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. All high/secondary schools are kept per SO

(non-admin closure) –Davey2010Talk 01:52, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Darul Huda Islamic University[edit]

Darul Huda Islamic University (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

This is not a university but a secondary Madrassah. The organization is not approved/listed by the University Grants Commission, Newdelhi. Prof TPMS (talk) 23:54, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:10, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:10, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep It's not a secondary madrassah but a university (with 200400 graduate students according to its website). Also a member of the Federation of the Universities of the Islamic World [1]. Uanfala (talk) 00:56, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Even if it's not approved by the "University Grants Commission" it still seems notable. --Mr. Magoo (talk) 10:15, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete A madrassah masquerading as a university cannot meet Wikipedia standards. Prof TPMS (talk) 14:30, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Could you demonstrate that? Thanks. Uanfala (talk) 15:21, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

By standard the nominator automatically votes delete so you don't need to add it. --Mr. Magoo (talk) 16:48, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - legitimate university and by long consensus we keep tertiary educational institutions. No reason to think it cannot meet WP:ORG. Just Chilling (talk) 00:39, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Per WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES. AusLondonder (talk) 18:50, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• If by "secondary" you mean a kind of Secondary school, i.e. "high school," it would still be a default keep under WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES, so I believe there's a problem with the deletion rationale. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:03, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Appears to be a degree-awarding university, which we keep by longstanding precedent and consensus. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:24, 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. MelanieN (talk) 00:29, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

FiLTH[edit]

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

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

Fails WP:GNG. No arguments have been given in the last AfD. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 23:01, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete WP:GNG per my comments when I nominated this article at its first AFD, which was closed WP:NPASR No Consensus since no-one else had commented on that AFD. The author has not touched this article in the three months since, confirming my impression that this article was nothing but an attempt to bolster a repeatedly speedied article on the artist who supposedly created this subgenre. Meters (talk) 23:28, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 06:33, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as simply none of this suggests a better applicably notable article. SwisterTwister talk 07:43, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Delete Joke article. --Mr. Magoo (talk) 10:10, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Delete Unsourced nonsense. Should have been speedied long ago. sixtynine ^{• speak up •} 01:56, 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 speedy delete. Hoax – there is nothing on reputable news media about a person by this name dying a month ago. Just a Reddit/4chan joke in rather poor taste. SuperMarioMan ( Talk ) 22:13, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Christian Mootson[edit]

Christian Mootson (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)

Wikipedia is not a memorial and no reliable source (it could be a joke). Sismarinho (talk) 21:59, 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) 00:31, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nu Fetish[edit]

Nu Fetish (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)

Poorly sourced neologism / porn quasi-genre fails WP:GNG. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 21:33, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 21:34, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 21:34, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Word-for-word taken from a Urban Dictionary definition, which was written in 2010. The term hasn't really picked up motion since. The sources are from 2011-2012. In addition I were left scratching my head trying to understand what exactly is supposed to be the fetish. --Mr. Magoo (talk) 22:22, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Good point. That's true of the initial article and the remaining first paragraph. I went ahead and removed most of that text and left a copyvio warning on the article creator's page. Would be enough to speedy delete if a paragraph of original research hadn't also been added. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 23:55, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 09:35, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. The remaining paragraph wasn't original research -- it was a near verbatim copy of material from one of the references (the deliciouslydeviant cite). It's been removed and there's pretty much nothing left but a short list of links. NewYorkActuary (talk) 23:46, 14 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) 00:32, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Katsuhiro Hayashi[edit]

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

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

A non-notable video game composer. A while ago, I created his page just because he had one on the Japanese Wikipedia, but now I've realized he isn't really notable and that the Japanese Wikipedia has different notability guidelines. I can't find any sources indicating notability either, and the page is also near-unsourced. DrDevilFX (talk) 20:31, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 21:40, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 21:40, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Agreed. Not notable at all. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 00:59, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as currently questionably solidly notable for the applicable notability. SwisterTwister talk 23:54, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, composer working on notable games doesn't make composer notable. Doesn't show up in WP:VG/RS. --Soetermans. T / C 12:25, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete due to the lack of non-trivial coverage from reliable publications. Regards, Yamaguchi先生 (talk) 00:34, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete As per nom - lack of sourced notability. -- Hybris1984 (talk) 22:36, 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 Redirect to Libertarian Party presidential primaries, 2016. --MelanieN (talk) 00:36, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Austin Petersen[edit]

Austin Petersen (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 dosen't appear to meet general notability guidelines as laid out in WP:42. Per WP:NPOL, just being an unelected candidate for office does not automatically confer notability. The sources in the article are all either primary or non-rs. I searched for better sources, and was unable to find evidence of significant coverage of the subject in secondary reliable sources. Ddcm8991 (talk) 19:56, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: A redirect to Libertarian Party presidential primaries, 2016 might be considered as an option, as opposed to outright deletion.--Ddcm8991 (talk) 20:09, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Libertarian Party presidential primaries, 2016. If he wins the Libertarian nomination, that will probably bring him to a level of being notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:24, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Mr Petersen does not conform to the foundation and primary principle of non-aggression stated in the Libertarian Party bylaws, the party platform, the Statement of Principles, and the pledge of non-aggression that all Party members must sign when they join. There is little chance that the Party delegates will nominate him as it will be largely contested. Buncoshark 15:43, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:27, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Conservatism-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:27, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Sources do not demonstrate notability. AusLondonder (talk) 18:31, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect/Merge to Libertarian Party presidential primaries, 2016. Definitely a potential search term, but the current coverage seems minimal. I could see this being recreated in a few months when it's closer to the Libertarian Party convention, when coverage could theoretically increase, or especially if he were to win the party's nomination. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 16:09, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete His biography reads like fan-club style trivia, and is sourced to non-notable/fringe libertarian websites. If he gets or is a serious competitor for the LP nomination, he will be mentioned more prominently by the media, and the page can be created at that point. Right now he isn't notable. Steeletrap (talk) 00:47, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - this is obviously a self-written promo article for a minor candidate, with very little to no reputable sourcing for notability. 68.190.174.4 (talk) 02:16, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect – Barely notable, but he is noteworthy enough to list as a 2016 LP candidate, with non-promotional RS. – S. Rich (talk) 17:57, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Libertarian presidential primaries, 2016. As others have pointed out, he is noteworthy enough to be listed as a candidate on that page, but not notable in his own right per WP:GNG or WP:POLITICIAN. The article seems to be sourced entirely by primary sources and non-RS blogs and cites.--Newbreeder (talk) 16:00, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have put many hours in researching and learning about Wikipedia, so I could make Austin an appropriate page. Austin is certainly notable, he is consistantly in either first or second place in the polls. And his competitor Gary Johnson has a campaign page. I'm a Libertarian. I am just seeking fair coverage of candidates. The Libertarian primaries are next month(March 15) We will be having our first nationally televised debate on Fox Business with John Stossel, and Austin will be on it. If there is something I can do to fix it, let me know. Or could we at least keep his page on here until it is decided whether he is our nominee or not. Hezymundo (talk) 20:54, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Hezymundo: I sympathize, but the difference is that Gary Johnson was a governor for eight years, and had plenty of coverage during that time. He also received a lot of coverage for his 2012 presidential run. It's not necessarily fair, but Wikipedia is supposed to follow the sources, not get ahead of them. Check out WP:GNG and WP:RS for information about what's required here. —Tourchiest ^talk_edits 22:11, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Tourchiest: Thank you for replying. I understand. So after the primaries, IF he were to succeed, I can recreate the page? Also, can I edit the Libertarian Primaries page to include a little biography about him? Neutral of course. Hezymundo (talk) 22:44, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No, Austin Petersen is only "first or second place in the polls" in polls created by Petersen and his few followers. They pack the poll and then advertise while Petersen is ahead. once the other three Libertarian candidates move ahead of Petersen, they abandon that poll and make a new one, giving the illusion that he is ahead, but it's always until they make the poll public. Petersen cannot be the nominee as his opposition to the non-aggression principle calls for censorship of his bid. The Libertarian Party is not officially debating the point right now because they are getting publicity. It will be done during the convention. Buncoshark 23:23, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

That is a lot of speculating, and accusations for a page claiming to be neutral. If you want to debate me personally, please find me on an alternative source. Even on the Wikipedia page for Nap and Libertarians it is cited that it is controversial. Hezymundo (talk) 01:28, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I've already seen the Party bylaw that talks about how Petersen can lose his bid for nomination. The issue here is not whether the NAP is "controversial," but that Petersen is not abiding by Party regulations. My point with you is that those reports about Petersen being ahead in polls is fictitious (see my explanation above). Buncoshark 01:49, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:25, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Kallarati[edit]

Kallarati (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)

Orphan, no info available, no references or external sources to support it. Mondiad (talk) 20:38, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 05:03, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 05:03, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albania-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 05:03, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete at best for now because my searches found nothing better at all. SwisterTwister talk 05:04, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Check out the article in the Albanian wiki. It clearly has a long history. Philafrenzy (talk) 12:38, 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 speedy keep. Withdrawn by nominator. Only 'delete' !vote has been reversed. (non-admin closure) | Uncle Milty | talk | 16:57, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Tom Murphy (chess player)[edit]

Tom Murphy (chess player) (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 at all: amateur chess player (~ 2000 USCF) who doesn't even have an international FIDE rating, let alone being a GM or a national champion (usual notability criteria for chess players)! Sophia91 (talk) 18:26, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn by nominator: Sasata added other references, now has sufficient coverage. Sophia91 (talk) 14:50, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:13, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:13, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:13, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - I agree that the article should be deleted. Strawberry4Ever (talk) 21:03, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - I've added a few sources that could be used to expand this article (and more could readily be found with a search). While Murphy does not meet the "usual notability criteria for chess players", he meets the general notability for BLP subjects in Wikipedia ("A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject."). Sasata (talk) 16:21, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep only if it can be better improved but if not Draft and userfy until a better article is available. SwisterTwister talk 05:05, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep There is sufficient coverage to let this person clear the GNG threshold, but the article needs to incorporate these into the text. Vanamonde93 (talk) 19:32, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as the reason for this nomination seems to be a WP:DIDNOTWIN argument. edtiorEهեইдအီးËეεઈדוארई電子ಇអ៊ី전자ഇī😎 20:28, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • edtiorEهեইдအီးËეεઈדוארई電子ಇអ៊ី전자ഇī😎, I did not AfD it for a "a WP:DIDNOTWIN argument" as you say, just check the history of the page: before Sasata expand it, the article was not something that I would have called "a topic who has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". Good that Sasata have found other sources, because I did not find anything. Sophia91 (talk) 14:32, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I've changed my mind about this after reading Wikipedia's notability guidelines. According to WP:GNG, "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list." Tom Murphy (chess player) passes that test since several articles were written about him. I agree with Sophia91 that Murphy isn't notable as a chess player since he isn't a grandmaster and hasn't won a significant championship. He's a street hustler, as are many other people, and he won the Under 2200 prize at the World Open Blitz Championship, as have many other people. But since multiple news sources wrote human interest stories about him, I now think that makes him notable from a Wikipedia point of view. I agree that the article should be expanded with information from the cited sources. Strawberry4Ever (talk) 14:05, 14 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 soft delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:20, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mrugesh[edit]

Mrugesh (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 Sanskrit word. Not a distinct Hindu deity; epithet of Kartikeya. Redtigerxyz ^Talk 17:45, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:01, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as nothing suggests this is better notable and improvable. SwisterTwister talk 06:47, 9 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 Kalasha Awards. Due to low participation, the article may be restored (and thereafter speedily renominated) without prejudice. (non-admin closure) Mz7 (talk) 20:14, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Kalasha Award for Best Lead Actress in Drama[edit]

Kalasha Award for Best Lead Actress in Drama (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 subject as per Wikipedia standards. I couldn't find any reliable third party coverage. If not a deletion the article should me merged with Kalasha_Awards. Kagundu^{Wanna Chat?} 13:23, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:25, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:25, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Kenya-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:26, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:26, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:26, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to Kalasha Awards perhaps at best. SwisterTwister talk 05:09, 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. SOFTDELETE per low participation herein. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:29, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

One Above[edit]

One Above (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 seem to meet WP:BAND guidelines. Article mentions winning an award, however, the link provided does not list him as one of the winners. No proof/resources provided to show just how much of a contributor he is to the writing of these songs. only (talk) 03:17, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 03:25, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as my searches found nothing better aside from a few unfamiliar websites and there's nothing else imaginably better for the applicable notability. SwisterTwister talk 01:20, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Grahame (talk) 02:07, 31 January 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:20, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

List of programs broadcast by KTN[edit]

List of programs broadcast by KTN (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 list. Should be merged with Kenya_Television_Network if not deleted. Kagundu^{Wanna Chat?} 13:27, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:24, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:24, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Kenya-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:24, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. While "non-notable list" doesn't mean anything here (any more than "non-notable article would), this television network does not appear to have any original notable programming, which makes it far less valuable. All of the notable series listed originated on other networks. postdlf (talk) 23:45, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep perhaps as this may be improvable. SwisterTwister talk 05:25, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - its local programming is expanding. VMS Mosaic (talk) 04:47, 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:20, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Playrix[edit]

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

(Find video game sources: "Playrix" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · TWL · NYT · WP reference · VG/RS · VG/RL · WPVG/Talk)

Unreliable references. No indication of notability. Township seems to be the only notable game there, and that already has an article. Anarchyte (work | talk) 02:16, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Anarchyte (work | talk) 02:17, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Anarchyte (work | talk) 02:17, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as certainly questionably notable as there is not enough convincing in-depth third-party sources overall. SwisterTwister talk 05:24, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as a non-notable video game developer failing WP:GNG with no reliable independent in-depth sources, such as WP:VG/RS. Does not meet WP:NCORP and having developer notable video games is WP:NOTINHERITED. AdColony entry doesn't appear reliable and like PR. There's an interview, but it's mainly primary content. Other stuff looks like PR mainly, like [2][3] or all those game press releases. No hits in Russian print magazines. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 23:13, 14 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:25, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Audio Network[edit]

Audio Network (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)

Poorly sourced article about a company, which has a definite advertorial slant to it and was created by one of its own founders (thus violating WP:COI). The sourcing here is entirely to primary sources and simple namechecks in business directories, with no reliable source coverage in which the company is a subject. As always, Wikipedia is not a free advertising directory — a company does not become entitled to have an article on here just because its own self-published web presence verifies that it exists, but must be the subject of media coverage to earn one. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 00:53, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment While I could easily suggest a delete for reasonings of WP:CORPSPAM, I've have found a couple of reliable articles including this article that show a bit of promise. edtiorEهեইдအီးËეεઈדוארई電子ಇអ៊ី전자ഇī😎😎😎😎😎😎😎😎😎😎😎😎 06:48, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete at best as the article could be drafted and userfied if improvable but the current article is still questionable. SwisterTwister talk 05:26, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 05:26, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 05:26, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete; only ref I could find is this one, and it reads like a PR statement. FoCuS contribs; talk to me! 19:14, 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:16, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ritika Singh[edit]

Ritika 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)

I don't see the coverage needed to meet WP:GNG. She has no top tier MMA fights so she fails WP:NMMA and there's no evidence she's a notable acress that meets WP:NACTOR. Mdtemp (talk) 21:31, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 22:58, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep there is no nominAtion statement. Offhand the article looks okay. doncram 00:39, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• MDTemp's nomination statement was not there when I commented, although time stamps seem to assert it was there.doncram 15:09, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"Looks okay" is not a policy based reason for keeping. An IP removed my nomination.Mdtemp (talk) 01:08, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - the actress has appeared in a notable film and her performance has received widespread acclaim for that particular film. Editor 2050 (talk) 01:14, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Added a few more sources. Editor 2050 (talk) 18:17, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Could you document "widespread" by multiple reliable sources? The article just cites one review (Sify). doncram 15:13, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep- Certainly meets wiki:GNG , and there are far worst sourced bio's Shrikanthv (talk) 07:57, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that there are worse biographies is irrelevant. See WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Papaursa (talk) 00:09, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak delete- only one movie because of mixed art, fails WP:NACTOR. Amitbanerji26 (talk) 15:01, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Definitely fails WP:NMMA and with one acting role does not meet WP:NACTOR.Peter Rehse (talk) 15:11, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Irudhi Suttru / Saala Khadoos are the same project yet two different movies - the editing, language spoken and actors are somehow different. Editor 2050 (talk) 18:19, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as questionable for the applicable notability. SwisterTwister talk 06:16, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Not notable as an MMA fighter or actress. Papaursa (talk) 00:09, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Why not as an actress. The reviews on the page itself show the widespread acclaim she has received. Editor 2050 (talk) 19:11, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Because she doesn't meet the notability criteria at WP:NACTOR. She hasn't had major roles in multiple notable films or made "unique, prolific or innovative contributions" to her field. Papaursa (talk) 01:22, 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 keep. (non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 01:19, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Flamingoes in Orbit[edit]

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

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

Article about a book, which makes no substantive claim of notability besides "book that exists" and is based entirely on WP:PRIMARYSOURCES: the source for the existence of the book is the author's profile on the website of his PR agent, and the sourcing for "two of the stories in it were previously published in multi-author anthologies" is the publication details of one of those anthologies and the Amazon.com sales page of the other. This is not how a book gets a Wikipedia article — it would qualify for one if it could be sourced to reliable source media coverage about the book, but every book that exists is not automatically eligible for a Wikipedia article just because its existence can be verified in primary sources. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 22:44, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: This indicates that Roz Kaveney appraised it in the Times Literary Supplement. It's also had at least two editions in Italian (Fenicotteri in orbita), which makes it seem likely that it would have received some critical reaction there other than the coverage in this article by Danilo Arona. ^~~Hydronium^~Hydroxide^~(Talk)~~ 09:31, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• This book was also reviewed in the New Statesman & Society. I've cited that review in our article. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 11:36, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:01, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:01, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:01, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. I've tracked down the TLS review and cited it in the article. That and the New Statesman & Society review have about 300 words each about this book, and, along with the Italian article linked above, I think we have enough to demonstrate notability. 86.17.222.157 (User talk:86.17.222.157talk) 14:05, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep owing to reviews mentioned above Awesomewiki64 (talk) 19:30, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per evidence of coverage (This appears to be an additional Italian source). User:86.17.222.157: If you have access to the full TLS and/or NS&S articles, would you mind adding in something about their reaction so that the article's contents demonstrates the notability of the book (I'm wary of borrowing the TLS quoted material directly from Contemporary Authors). Thanks, ^~~Hydronium^~Hydroxide^~(Talk)~~ 07:24, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment, Ebsco shows it was reviewed by Sight & Sound magazine [4]. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:43, 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:15, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Robert C. Williams[edit]

Robert C. Williams (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Fails WP:BIO; little depth of coverage in reliable sources. Fails WP:ANYBIO; appears to have made no widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record. Fails WP:POLITICIAN. Magnolia677 (talk) 21:53, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Purely of local interest, with local being a small township in Canada. LaMona (talk) 21:43, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• A small township of tens of thousands of people, housing Bramalea, Canada's first satellite city, who had to negotiate its place within Brampton, which quickly became one of Canada's largest cities. -- Zanimum (talk) 14:37, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• The sourceability of his role within those negotiations is poor to nonexistent, so that protestation doesn't assist in the slightest. See below. Bearcat (talk) 04:34, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE: While Dr. Williams did not win an Order of Canada, Magnolia677 deleted a variety of Order of Canada redlinks from lists of people for Peel. I posted on his or her talk page that the Order of Canada was the country's second highest civilian honour, implying to him to back off. Regardless of whether this article qualifies as notable, this users should win an "out of spite AfD nomination" barnstar. -- Zanimum (talk) 14:37, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, or at least move to the draft namespace, passes WP:POLITICIAN, he just exists in a pre-Internet age, in a jurisdiction that's been randomly missed by newspaper digitization projects. He was still being quoted by the Toronto Star, Canada's highest circulation newspaper, on topics at least as late as 2003, thirty years after retiring as a politician. -- Zanimum (talk) 14:41, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"Quoted on topics" doesn't make a person suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia in and of itself. It might suggest the possibility that enough coverage of the person in other contexts might exist to make him notable — but giving soundbite in coverage of other topics doesn't make him notable in and of itself, because he isn't the subject of what he's saying. And Brampton is within the local coverage area of the Toronto Star — so it doesn't confer the depth of coverage needed to make a smalltown mayor notable just because coverage exists. Especially not when I've got access to this magic tool called ProQuest, which enables me to determine exactly how much useful pre-Internet sourcing actually exists: I can pull out TorStar sourcing all the way back to 1894 (and no, that's not a typo — I really do mean the 19th century). I'll detail below, but you've massively overstated the case. Bearcat (talk) 04:10, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Draft and userfy at best because this article is still currently questionable. SwisterTwister talk 05:01, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:47, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:47, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Unfortunately, there are these nifty little things called news archive databases, which magically turn pre-internet-era sourcing into internet-accessible sourcing. So per ProQuest, what we've actually got here for "quoted in the Toronto Star in 2003" is (a) a one-line soundbite about his opinion on the location of the Brampton Civic Hospital, and (b) a one-line soundbite about his opinion of the Dufferin—Peel—Wellington—Grey by-election in 2002, where the entire quote from him is "there really hasn't been a hell of a lot to talk about". Neither of these offer any evidence of enduring notability. And for coverage during his career I get just 11 hits, of which one is the presence of his name in an employment ad for a job opening at Chinguacousy's municipal office, and all of the others are pure "smalltown mayor does smalltown mayor things and gets WP:ROUTINE coverage for them in the local newspaper" — none of them offer any real substance to make him more notable than the norm for smalltown mayors. So WP:NPOL #3 has not been passed here, because that criterion cannot just be claimed as true. It must be reliably sourced as true — and the sourceability here simply does not cut it, if ten routine mentions of his name, and no coverage that counts as substantive, in the nearest local daily newspaper is the best I can find. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 04:32, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete because sources are simply not sufficient. But, User:Bearcat, I know that you're inundated with these campaign articles, and maybe you have looked at the track records of the editors weighing in here and know that they are folks who should know better, but let's try to hold the snark. After all, I assume that most editors creating and defending candidate articles are carried away by enthusiasm for a candidate, and participating in an election campaign is an admirable and honorable thing, even when it does lead to the WP equivalent of littering the town with campaign posters.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:33, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well, for the record, this isn't an unelected candidate for office — it's a dead former smalltown mayor who never even attempted a run for higher office that I've been able to locate. The by-election soundbite I alluded to above was not quoting him as a candidate — it was quoting him as a voter and observer (which is even less of a basis for a notability claim than having been a candidate would be). And while I admit that my writing style can be blunt sometimes, I'm not seeing where I crossed any line into "snark" at all. YMMV. Bearcat (talk) 19:43, 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. I think the discussion slightly tilts towards "delete," but the current !votes are insufficient to make that determination and we've already gone through two relists in an unsuccessful attempt to invite more comments. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:14, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Magic Car[edit]

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

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

Non-notable band that fails WP:BAND. I don't see any reviews in reliable sources. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 15:53, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: agree with nom. I originally tagged for speedy, but was over-ruled on basis that band had a notable member. I don't find either the band or its putative notable member notable. ubiquity (talk) 17:59, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Late comment: In a separate AfD, the article on Phil Smeeton was deleted. Now the claim cannot be made that the band has a notable member. At this point I think it could be speedied. ubiquity (talk) 22:16, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Musa^Talk ☻ 21:33, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Musa^Talk ☻ 21:33, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Not enough to suggest better satisfying the applicable notability. SwisterTwister talk 01:13, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep found some reviews here, here,here I think passes WP:GNG.Atlantic306 (talk) 01:52, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Neither the band nor the linked member are notable. Sources in previous post don't necessarily establish notability. sixtynine ^{• speak up •} 05:13, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. 3 albums on Tiny Dog Records, coverage from Allmusic, The Independent, Folk World, and summarized on the band's website, reviews from Uncut, NME, The Times, Q, Time Out, MOJO, and Music Week. Clearly satisfies WP:GNG and WP:NMUSIC. --Michig (talk) 10:49, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not convinced. Allmusic is a comprehensive guide to all music, and I don't think it can demonstrate notability. Folk World has an editor listed, but it looks like someone's personal home page from 1995. I'm skeptical that this is a real magazine. The official Magic Car website reports some offline coverage, but I generally don't trust official websites very much. I found an archive of the NME review (and a live version). The live version has very little mention of Magic Car, and boils down to "we never heard of this band before". The review in The Independent seems pretty legit, but I'm worried that if all the coverage is of a shared album, the album is more notable than one band who contributed to it. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 13:39, 30 January 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:12, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

BRCache[edit]

BRCache (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)

Software library released last year and with a stable release last month. No third-party references, article reads like a library documentation rather than an encyclopedic article. Proposed deletion removed by the article's creator. - Mike Rosoft (talk) 06:35, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 07:09, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete at best as none of this suggests a better notable article. SwisterTwister talk 00:05, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Software article of unclear notability, lacking independent references. A search turned up no significant WP:RS coverage. Article was created by an SPA as possibly promotional. Dialectric (talk) 06:18, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Sotware article of clear unnotability. Most search results are WP mirrors, not even press releases in shady places. Tigraan (talk) 10:12, 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 no consensus. (WP:NPASR). North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:21, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Babymetal World Tour 2014[edit]

Babymetal World Tour 2014 (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)

There is no in-depth coverage of this tour (not individual concerts, but tour) that make this notable per WP:NTOUR. It happened, and we know it, and we could possibly have a sentence or two in the main article, but this was not a notable tour. Drmies (talk) 18:34, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Passes notability points and sources are highly valid. Any world tour has to be big, and the venues are arenas which makes it a huge venture. To merge all the information onto the Babymetal article would be too long and too offtopic since it was acknowledging a tour. Choicerpex (talk) 19:05, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I looked at other bands and pretty much all the tours of a big band are seemingly articled separately like this — like their albums or even singles. Doesn't Babymetal have hundreds of millions of views on Youtube? I don't know if the tours really need their own articles but it does seem to be the standard. --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 04:34, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Moscow Connection (talk) 13:43, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Moscow Connection (talk) 13:46, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. The sources in the article currently look to be mostly about the DVD release. Google News has a bunch of hits, but the English-language ones don't seem to be too compelling. For example, [5] from The Independent, which is basically just an announcement. There's also [6] from The Guardian, which, at the very bottom of the article, says they're the youngest act to play at Budokan. I don't really think that's enough. I'm a bit reluctant to outright vote to delete, though, because I'm not sure I'd be able to find Japanese coverage. I'd feel better if someone could comment about Japanese sources. Maybe they go more into detail about the Budokan record? NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 00:17, 3 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:10, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Saint Barbara Tondo[edit]

Saint Barbara Tondo (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)

Head of a Woman with Turban (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

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

Saint Sebastian (Lorenzo Lippi) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

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

This is the remainder of a set of four articles created by User:Nyflod on paintings attributed to major artists but not attested to in the usual sort of sources for such things. One of these was deleted (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Actaeon mauled by his hounds) but for whatever reason the other three were never addressed. All four of these were also created on the Italian Wikipedia, and all four have been deleted there. In any case the problem is the same for these as in the first case: it is unconscionable that works by major artists should be hard to document in English. Mangoe (talk) 03:26, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 04:51, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Doubtful if it even exists. If it does, attribution is questionable at best. For an artist whose work is subject of so much scholarly work, and considering the other contributions of Nyflod it seems exceedingly unlikely that this is anything other than a WP:HOAX Mduvekot (talk) 18:22, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Pernom. Arthistorian1977 (talk) 09:50, 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 no consensus. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:10, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Turtle Beach (Florida)[edit]

Turtle Beach (Florida) (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 geographic location. Magnolia677 (talk) 01:03, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 02:57, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete perhaps although I would've also suggested mentioning at the local community's article. Unlikely serparately notable though, SwisterTwister talk 03:35, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge – to Siesta Key, Florida. The topic has received some significant coverage (e.g. [7], [8]), and the merge target presently only mentions the beach (which I added, diff). This will preserve appropriate content per WP:PRESERVE and improve the merge target article. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:24, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Beaches, like rivers, mountains etc. are natural geographic features, and named ones should fall under WP:GEOLAND which states that such features "are often notable, provided information beyond statistics and coordinates is known to exist." This seems to be the case here. Americanfreedom (talk) 01:43, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep or at least Merge with redirect. Appears to be notable at least locally. VMS Mosaic (talk) 04:54, 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:09, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

M. Alison Atkins[edit]

M. Alison Atkins (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Article is about a seemingly unknown artist who, by the author's own admission, "little is known about her private or professional life", exhibited only locally and "was not recorded as a member of the Society of Women Artists". Article is cited only to birth/death notices and original research in archival records. Talk page is filed with speculation and guesswork. The list of known works show no evidence she was prolific or well known either. I don't know the motives of the author here (a relative? a west London art lover? art dealer?) but this simply doesn't show any evidence of notability therefore failing WP:GNG and WP:ARTIST. Sionk (talk) 11:01, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 15:11, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 18:09, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: The Talk page contains interesting suggestions on possible ways that more may be discoverable about this person, but a research and discovery process belongs elsewhere than Wikipedia which should be merely presenting verified results. As things stand, I see nothing to indicate that the subject's accomplishments amount to any more than the many other illustrators and exhibitors; fails WP:ARTIST, WP:GNG. AllyD (talk) 08:27, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete regrettably she does not seem to have been noted by anyone. The little information here can be easily recovered if adequate sources are ever found that show her to have been notable. Philafrenzy (talk) 14:09, 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 speedy deleted as A7 by Od Mishehu clpo13_(talk)

Klajdi Abdullai[edit]

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

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

Notability not established per WP:BIO ~Pesco^{So say•we all} 18:57, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:25, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albania-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:25, 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 speedy delete. Speedy deleted by Randykitty, multiple reasons: speedy deletion criteria CSD A7, CSD G11. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 19:15, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Bharti Shriji[edit]

Bharti Shriji (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)

Pure advertisement, but previous afd gave no consensus. The only one saying keep in that discussion was a now-banned sockpuppet DGG ( talk ) 17:09, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Reads like a puff piece and subject lacks any significance. Meatsgains (talk) 17:45, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete likely as this is still questionable for the applicable notability guidelines and the history will show how troubled this article has been. Notifying the only still active AfDer Green Cardamom. SwisterTwister talk 17:46, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete It is just an advertisement. Abesam (talk) 00:20, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and perhaps salt. Pure spam. Safiel (talk) 04:47, 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. czar 20:05, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Chubby Pixel[edit]

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

(Find video game sources: "Chubby Pixel" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · TWL · NYT · WP reference · VG/RS · VG/RL · WPVG/Talk)

Fails WP:GNG. A quick Google search does not bring up any reliable sources. Having one game in a Humble Bundle does not mean developer is notable. Soetermans. T / C 15:07, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 15:48, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 15:48, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as an unnotable company. Anarchyte (work | talk) 08:46, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Anarchyte (work | talk) 08:47, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as a non-notable video game company failing WP:GNG with no reliable independent in-depth sources, such as WP:VG/RS. Having released notable games is WP:NOTINHERITED. WP:NCORP doesn't prescribe any exemptions either. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 13:54, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete This isn't Steam edtiorEهեইдအီးËეεઈדוארई電子ಇអ៊ី전자ഇī😎 01:35, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Chubby Pixel games have been featured on a lot of important websites such as IGN Italy http://it.ign.com/woodle-tree-pc/64626/review/woodle-tree-super-mario-3d-land-per-pc, Game FAQS http://www.gamefaqs.com/pc/805522-woodle-tree-adventures, PC Rating https://pcmrating.com/games/woodle-tree-adventures, Nintendo Enthusiast http://nintendoenthusiast.com/interview/woodlee-tree-adventures-inspired-nintendo-90s-sm64-particular/, Spaziogames http://www.spaziogames.it/recensioni_videogiochi/console_multi_piattaforma/14905/woodle-tree-adventures.aspx, Moreover, the game requires a description in the Humble Bundle games lists https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Humble_Bundles MalboMX —Preceding undated comment added 09:13, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  Comment. GameFAQs, PC Rating, Nintendo Enthusiast and Spaziogames are not a WP:VG/RS, even if you would consider them to be "important". Wikipedia cannot be the source for itself. There can still be a description of the game in the Humble Bundle games list, even without an article. IGN is a reliable source, but IGN Italy isn't listed at WP:VG/RS either. --Soetermans. T / C 11:37, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  I just noticed this is the deletion discussion for the developer. You have to prove WP:GNG for the developer here, not the game. --Soetermans. T / C 11:39, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Fails the WP:GNG. The collection of sources provide so are either not what Wikipedia considers reliable and/or not significant coverage about the company itself. Sergecross73 msg me 15:22, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:37, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as this seems too soon and there's nothing to suggest better independent notability. SwisterTwister talk 21:18, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Fails GNG. Philafrenzy (talk) 11:42, 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:08, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Woodle Tree Adventures[edit]

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

(Find video game sources: "Woodle Tree Adventures" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · TWL · NYT · WP reference · VG/RS · VG/RL · WPVG/Talk)

Fails WP:GNG. A quick Google search does not bring up WP:VG/RS, only Metacritic. Soetermans. T / C 15:04, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Delete I was able to find this magazine review, but the notability of the game and the company who made it is still questionable. edtiorEهեইдအီးËეεઈדוארई電子ಇអ៊ី전자ഇī😎 20:26, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as a non-notable video game failing WP:GNG with no reliable independent in-depth sources, such as WP:VG/RS. I see some directory entries, but nothing substantial. I'm unsure above the above source -- the magazine is self-published and I cannot find any editorial information. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 22:51, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The game has been featured on a lot of important websites, such as IGN Italy http://it.ign.com/woodle-tree-pc/64626/review/woodle-tree-super-mario-3d-land-per-pc, Game FAQS http://www.gamefaqs.com/pc/805522-woodle-tree-adventures, PC Rating https://pcmrating.com/games/woodle-tree-adventures, Nintendo Enthusiast http://nintendoenthusiast.com/interview/woodlee-tree-adventures-inspired-nintendo-90s-sm64-particular/, Spaziogames http://www.spaziogames.it/recensioni_videogiochi/console_multi_piattaforma/14905/woodle-tree-adventures.aspx, PC Gaming Wiki http://pcgamingwiki.com/wiki/Woodle_Tree_Adventures . On Arstechnica The game was one of the most popular games #152 on Steam in 2014 http://arstechnica.com/gaming/2015/03/steam-gauge-measuring-the-most-popular-steam-games-of-2014/3/ . Moreover, the game requires a description in the Humble Bundle games lists https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Humble_Bundles MalboMX

  Comment (copied from my reply at other deletion discussion) GameFAQs, PC Rating, Nintendo Enthusiast and Spaziogames are not a WP:VG/RS, even if you would consider them to be "important". Wikipedia cannot be the source for itself. There can still be a description of the game in the Humble Bundle games list, even without an article. IGN is a reliable source, but IGN Italy isn't listed at WP:VG/RS either. WP:POPULARITY is not synonymous with notability (and don't think being the 152nd most played game in 2014 on Steam is any indicator of popularity to begin with). --Soetermans. T / C 11:43, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  Comment Yes, but Ars Technica is listed in the Video Game Sources of Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Video_games/Sources with over 100.000 copies sold on Steam and 500.000 active players. The game is on GiantBomb too http://www.giantbomb.com/woodle-tree-adventures/3030-46675/, furthermore it's not possible to add description on the Humble Bundle games list, so a proper page should be necessary MalboMX

  [9] is probably good, but none of the others are. The sources for GNG need to be 1) reliable, 2) independent, and 3) in-depth. Not one or two, but all three. Only IGN IT fits this assuming we consider non-English version of IGN reliable. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 13:17, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Article topic lacks significant coverage from reliable, independent sources. (?) I'd give my benefit of the doubt to the Italian IGN and Spazio sites, but I know little about their editorial standards. Still, the rest is unreliable (or mentioned in passing) and there isn't enough coverage to write an article. There are no worthwhile redirect targets. If someone finds more (non-English and offline) sources, please ((ping)) me. czar 20:11, 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 delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:07, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jake Bass[edit]

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

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

Fails PORNBIO and the GNG: no qualifying awards, no independent reliable sourcing. Virtually all content is promotional and/or drawn from promotional sources. PROD tendentiously removed without explanation or article improvement by the usual suspect. Prior AFD dealt with a different person of the same name. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by administrators since 2006. (talk) 15:02, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:29, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:31, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:31, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Fails PORNBIO without award wins. Lacks significant reliable source coverage to satisfy GNG. No reliably sourced biographical content in the article. No independent reliable source coverage found in independent searches. • Gene93k (talk) 20:01, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Undue attention from promotional sources to be expected of non-notable, non-significant Western porn actors. Esquivalience ^t 00:52, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, fails current notability guidelines, per nom. Cavarrone 20:48, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete fails everything. Spartaz ^Humbug! 07:30, 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 no consensus. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:07, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mikael Ljungman[edit]

Mikael Ljungman (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)

Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Mikael_Ljungman especially User:Bishonens comment [1] Govindaharihari (talk) 20:25, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Nothing quite meets WP:GNG criteria. Subject was a political candidate, but not elected. Subject contributed money to some political campaigns. Subject was involved with a company that was involved in a more famous company. Subject committed a crime.--Rpclod (talk) 20:54, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

References 1, 14, 15, 16 are patents, many duplicates, which give no indication of notability. References 2, 4, 6, 20, 27-31, 34-36, 39, 41-44, 46 all relate to the subject's prosecution and conviction for fraud and several are duplicates. Reference 45 only peripherally mentions the subject. Reference 3 is a twitter profile which gives no indication of notability. References 5, 12, 17, 18, 25, 32, 33, 37 are dead links. References 7 & 8 are identical and indicate that the subject was a Christian Democrat candidate, which gives no indication of notability. Reference 9 indicates that he is a criminal and a candidate. References 10 & 11 merely list the subject among other contributors. References 13, 21, 22, 23, 24, 26, 38, 40 do not list the subject at all. Reference 19 relates to a (failed) relaunch of Gizmondo in 2008. There is not enough here to meet notability standards. The subject was involved in a fraud that was covered in Danish press. He was also an unsuccessful politician.--Rpclod (talk) 01:57, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - What's more, he doesn't have a Wikipedia entry in Danish or Swedish. If he's not notable enough to be written up in his home country, the place where all his business dealings and legal issues took place, he can't possibly merit inclusion in English Wikipedia. Add to that the amount of grief the edit wars over this puny article have generated and it's clear that it's not worth the effort to keep. Grifter84 (talk) 10:53, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. There is some material for notability. Very hard though to reach consensus.Tore N Johansson (talk) 15:03, 6 February 2016 (UTC) — Tore N Johansson (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
• Keep -- even in reduced form [10], without the spammy primary references, it's clear there are enough sources to meet a basic notability standard. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 21:47, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. The nominator flattered me by referring to my earlier comment here, and yes, I don't think the subject is notable. The only thing that I can find reliabe third-party sources about is the criminal record, especially in relation to the parliamentary candidacy, so that's what the article needs to focus on if it's to be kept. But I don't think it should be kept: I call out, as typical tabloid exaggeration for effect, the claim in the Aftonbladet reference[11] that Ljungman is such a well-known financial criminal. (I live in Sweden and follow the news, and I had never heard of him.) Aftonbladet tends to be sensationalist (see the criticism section of our article on it), and also has a political angle. It's part owned by the Swedish Trade Union Confederation, which appoints the paper's political editor. The Christian Democrats party, on whose election ticket Mikael Ljungman was a candidate, are unlikely to get good press in Aftonbladet. It's all in the day's work for them to emphasize that the CD party has a 'notorious' criminal in their ranks — especially at the time of the run-up to an election. We should be aware that this source has an interest in aggrandizing the criminal fame of Ljungman.

Mikael Ljungman was created as a promotional stub in 2008 by User:Truthmaker1. Two SPAs with equally promotional/whitewashing agendas have since been blocked as socks of Truthmaker1. Now there's a fourth SPA account editing the article, User:Tore N Johansson very much like them. (He's !voting Delete above; I formated your !vote for better visibility, Tore, hope you don't mind.) Yes, this article is more trouble to keep clean than it's worth. That's not a formal reason for deletion (my formal reason is lack of notability), but it weighs with me. Bishonen | talk 17:15, 6 February 2016 (UTC).[reply]

• Delete per arguments of Grifter84 and Bishonen. Failing that reduce to a stub, but I don't see much hope for keeping the stub in a sensible state while the SPA is involved. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 19:22, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• if you look at and remove the now blocked accounts, the result last time was a clear delete - Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Mikael_Ljungman_(2nd_nomination) Govindaharihari (talk) 20:07, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, the article suffers from periodic attempts at whitewashing, but according to Aftonbladet, Ljungman is Sweden's best-known financial criminal, with significant media coverage in Aftonbladet, realtid.se, Berlingske and other reputable news sources. I do not think we should let the SPAs determine whether we can maintain an article on the subject. If necessary, protection and/or blocks of those engaged in worsening the article are more suitable options than just giving up and letting the SPAs destroy the page on a notable subject. Huon (talk) 09:18, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. The sourcing looks good enough for WP:GNG and WP:BLP, they cover more than one event (so there's no issue with WP:BIO1E) and the long-term nature of the coverage of his misdeeds is enough to meet WP:PERP. The special pleading above that we should ignore mainstream national-newspaper level sources because he has attracted political enemies (what politician doesn't?), because the newspapers have a bias (what newspaper doesn't?) or because his misdeeds were too sensational doesn't sway me. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:49, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep perhaps as this seems convincingly enough. SwisterTwister talk 06:15, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:43, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:43, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:43, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:43, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Sufficient sourcing to meet WP:GNG AusLondonder (talk) 18:38, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per WP:GNG which is meets.BabbaQ (talk) 23:17, 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 no consensus. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:02, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

2015 New Year's attack plots[edit]

2015 New Year's attack plots (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

No evidence of notability. A collection of terrorism arrests and alleged offences. No actual attack or incident. WP:NOTNEWS. AusLondonder (talk) 01:55, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Note Invalid reason for nomination to AFD. Plots of many kinds have articles, failed terrorist plots have many articles. Nom appears unaware that is a plot gains sufficient attention, it can be notable. E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:48, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. FallingGravity (talk) 02:34, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. FallingGravity (talk) 02:35, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. WP:SYNTHESIS of various news reports and fails WP:NEVENT's lasting impact and continued coverage criteria. - HyperGaruda (talk) 06:48, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. ansh666 07:06, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. ansh666 07:06, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - while at least some have been covered together as related incidents (e.g. CNN), it doesn't seem to meet WP:NEVENT by itself; the content would probably be better off as small addendums on ISIL-related pages rather than as its own standalone page. ansh666 07:08, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to an article which includes all (unsuccessful) plots. ansh666 21:59, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and expand. It is simply another of the large number of articles on foiled terrorist plans. These four foiled plans could, of course, each be given an independent article. Sourcing for that exists. It merely seemed efficient to group them this way. This is not WP:SYNTHESIS because as these attacks were being reported, the others were mentioned: NBC; The Independent; Sydney Morning Herald. I could fill this page with major news media covering these attack plots as a group. The Atlantic The question (for editors who do a proper search for sourcing), is whether to keep this as one article or as four.E.M.Gregory (talk) 11:17, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

— Note to closing admin: E.M.Gregory (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this AfD.

• Delete – this summary style of putting four practically unrelated attack plots together on the basis of their date isn't appropriate. If these four incidents shared a direct common thread (such as a single mastermind trying to make co-ordinated attacks), then I'd try to make a WP:GNG judgement; but since they don't, I'm simply going to say that the style is unencyclopedic and an article of this title will not be appropriate. Aspirex (talk) 03:03, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Except, of course, that they were all ISIS-related. Please do not make misleading and untrue statements like "practically unrelated" at AFD.E.M.Gregory (talk) 23:56, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• No, I disagree entirely. "ISIS-inspired" is a broad category which merely describes the ideology of the individuals involved. As per my example, unless there was a direct link such as common plotters attempting to make a series of co-ordinated attacks, then I maintain that the events are in all practical aspects (using practical by its precise definition "based on practice or action rather than theory or hypothesis" rather than practically's informal definition "almost completely") unrelated. Aspirex (talk) 00:32, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• With apologies for having started an article and not gotten back to expand it, I just did a few small improvements and will be back to do more. Notability is gauged, of course, by available sources, sources are available, and, as I often suggest and often do with article sI find at AFD, when an article's notability is clear and sources are available, it is a better use of editor time ot improve the article.E.M.Gregory (talk) 01:44, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and expand. per E.M Gregory reasoning as well. This article is notable, good sourcing etc. Improvements has been made as well since nomination. all ISIS related as previous statements.BabbaQ (talk) 12:23, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep or merge into article that lists planned ISIS attacks foiled, today one such incident occurred [12]. Spirit Ethanol (talk) 13:21, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's a good point. As far as I can see, there isn't an article which lists attacks and/or planned/foiled plots by ISIL; maybe there should be. ansh666 00:11, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'd support that in principle. There's no way all of these individual non-attacks should have their own pages, but a chronological list of foiled attacks would serve a similar function to an article like List of Palestinian rocket attacks on Israel,_2016 and would be an effective means of hosting the content. Aspirex (talk) 05:46, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • I support creation of such an article, merging linking this material to it.(article creator)E.M.Gregory (talk) 13:42, 9 February 2016 (UTC) see belowE.M.Gregory (talk) 15:17, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        • I renamed article per discussion above to List of unsuccessful plots by ISIL, AusLondonder (talk · contribs), nominator, reverted. not sure how to move forward. Spirit Ethanol (talk) 14:23, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Pages in deletion discussions generally shouldn't be moved, especially so drastically. AusLondonder (talk) 14:49, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

We close the discussion, then move the page.E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:20, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Note to closing editor. I think we have reached a consensus and can close this page as merge/ move to List of unsuccessful plots by ISIL, a much-needed page.E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:20, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• There is no consensus yet. Far from it actually.--BabbaQ (talk) 16:00, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• NOTE there is an open move request at talk:2015 New Year's attack plots -- 70.51.200.135 (talk) 01:18, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• We can not have a AfD discussion ongoing and a move request at the talk page at the same time. Why does people never learn.BabbaQ (talk) 16:00, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep/merge: After users have worked hard to add more information and references to this article, please tell me why on earth this doesn't meet Wikipedia's general notability guidelines? I don't see any reason to delete. Philmonte101 😊😄😞 (talk) 19:27, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Note Support expressed by User:Aspirex, (perhaps Nate would also agree) at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/January 2016 Paris police station attack (2nd nomination) to rename that article into this one while merging both pages in to a new article with Spirit Ethanol's proposed title List of unsuccessful plots by ISIL.E.M.Gregory (talk) 10:58, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment edited to remove strange formatting issue ansh666 21:58, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, the merging proposal is not appropiate, as in this case possible attack plots on New Year's Eve are the subject of the article, in the case of the Paris police station incident a failed attack, that received widespread media attention in connection with the migrant crisis and the discussion about a possible terrorist influx along with the migrants.--Gerry1214 (talk) 14:17, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• I am persuaded by the arguments made by User:Gerry1214, User:Philmonte101 and by User:BabbaQ that the article should not be merged into List of unsuccessful plots inspired or directed by ISIL but should, rather be linked from that list and kept (iVote) above.E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:17, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, (edit: or merge) clear WP:SYNTH this is a collection of tangentially-related news stories grouped together via synthesis, with no coverage making any connection between them at all. Additionally, it fails WP:NEVENT; the coverage that does exist has no depth and no duration. Bunching a list of several barely-notable news reports together to try and produce an article that will stick falls afoul of WP:NOTNEWS as well. --Aquillion (talk) 19:21, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User:Aquillion I challenge you; I do not see at all any reason that this topic would not be notable. The events were covered in several news articles even after the events happened. This is why I suggested to merge into List of unsuccessful plots by ISIL; in order to keep overly critical editors like yourself from blaming it on WP:SYNTHESIS. Philmonte101 😊😄😞 (talk) 20:56, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User:Aquillion References: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12. By reading down that list, you can go ahead and assume that this article is notable; or at least its content is. I am highly in support of a merge! Philmonte101 😊😄😞 (talk) 20:58, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't actually be opposed to a merge, since I feel that the standard for a sentence or two mentioning something on that article is lower than the standard for giving it its own article. They're synthesis here because putting them together like this carries the implication that there was a coordinated wave of New Years' attack plots by ISIS in 2015 in particular, which isn't really supported by any of the sources; but just throwing them onto a page about failed ISIS plots doesn't have that problem (although they'd need to be examined individually to make sure they qualify as 'genuine' ISIS plots and not copycats or something, but that can be handled on that page.) --Aquillion (talk) 00:56, 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 delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:00, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Smashball[edit]

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

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

Fails WP:GNG. A quick Google search does not bring up enough reliable sources. Soetermans. T / C 12:13, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Unnotable user content, fallen into absolute obscurity. --Mr. Magoo (talk) 12:23, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:06, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I did find some articles about this mod in some modding news websites but they aren't enough to establish notability, given how scarce coverage for this is elsewhere. No lasting impact either. It doesn't help that searching for just "Smashball" results in several positives, including a fictional sport in the Star Wars universe. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 14:39, 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 speedy keep. Withdrawn by nominator (non-admin closure) | Uncle Milty | talk | 01:00, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yenepoya University[edit]

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

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

This is a diploma mill. The university is not listed in the website of University Grants Commission, India. The link to the same given by the page creator doesn't respond. Prof TPMS (talk) 10:40, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 15:46, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 15:46, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Per WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES. Its website is here. No evidence of being a "diploma mill" AusLondonder (talk) 19:04, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - even if a diploma mill, it still meets WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES. If it can be shown thru refs that it is a mill, then the article should indicate that. VMS Mosaic (talk) 05:00, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Appears to be a legitimate degree-awarding university, which we keep by longstanding precedent and consensus. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:27, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: - This AFD was closed by deletion by nominator, and this comment replaced it: "Closed discussion and withdrew deletion proposal as per discussion consensus. --Prof TPMS (talk) 15:30, 17 February 2016 (UTC)" I have restored the AFD and will (non-admin closure) close the discussion the usual way per nominator's withdrawal. --| Uncle Milty | talk | 01:00, 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:59, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sarah M. Baker[edit]

Sarah M. Baker (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 as a speedy deletion, however there's just enough in the article to assert some notability since she was part of a reality TV show. The problem though, is that I really can't see where there's enough overall to truly justify her having an article on Wikipedia. She exists and is active, but she doesn't appear to have received coverage in places that Wikipedia would consider to be reliable. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 09:47, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nomination. She sounds like a fine person, but this autobiography doesn't assert notability per WP:BIO or WP:NACTOR, with no significant coverage online from WP:Reliable sources. As she notes on the article talk page (speaking about herself in the third person, for some reason), privacy rules forbid her name from being used in the credits. Fair enough, but without references, we have nothing to go on here to judge notability. NeemNarduni2 (talk) 15:28, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I've waited a few days to allow the original author to beef up the references, but Oxygen's self-promotional releases and Facebook posts aren't it. The sole independent source, a review of the show, which doesn't even mention her, is hardly a strong argument for keeping this article. ShelbyMarion (talk) 19:38, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Self-published references do not demonstrate notability for this autobiographical article. ubiquity (talk) 18:40, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:51, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:51, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Doesn't meet WP:NACTOR, and searches did not turn up enough to show they pass WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 18:34, 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 keep. article's been improved since nomination, (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 01:54, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Municipal Art Gallery of Ioannina[edit]

Municipal Art Gallery of Ioannina (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 multiple mentions of it on general sites which list all possible tourist attractions in an area, but nothing which indicates notability. It is often listed simply as 'Municipal Gallery of Ioannina'. There's no Greek-lang WP article on it, but there may be Greek sources I've missed. This has been tagged for notability for 8 years, hopefully we can get it resolved one way or the other. Boleyn (talk) 09:38, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Someone who understands Greek might be able to indicate whether this is the same as the Municipal Ethnographic Museum of Ioannina (which according to wikipedia houses photographs and paintings). However, I haven't visited Greece for years and never got past first base with the language when I did.

If Municipal Art Gallery of Ioannina is a separate institution, I wonder if a more constructive solution might be to enter a request at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Greece for someone to extend the entry.

Regards Charles01 (talk) 12:38, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Charles01, a request was put in to Wikiproject Greece about this and several similar articles on Greek museums and galleries, as it was on Wikiproject Museums. It didn't get any response and it's been months now. As it stands, we can't verify any notability, no one has found supporting sources and no notability is even asserted in article. I Googled the addresses, the Municipal Gallery is not the same as the Municipal Ethnographic Museum. Boleyn (talk) 13:23, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Noted. Thanks. Success. Charles01 (talk) 15:05, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 15:45, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Museums and libraries-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 15:45, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 15:45, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Boleyn: You might want to look at the article again.♦ Dr. Blofeld 18:59, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for pinging me and well done to the editor who worked so hard on this. I can't read the Greek, but for the rest, it looks more convincing but still to pretty much just be listed on websites showing places people can go, not necessarily reliable sources or in-depth coverage. Boleyn (talk) 19:16, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Discussed in depth by various independent sources. A search on the Greek form of the name would have been appropriate before nominating for deletion. A very active gallery with an impressive collection of works by prominent Greek artists and frequent special exhibitions. Aymatth2 (talk) 15:28, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. With all credit to Aymatth2 who did the Lazarus job on it. Regards Charles01 (talk) 15:49, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Aymatth2. --Rosiestep (talk) 18:07, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Boleyn: If you still seriously think it's not notable you're wasting everybody's time. Again I repeat, AFD is not an expand upon demand service. It's not the way to get all of those Greek museums expanded.♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:07, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dr. Blofeld, I seem to be in the minority on this one, but that's OK. I trust the AfD process to come out with a consensus on each one. Several of the museum/gallery articles have been deleted, one at AfD at the moment seems non-notable and that's the way its AfD is heading. You know well I have no objection to stubs, including ones as short as these, as I have created thousands of stubs myself. I have little interest in whether it is expanded (it's always nice, but not something I'm concerned about). My concern is its notability, which has been in question for an extremely long time. FOr the third time, I repeat that I am not convinced on this one, but it's OK with me that others disagree. Boleyn (talk) 12:32, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Boleyn: Have you looked in on the article in the last 12 hours?♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:39, 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:41, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Top 10 most viewed Taylor Swift's videos ( Vevo )[edit]

Top 10 most viewed Taylor Swift's videos ( Vevo ) (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 an indiscriminate list of information; in fact, it could be WP:IINFO at its finest.. While a list like List of most viewed YouTube videos is probably notable, I don't think the topic of Taylor Swift YouTube videos, let alone which them is the most viewed, is a notable topic. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 09:06, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 09:07, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 09:07, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Maybe the numbers could be added to the table at Taylor Swift discography#Music videos, before the ref column as "views on Youtube". The bad thing is that with this kind of table you can't click on the views and have them be listed in order from highest to lowest. --Mr. Magoo (talk) 12:15, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per not being worth its own article and at best worth a table at some bigger Taylor Swift listings article. Like mentioned below, the (Vevo) addition makes this unviable for redirect. --Mr. Magoo (talk) 10:25, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy redirect to Taylor Swift discography#Music videos at best. This isn't Billboard or WatchMojo.com edtiorEهեইдအီးËეεઈדוארई電子ಇអ៊ី전자ഇī😎 14:21, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Honestly, given the article title, I don't think it's a viable redirect given how it's unlikely anyone would place spaces before and after "Vevo". If this was something like "Most viewed Taylor Swift videos" then perhaps that would have been a viable redirect, but this appears to not be the case for this article. Also, adding viewcounts to the discography article section on music videos probably wouldn't make sense given how they would have to be updated regularly and in any case is probably indiscriminate information. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 14:36, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You'd be surprised how many editors there are who just love updating numbers like these. It's not even a baggage, it's like a joy. But the reason I'm not that keen to adding them is that the numbers are encyclopedic as a highest-to-lowest list but that table doesn't support this function and it would be a huge mess updating the table. --Mr. Magoo (talk) 19:38, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:45, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - it's not as if we balance it out with an article about Taylor Swift's least viewed videos Shritwod (talk) 19:00, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - I am a fan of her but this page is irrelevant, anyone can just go to YouTube and search for it. Nahnah4 (talk | contribs | guestbook) 10:05, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Just Shake It Off the encyclopedia already [rimshot]. It's unnecessary, and it should be the job of Youtube's most to least popular video feature.edtiorEهեইдအီးËეεઈדוארई電子ಇអ៊ី전자ഇī😎 21:09, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • NOTE This exact same list is or was also on the creator's user page. edtiorEهեইдအီးËეεઈדוארई電子ಇអ៊ី전자ഇī😎 21:11, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete If anything merge into Taylor Swift. --Fixuture (talk) 18:59, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete – indiscriminate list, not useful as a redirect. sst✈^(conjugate) 03:15, 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 delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:39, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Race Wars story[edit]

Race Wars story (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 as an A7 speedy, which it doesn't qualify for since it's a book series. This doesn't appear to be notable, as a search brings up nothing to establish that it's notable enough for an article nor that the author (whose article I recently speedied) would be notable enough for an article either. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 08:28, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete (as the person who tagged it for A7 speedy, oops) - deeply creepy fantasising about a race war (or to quote the author, "a once-proud nation is ripped apart by racial division and self-serving politicians unwilling to quell the violence they themselves helped to create.") Oh yeah, and non-notable, too. Blythwood (talk) 08:35, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Unremarkable, apparently self-published book series. Zero coverage in reliable sources. The only relevant hits I could find are sites selling the book. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 14:41, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Books-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 15:44, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Can't find anything in the search engines to show this passes WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 17:12, 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 delete--Ymblanter (talk) 12:13, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Owen Tate[edit]

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

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

WP:BLP of a writer and photographer, whose claims of notability for both endeavours are tied entirely to unsourced assertions of popularity on social media rather than anything that would pass WP:NMUSIC or WP:CREATIVE. And there's virtually no reliable source coverage here, with the referencing based almost entirely on unreliable sources like Myspace, Shazam, last.fm, SoundCloud, ReverbNation and YouTube. The only thing here that lifts him even slightly into the realm of RS coverage is a Q&A-style interview on The Huffington Post -- but interviews represent the subject talking about himself, not independent third party coverage, and hence may not be used to bring the WP:GNG in and of themselves, but only for supplementary confirmation of facts after GNG has already been met. All of which means that nothing here is substantive enough, or sourced well enough, to get him a Wikipedia article at this time. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 04:25, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 15:37, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 15:37, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 15:37, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as currently questionable for the applicable notability, nothing currently suggesting better. SwisterTwister talk 23:51, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Pernom. Arthistorian1977 (talk) 09:05, 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 no consensus. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:33, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Suvigya Sharma[edit]

Suvigya Sharma (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 artist. No works in major museum collections (or, for that matter, any museum collections) . The refs are the usual sort of barely described PR, or are mere notices,or both together. Promotional wording throughout, as well. DGG ( talk ) 02:31, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 02:59, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 02:59, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as still questionable overall and this is the expected overall appearance of such articles which have more than meets eye. SwisterTwister talk 04:09, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]