to find somebody else with that level of knowledge and interest in those specific areas. It is possible that he shares his account with his father, Prvoslav Vujcic, the founder of the Urban Book Circle.--N Jordan (talk) 22:46, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Excuse me, sir, but how dare you falsely accuse me. I've said it many times before and I'll say it again: I am not Djuradj Vujcic. I can give you my name if you want but since you dabble in libel, I don't trust you. Tempo21 (talk) 01:36, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would like to apology, Tempo21. I didn't know you said Predrag Markovic was the president of Serbia. That "keep" vote was signed by McMeade - not by you. Predrag Markovic was an acting president of Serbia for 4 months. The Urban Book Circle doesn't have the president - this society has the owner! BTW, I think you already voted. --N Jordan (talk) 23:10, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I wasn't talking about McMeade's vote, I was talking about Predrag Marković and many times in the past I've told people here that he was the president of Serbia even if it was for four months. Tempo21 (talk) 01:36, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. North America1000 00:19, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

BassMonster Records[edit]

BassMonster 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)

I declined a speedy for BassMonster Records, as the article makes a claim of notability as "one of the top dance labels in Norway". However, I am unable to verify this claim, I can find no reliable references that discuss the topic, (fails WP:GNG), and none of the artists are notable (fails WP:NMUSIC #5) - all blue links are to unrelated topics. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 14:23, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 16:03, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 16:03, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 16:03, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti Talk 19:30, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. -- RoySmith (talk) 01:37, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

BeWeeVee[edit]

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

A software company and product. No indication of notability (WP:GNG) in the article, and none in a Google News search.  Sandstein  13:29, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:31, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti Talk 19:30, 12 February 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. Spartaz Humbug! 07:15, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Tyler Burkum[edit]

Tyler Burkum (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)

Only notable as a member of the band Audio Adrenaline. All other content was deleted. The WP:SPA account, which I believe is associated with the subject, requested that content be deleted for the sake of privacy. I deleted that content and all other unsourced content and that leaves very little. Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:37, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Onel5969 TT me 13:13, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 13:15, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Minnesota-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 19:17, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nebraska-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 19:17, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti Talk 19:27, 12 February 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. Lankiveil (speak to me) 04:23, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Clayton Davis (critic)[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Clayton Davis (critic) (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)

Lack of notability. No references to reliable sources have been added to the article, and I don't see that there's anything of susbtance about him online. —Largo Plazo (talk) 19:26, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 22:04, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 22:04, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 22:04, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 00:45, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mental Models[edit]

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

Contested prod. The article's subject fails WP:NBOOK. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 23:19, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think that one reason this article is notable is that a google search for mental models gentner stevens turns up a large number of scholarly articles that list the book as a reference. Also because the academic section of WP:NBOOK says that if a book is published by a respected academic press that should go a long way toward establishing notability, and it was, it was published by Erlbaum which has since been bought by Taylor and Francis. Also, in the theory of mental models, it is the next major work on mental models since 1943, when Kenneth Craik wrote The Nature of Explanation, the book credited with originating the theory. This is admittedly a specialized area and I realize this is a somewhat dry reference book, but I think a major strength of Wikipedia is helping to preserve information. For instance, a very good history of mental models on lauradove.info has disappeared from the Internet, and it was one very good source that mentioned this book's place in the history of mental models. I plan to try to find that article or an equivalent and to add more references and content to the article to help bolster my argument. Also, both editors and most of the authors of the individual articles in the book are themselves notable which should also add to the book's notability. Spalding (talk) 13:54, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:11, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Google Scholar lists 2,289 articles that cite this book, easily meeting the requirement of WP:NBOOK#Academic and technical books that we should consider how widely the book is cited by other academic publications when evaluating notability. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 21:02, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:12, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti Talk 19:25, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. North America1000 00:16, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

TechM Global[edit]

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

Not notable. No sources can be found for this company AdrianGamer (talk) 12:02, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video games-related deletion discussions. AdrianGamer (talk) 12:04, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:33, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:33, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:33, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti Talk 19:17, 12 February 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. Spartaz Humbug! 07:17, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

BeHappy2Day[edit]

BeHappy2Day (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)

Notably, Lacks creditable citations, & kind of reads like an advertisement. Krj373*(talk), *(contrib) 16:58, 12 February 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) 02:16, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Rafael Serrano (cyclist)[edit]

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

Subject—a cyclist—doesn't seem to meet any of the criteria at WP:NCYCLING. For general notability, the only published sources I can find fall under WP:ROUTINE. —  Rebbing  talk  16:11, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

How do you reconcile that with the guideline for male cyclists? It seems to me that if riding for a professional continental team was, by itself, sufficient to satisfy notability (as you say it is), the criteria would include that—but they don't. (Of course, there are exceptions to the guidelines, but I don't think this is an exceptional case.) —  Rebbing  talk  23:51, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Also, I see he participated in a category 1.1 race, which, had he won, would have satisfied notability—but he didn't. —  Rebbing  talk  23:51, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Competed in various 2.HC races (such as the Vuelta a Burgos and the E3 Prijs Vlaanderen before it was promoted), which is the second tier of professional cycling, but never at the top tier. No wins at professional level. Relentlessly (talk) 10:35, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:53, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cycling-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:53, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. -- RoySmith (talk) 01:37, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

University of International Innovations[edit]

University of International Innovations (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)

Near as I can tell, this is not an accredited learning institution. I declined Speedy A7, as educational institutions do not qualify, I find no reliable sources discussing the topic, much less anything that says it is other than a self-made learning course. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 15:32, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:57, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: entirely without notability, indeed only 11 google results (including a Speedy deletion on Wikia), none of them of any substance. And since it's not a real university, can't see why it shouldn't be speedied here too. Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:01, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. North America1000 00:11, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hira Thind[edit]

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

Contested prod. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NACTOR. None of the sources provided in the article are reliable sources that are independent of the subject. My search for additional sources came up empty. Apparition11 Complaints/Mistakes 15:10, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 15:38, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 15:38, 12 February 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. Spartaz Humbug! 07:17, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jennifer Grossman[edit]

Jennifer Grossman (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 notability. Of the given references, one is by Grossman herself, two are speaker respectively author bios, one talks about fitness workout in the workplace and uses Grossman as a rather random example, and the last is a local newspaper. The tone is unduly promotional, borderline G11, and would need a complete rewrite even if Grossman were notable in the first place. Huon (talk) 13:39, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Musa Talk  14:37, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The history of content additions reveals probable edits by the subject herself whose career is neither notable nor currently developing, as she appears from a web search to be unemployed and inactive since 2013. No reference is more recent than 2006, indicating the topic is not progressive in significance per WP:UNDUE. Recent edits by different floating IPv6 addresses and the new user, Usuariodesconocidodiverso, including removal of banner notices and a new personal picture, are exclusively on the subject herself, self-aggrandizing, WP:PEA, WP:PLUG and WP:COISELF. Recommend for speedy deletion. --Zefr (talk) 16:25, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Musa Talk  14:37, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 00:46, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Linux Lite[edit]

Linux Lite (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 topic of this article lacks notability as it fails WP:PRODUCT. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 01:46, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 03:33, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 03:34, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 13:31, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy delete. Speedy deleted by Anthony Appleyard, CSD G7: One author who has requested deletion or blanked the page. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 14:07, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

PP MUKUNDAN[edit]

PP MUKUNDAN (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)

Unsourced BLP Zamaster4536 (talk) 08:33, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 13:31, 12 February 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. Spartaz Humbug! 07:18, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Rurika Kasuga[edit]

Rurika Kasuga (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)

Manga artist only notable work for English Wikipedia is Fancy Lala, of which she only did a manga adaptation (not the original work), so recommend redirect to that. ANN only shows one role. [25] MADB only shows a bunch of one volume manga none of which are that notable. [26] AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 08:29, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 08:29, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 08:30, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 08:31, 12 February 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. ignored spa/sock contributions.. Spartaz Humbug! 07:19, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Age is inaccurate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.87.75.78 (talk) 13:42, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ariane Bellamar[edit]

Ariane Bellamar (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 created by COI editor. DePRODded by another possible COI editor. PROD reason still stands: " No evidence of any notability. Scant coverage and what there is comes from tabloids (see WP:BLPSOURCES). Does not meet WP:BIO." Hence: Delete. Randykitty (talk) 07:47, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 12:35, 12 February 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 Shrek_on_the_Internet#2012-present:_ShrekChan.2C_.22Shrek_is_love.2C_Shrek_is_life.22. Didn't really need a discussion but redirecting anyway (non-admin closure) –Davey2010Talk 23:58, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Shrek is love Shrek is life[edit]

Shrek is love Shrek is life (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 meme. I can't find reliable sources. —teb728 t c 07:16, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 12:35, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. –Davey2010Talk 23:56, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. (WP:NPASR). North America1000 00:09, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Book of Maggie[edit]

The Book of Maggie (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)

Unnotable play. No indication of notability via the references provided. Anarchyte (work | talk) 06:08, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. Anarchyte (work | talk) 06:10, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 06:26, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 06:29, 12 February 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. Spartaz Humbug! 07:19, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Clay Garner[edit]

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

Fails WP:MUSIC. -download 05:27, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 06:25, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 13:08, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Connecticut-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 19:20, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 06:29, 12 February 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. Spartaz Humbug! 07:19, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Rollercoaster World[edit]

Rollercoaster World (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find video game sources: "Rollercoaster World" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · TWL · NYT · WP reference · VG/RS · VG/RL · WPVG/Talk)

This is a completely non-notable RollerCoaster Tycoon copycat. Gamerankings and MobyGames found no reliable reviews and/or articles talking about this game, and Google searches proved likewise. edtiorEهեইдအီးËეεઈדוארई電子ಇអ៊ី전자ഇī 01:26, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 06:22, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 13:09, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm indifferent to Delete or Keep but there are articles on the game and also not a "copycat" of RollerCoaster Tycoon... it's is part of the Tycoon franchise. Mobygames Link IGN link and there are more... Pmedema (talk) 16:31, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think you've might've been misled here. The MobyGames link is a self-released user review and the IGN link reviews a different game that could be also considered similar to Rollercoaster Tycoon, Theme Park Roller Coaster. Also, where is the evidence that saids Rollercoaster World is officially a part of the Rollercoaster Tycoon series and not a rip-off of it? edtiorEهեইдအီးËეεઈדוארई電子ಇអ៊ី전자ഇī😎 23:30, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 06:29, 12 February 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. Spartaz Humbug! 07:19, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Saravah Soul[edit]

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

I can find no evidence of notability using Wikipedia:Notability (music). I've looked and can't see any detail suggesting this is a notable group. 🍺 Antiqueight chat 04:18, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Spirit Ethanol (talk) 12:46, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Spirit Ethanol (talk) 12:48, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 06:28, 12 February 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--Ymblanter (talk) 08:38, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Louis Leeman[edit]

Louis Leeman (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)

Doesn't appear to be notable. Slightly promotional language. I dream of horses (My talk page) (My edits) @ 03:58, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. I dream of horses (My talk page) (My edits) @ 03:59, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. I dream of horses (My talk page) (My edits) @ 03:59, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. I dream of horses (My talk page) (My edits) @ 03:59, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 06:27, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. MelanieN (talk) 02:21, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

William Edward Fraser[edit]

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

Not yet notable per WP:Politician or WP:BIO. Independent candidate, not yet elected to any office, with no significant coverage online from WP:Reliable sources, just the small amount of local coverage that any candidate for national office would receive. NeemNarduni2 (talk) 06:23, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. NeemNarduni2 (talk) 06:24, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. NeemNarduni2 (talk) 06:24, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
"A politician who has received 'significant press coverage' has been written about, in depth, independently in multiple news feature articles, by journalists." ... Two articles featuring him were cited. Vote4fraser (talk) 06:36, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Independent Voter Network is not media, but an organization with which the article subject has a direct affiliation — so it doesn't contribute notability points, because it's PR in a primary source. And the only thing here that actually counts as a newspaper article is blown out of the water by the fact that it's a newspaper article in the local newspaper covering his own hometown, so it constitutes WP:ROUTINE coverage. All candidates for all political offices always get a few articles about them in their local newspaper, so that coverage can't help boost a candidate's notability either. If he somehow reached the point where his candidacy was getting coverage in The New York Times or the Seattle Post-Intelligencer or the Miami Herald, then there'd be a case for WP:GNG inclusion because coverage — but a local newspaper covering local politics doesn't get a local candidate over the bar. Bearcat (talk) 09:30, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. MelanieN (talk) 02:19, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Anil Pratap Singh[edit]

Anil Pratap Singh (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 individual doesn't appear to have been elected to, or held, any political office Uhooep (talk) 06:20, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 12:34, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 12:34, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy keep. per SK1 - No valid reason has been provided for deletion, As an aside Google News brings up tons of sources. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010Talk 21:24, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Chittoor Road[edit]

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

WP:Unreferenced, WP:OR Vin09 (talk) 06:02, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 12:29, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 12:29, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. MelanieN (talk) 02:09, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mobile leisure[edit]

Mobile leisure (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 topic is already covered in multiple articles, including:

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Mr. Guye (talk) 02:26, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 05:56, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. As a WP:SOFTDELETE, due to minimal participation despite being relisted. Lankiveil (speak to me) 05:27, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mike Vaughn[edit]

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

Article topic lacks significant coverage from reliable, independent sources. (?) As far as his voice acting roles, he had no meaningful hits in a video game reliable sources custom Google search. There are no worthwhile redirect targets. Doesn't pass actor notability guidelines. If someone finds more (non-English and offline) sources, please ((ping)) me. czar 02:53, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. czar 02:53, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 00:07, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Spirit Ethanol (talk) 12:49, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 05:53, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 00:50, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Category 4[edit]

Category 4 (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)

We are told specifically not to build dabs from partial title matches because the reader is better served by search results. Nothing is known as only 'Category 4' so there is nothing to disambiguate Legacypac (talk) 14:40, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

See policy WP:NAMELIST where I'm referring to "Do not add a link that merely contains part of the page title, or a link that includes the page title in a longer proper name, where there is no significant risk of confusion or reference."' If you follow that policy we have empty dabs here. Legacypac (talk) 18:23, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It can be used as a reference, as explained by Elf, below. Category 4 is a classification, a valid way of naming articles - for example Category:Disability sport classifications where many of the article titles are just the classifications - it's just that the longer titles used in the disambiguation page are more precise. Peter James (talk) 21:31, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - hard to imagine anyone is going to be looking for information on this basis, and there must be an enormous number of topics it could apply to. JMWt (talk) 16:52, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I've fixed the Cat 4 cable article to say "Catrgory 4 cable..." To match how the other Cat X cable articles start out. Not understanding what you mean about links for hurricanes. Legacypac (talk) 17:17, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:41, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 16:54, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 01:36, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to List of mayors of San Bernardino, California. (non-admin closure) sst✈(conjugate) 01:41, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

San Bernardino mayoral election, 2017[edit]

San Bernardino mayoral election, 2017 (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 per WP:CRYSTAL. Unsourced and non-notable as of yet, if ever. Regards, James(talk/contribs) 00:27, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 00:46, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 00:46, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEP San Bernardino is actually well known, it is the anchor of the 13th largest metropolitan area in the United States, larger than San Diego Melanie. Can the article be expanded upon? Yes. If SB is deleted so should the Atlanta one. James is always looking to delete SB articles instead of helping to expand them. House1090 (talk) 07:07, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. MelanieN (talk) 02:05, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

YTView[edit]

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

This article does cite a number of reliable sources that devote space to this website, but they were most likely written on behalf of the PR person for this website who also is probably responsible for this article. Antrocent (♫♬) 00:17, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 00:45, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I apologize if my assessment was incorrect. I often work on building articles of borderline notability and I can recognize and respect skill at squeezing the most out of reliable sources, but I do still favor deletion of this article. Antrocent (♫♬) 09:51, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
SBwire, or any "press release" article, is not considered a reliable source on Wikipedia. Also, none of those sources are about the subject, only mere mentions. These news sources would fit perfectly on the Social media marketing article. Like Shritwod mentioned, this is not a company directory.

I'm also beginning to believe there is a WP:COI here with the subject editing his own article, admins need to take a look at this. Scorpion293 (talk) 05:32, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There is no WP:COI involved, since if it has, I would have clarified it and/or state it.OGfromtheGut (talk) 23:53, 16 February 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.
More