< 18 February	20 February >

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, closing 12 hours earlier per WP:SNOW--Ymblanter (talk) 08:15, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

List of Welsh video games[edit]

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

Poorly written, unsourced, unneeded, and includes non-notable games. It's also very inconsistent as an article. DrDevilFX (talk) 22:53, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 23:10, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wales-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 23:10, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 23:10, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as the article is extremely WP:TRIVIAL. No reliable sources cover whether a game is set in Wales or not. AdrianGamer (talk) 12:32, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. At first I thought this was supposed to be Video gaming in Wales, but no. The supposedly Welsh games are based upon mythology, one is set in Wales and a character from another game is from Swansea, so they're not "Welsh games" and it's an arbitrary collection. --soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 12:51, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I guess video gaming in Wales has some degree of potential, but this seems like a random collection of Wales-related trivia from video games. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 22:45, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It's a bunch of facts lazily compiled together. 92.40.248.166 (talk) 14:32, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Only two Welsh games and the rest (five) only referencing Wales and a few of them very obscurely... Article has existed since 2008. No improvement in sight. --Mr. Magoo (talk) 01:23, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a non-notable narrow topic cross-section failing WP:GNG with no reliable independent in-depth sources (WP:VRS), such as WP:VG/RS. Best served by category should there ever be sufficient entries where this is a defining characteristic. Otherwise, this is simply a collection of WP:TRIVIA. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 14:47, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. With a title like that, I would expect it to either be a list of video games made in Wales or a list of Welsh-language video games. This would appear to be "List of video games with some tenuous connection to Wales". Egsan Bacon (talk) 21:31, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Nordic Dragon 15:54, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as better off at Wikia or some fansite, Nothing notable about some crappy games with some crappy facts ... which are all unsourced anyway, Fails GNG. –Davey2010^Talk 01:16, 25 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 Second#SI multiples. (non-admin closure) sst✈ 03:17, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Megasecond[edit]

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

The content of this "article" is mind boggling. The first paragraph is OK, but that could be adequately covered in Wiktionary. Then it descends into useless trivia. The "length of Napoleon's attempt at regaining power" in megaseconds. The "duration of Nazi Germany" in megaseconds. What is the point? Bazonka (talk) 22:31, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Kinda hilarious. Also kinda useless... Defintely doesn't deserve an article -- Hybris1984 (talk) 22:58, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but it should move listing material to the page Time (Orders of magnitude) along from other related pages like kiloseconds and gigaseconds and expand the article to beyond just the definition, such as frequency and history of uses along with few common examples. Planet Star 02:55, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It is not clear what you want added to this article, nor what you think should be included in Time (Orders of magnitude) -- surely not this vast list of insignificant examples? I note that Time (Orders of magnitude) includes a whole (essentially trivial) section based on the nonexistent unit the annum, which I think could also usefully be deleted. (If you want the Latin for 'year' it's annus, as in annus mirabilis) Imaginatorium (talk) 09:44, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:49, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:49, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The article has no content other than the trivia section. Aamof, there is a very long sequence of SI units of time, generated productively with the standard sequence of multipliers kilo, mega, etc, but the fact that none of these is normally used, and that any meaning is the regular combination of the parts (prefix multiplier x second), means that there is no real point in even having a redirect. Imaginatorium (talk) 04:39, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:INDISCRIMINATE and WP:OR. This is one of many such compilations of arbitrary examples, quite lacking in sources. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1 metre. Andrew D. (talk) 09:24, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Aside from this brief piece from NPR, I could not find any discussion about this significance of Megaseconds in secondary sources. Therefore, I have come to the conclusion that this topic fails WP:GNG. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 09:38, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Second (unit) and merge any content found to be of use. I see no particular need to delete entirely. LjL (talk) 17:10, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(comment) I think a redirect to Time (Orders of magnitude) would be better. Imaginatorium (talk) 17:30, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

When considering the current content of the article, yeah. But that's an argument for merging its content there. The redirect itself should be the least-surprise path, and I think someone looking for a multiple of the Second unit should land at the primary unit. LjL (talk) 17:51, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I see your point, and if this were something like "micropoiseuille" I would agree totally. But I cannot imagine anyone looking for "megasecond" who does not already understand (very well!) what "second" means. Imaginatorium (talk) 06:37, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Second#SI_multiples and merge any useful content to Time (Orders of magnitude). ~Kvng (talk) 01:58, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Do not delete. This is a plausible redirect, and some of the conversion factors (with eg other units of time, durations of orbits etc) may be useful. James500 (talk) 05:41, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect- A redirect to Second#SI_multiples is sensible, but the current content of the article is so terrible it should be deleted first to prevent any prospect of it being restored later. Reyk _YO! 08:47, 22 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. I have discounted the sockpuppetry. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 01:14, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Lauren Lee Mitchell[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:GNG or WP:NBIO. Subject seems to be a lovely and accomplished person, but her accomplishments (including winning a regional pageant in the Miss Virginia contest) do not make her notable. At best, WP:TOOSOON. ubiquity (talk) 20:31, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Regional pageant winner, not even the state's winner. She was mentioned in her local paper, but doesn't meet the overall WP:GNG. RickinBaltimore (talk) 20:33, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable enough. Also, the newly created accounts defending her below my comment do not make a good case for this article. Duivelwaan (talk) 22:33, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is someone who is of interest in the Miss Virginia pageant, and clearly won the largest pageant in the state. There are many local public figures that are featured in wikipedia and meet the WP:GNG, so I'm not sure why she doesn't qualify. She has been featured in news stories, and draws people to charity events based on her status as a public figure. billnye29 (talk) 19 February 2016 (UTC) — billnye29 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Keep Her involvement with activities throughout her state draw people much like a celebrity would. I say look at her work with Tim Tebow and Night to Shine. It was advertised that she would be helping host, which fits the role of "public figure." Although she is not a national public figure, it looks like she has significantly contributed to the pageant system in virginia.--CaligirlTay89 (talk) 21:08, 19 February 2016 (UTC) — CaligirlTay89 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Weak Keep I think the article is well cited and documented to prove that she is a local public figure. However, it could be a stronger article - after Miss VA it will have more content. I dont think that it warrants deletion though, considering her work in the community and online presence. She seems known online for her advocacy work and campaigns. --Jimhorts (talk) 21:25, 19 February 2016 (UTC) — Jimhorts (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Keep People like to keep up with the pageant titles in virginia to see what the possibilities are for outcomes at miss virginia. she is president of a nationwide organization. her work is recognized and has been published. look her up. HSLDA Lauren Mitchell. A policy writer and analyst, an advocate for children, and an award winning author and speaker. I think you'll find a lot about her online, as well as her community service. as a televised event, miss virginia viewers want to know who is competing and what their background is. That is why I published the article - for local people to keep up with who is competing. --Littleowl94 (talk) 21:56, 19 February 2016 (UTC) — Littleowl94 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Checkuser note: Jimhorts, CaligirlTay89, and Billnye are Confirmed sock puppets of Littleowl94.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:15, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As per nom. No notability and promotional. -- Hybris1984 (talk) 15:14, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not enough coverage outside her local media to warrant an article yet. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 23:36, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Just to make the consensus clearer: the only "keep" position is from the author and his or her sock-puppets, all of who have been blocked indefinitely. ubiquity (talk) 21:51, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as meets WP:NBIO and WP:GNG, This isn't a hottie !vote or anything ...... –Davey2010^Talk 01:23, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:03, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:03, 25 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 procedural close. Inappropriate venue. Redirects should be nominated for deletion at WP:RFD. New discussion at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 February 20#Medieval syria. (non-admin closure) clpo13_(talk) 18:20, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Medieval syria[edit]

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

Duplicate of Medieval Syria -- Marcocapelle (talk) 20:04, 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. Uncontested. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 01:42, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas E. Brown[edit]

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

Non notable composer, BLP Kavdiamanju (talk) 17:21, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:43, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:47, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as none of this suggests independent notability for his own article. SwisterTwister talk 07:07, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no sources provided to establish notability. LibStar (talk) 10:17, 24 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) sst✈ 03:20, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dramatica Theory of Story Structure[edit]

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

No independent sources - thinly veiled advertorial Philg88 ^♦talk 15:57, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep While needs some editing, I don't think deserves deletion.--CaligirlTay89 (talk) 21:04, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There are quite a number of books about it. The article lacks in quality but that should not be reason for deletion. Kagundu^{Wanna Chat?} 09:14, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:14, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:15, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I took a look at the Google Book results and there actually aren't many books that actually talk about this topic - WP:GHITS is not a good argument to make for inclusion. Of the two books that bring up the topic, this is self-published and this is a study guide published by a company that appears to be self-published or at the very least, doesn't go through the type of editorial oversight that Wikipedia would require. I'll see what I can find, but offhand I'm really not finding anything to suggest that this is notable enough for an article, as the only people that appear to be talking about it are the people who created the theory. Searching only under "Dramatica" isn't bringing up much other than false positives and references to the infamous Encyclopedia Dramatica site so far. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 06:12, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I'm finding some stuff slowly but surely - I found this which seems to mention the software at length but I can't really see the book beyond snapshots and what I can see isn't entirely enough to go on. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 06:35, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm finding snippets here and there. Most of the coverage centers very heavily on the software so if this is kept it should be under just "Dramatica". Part of the difficulty here is that the coverage was predominantly written before publishing work online became popular, so not all of it will be accessible via the Internet. What I am seeing does give off the impression that it was fairly well thought of during its heyday in the late 90s and early 2000s. The problem that I'm running into is that some of it is used to describe general concepts but doesn't really state the theory by name, which complicates matters as saying that a paper is absolutely talking about the theory could be construed as original research. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 07:08, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and renamed to Dramatica. I've cleaned out the dross, although I don't mind parts being re-added if they can be sourced. What I was able to find was fairly minimal, but it gives off the impression that this software (and the coverage is very heavily oriented on the software) was considered to be quite influential in its area. I'd say that this should be moved without a redirect since the term "Dramatica" seems to be the most prevalent name for this - the "theory of story" is fairly superfluous. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 07:14, 24 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 to delete, default to keep. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 22:19, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mackenzie Lintz[edit]

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

I deleted this article as an expired PROD a couple months ago and the article's creator has just contested it on my talk page. The reason for the nomination was lack of notability. I've restored it per WP:DEPROD, but I do agree that the subject is not notable. This actress has had only one significant role, and it is relatively straightforward that one significant role in itself does not satisfy WP:NACTOR, which leaves WP:GNG. Looking at the sources out there, the entirety of coverage on her appears to be either passing mentions from sources discussing the works she's been in, or a handful of interviews that are floating around by sources that may or may not be reliable. In my opinion, the coverage is not sufficient to establish notability and has not been since the article's creation in 2013. I welcome the community's input. Swarm ♠ 02:50, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article requires better sourcing, and a quick peek at Google News [1] turns up plenty of coverage of Ms. Lintz to make this a more satisfactory article. And Adoil Descended (talk) 03:29, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Er, maybe you should take more than a "quick peek"? Like I said, there are plenty of sources that mention her while talking about either Under the Dome or Hunger Games, but I personally am not really seeing "significant coverage" that "addresses the topic directly and in detail". Are you? If so, care to share? The actual coverage of the subject within the search results seems to be pretty minimal and insignificant. Swarm ♠ 07:48, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as creator, I actually waited a while before creating her article because at that point in time, she failed notability but when the series ran for a second season and she became a full cast member (main cast), since then she was in the limelight for the last 30 odd months, not to mention she comes from an acting family and yes, notability is not inherited but she is pretty notable herself..she has gone back to school thus why she has no credits listed since last last year..her article received considerable views (0ver 4600 views) over the last 90 days, even though it was deleted for the last 6 weeks so if people are still checking out her article, it means she is still notable....as mentioned on swarm's page, the nominator was probably someone who did not like her, nothing to do with her notability and for swarm to delete an article without considering that is not very admin-like..--Ste moc 12:06, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NACTOR and WP:GNG are incredibly specific as to what would establish notability for this article. After research it appears that the specific requirements--i.e. significant coverage in reliable sources, are not met. Nothing you say above represents a policy-based argument to counter my argument for deletion. Your repeated accusations of bad faith are unfounded, unbecoming, and not remotely appropriate on this project. Swarm ♠ 03:58, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 14:08, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and at best Redirect to Under the Dome because none of this actually better satisfies WP:CREATIVE. SwisterTwister talk 21:33, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@SwisterTwister: Sorry, but WP:CREATIVE is the wrong guide to refute. Go study WP:NACTOR. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 00:29, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Like I originally said, it appears to me that it is incredibly straightforward that WP:NACTOR is not met. There have not been multiple significant roles. There has only been one. The article itself supports this notion and there is no evidence to the contrary. Swarm ♠ 04:00, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks? for answering for User:SwisterTwister who had stated she failed an inappropriate guideline. Are he under a different account, or can you simply read his mind? Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 08:30, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not speaking for Swister in the slightest, just pointing out that your citation of NACTOR is moot because it is clearly not met. Swarm ♠ 03:44, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep as suitable BLP stub because she is more than a one trick pony and has the multiple roles to meet WP:ENT.. She does get lots of coverage... and yes, like with any actor, most are in relationship to her major roles. If someone wishes to go through the 600+ google news results, there may be enough found about her to expand and more properly source the article. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 00:29, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't look like she's had the multiple significant roles that would satisfy ENT. It looks like she's had that one role and nothing else remotely significant. Also, I did go through the google news results and I clearly explained my findings in the nomination statement. That is literally why we're here, and rather than answering to the claim I'm making or refuting it, the keep !votes are boiling down to "a google search turns up results, she's probably notable" without actually being able to demonstrate sources that would establish notability. Swarm ♠ 03:55, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's quite fine that you think she fails WP:ENT. Did you consider her fan base from Under The Dome? Or did you personally review all 600+ news results? Impressive. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 08:25, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No need at all for sarcasm, and it's not really a matter of what I "think". ENT has specific requirements that are not meant. This is a plain and simple fact. I did in fact review the first 20 pages of results and I'm perfectly confident that I'm representing them accurately. Of course she has fans from Under the Dome, but does she have a significantly large fan base or cult following? I see no such evidence of this. You're trying to poke holes in my argument that simply aren't there. Perhaps you could directly refute the policy-based argument for deletion, rather than relying on unsubstantiated assumptions? Swarm ♠ 03:44, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 04:32, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:ENT because only one role of any significance whatsover. If the article creator (or anybody) thinks she really is notable, the article needs to be filled out to reflect that. Right now it's just a stub about someone with one single role that was more than a bit part. Softlavender (talk) 10:01, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Alexander Koch (actor) is also same case. -- Kanghuitari (talk) 00:16, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

How does this in any way address the specific, policy-based argument for deletion? Swarm ♠ 03:29, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
FTR, if this one fails at AfD, I'll be taking that article to AfD next – they are exactly analogous, and if "one big role" isn't enough to pass this one through AfD, then Alexander Koch (actor) should be similarly AfD'ed (and deleted)... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 16:36, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Do so then! If (!) you are right, "Alexander Koch" should be deleted as well... -- Hybris1984 (talk) 14:20, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – Let me look into this one, and get back to it... I suspect she should pass, but I'll need to check sourcing for her this weekend. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 05:50, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I see – it's that she's a "one-hit wonder"... For right now, put me down as Delete, and draftify/userfy – one big recent role is likely to lead to a second: a year or two in Draftspace/Userspace will tell the tale... --IJBall (contribs • talk)

I've added a little bit more (higher quality - e.g. Variety and THR) sourcing to this one. But it ultimately boils down to whether one believes that "one major role" (and not much else...) passes WP:NACTOR or not... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 16:33, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - As per recommendation. WP:NACTOR is very clear on what is required... I can't see multiple performances/roles of note, cult following or major contribution to a field of entertainment -- Hybris1984 (talk) 14:18, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. Currently fails WP:NACTOR, but I wouldn't be surprised if that changes going forward. IJBall's suggestion to move to draft space or userfy is a good one. Mackensen (talk) 18:23, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in reliable sources.
1. Ho, Rodney (2013-09-13). "Interview with Alpharetta's Mackenzie Lintz (Norrie on 'Under the Dome')". Access Atlanta. Archived from the original on 2016-02-16. Retrieved 2016-02-16.
  The article notes:
  
  Alpharetta 16-year-old Mackenzie Lintz was familiar with Stephen King's 2009 novel "Under the Dome" because her mom Kelly had read it. And when she tried out for a role on the TV adaptation, she was also psyched when she heard Jack Bender was involved because he was an executive producer and director for "Lost," one of her favorite shows of all time.
  But she didn't think she had a solid chance to win a role, that they'd more likely hire an 18 year old who wouldn't require a tutor on set and could work longer hours.
  And her acting credits were modest up to that point: a small role on "Drop Dead Diva" and a brief appearance on "The Hunger Games."
  "Under the Dome" picked her anyway. She nabbing the role of Norrie, an unhappy teen daughter of a lesbian couple passing through Chester's Mill just before the Dome trapped them there. This was a major coup for the Covenant Christian Academy senior.
  Then the show became the first huge network drama hit during the summer in at least a decade, a pleasant surprise for CBS. "Under the Dome" averaged more than 11 million viewers a week (not counting DVR usage), more viewers than "America's Got Talent" or "Duck Dynasty" (though "Duck Dynasty" was the master among 18-49 year olds.).
2. Sutton, Amber (2014-08-13). "'Under the Dome' actress shares excited tweets about attending Auburn University this fall". The Huntsville Times. Archived from the original on 2016-02-16. Retrieved 2016-02-16.
  The article notes:
  
  You can add another name to the list of Auburn students with connections to celebrity thanks to incoming freshmen and "Under the Dome" actress Mackenzie Lintz.
  Lintz is currently participating in the university's sorority recruitment week after moving to the Plains on Saturday. While the actress may have just moved in, she's no stranger to Auburn.
  Throughout the last year, Lintz has posted a variety of photos on social media sites expressing her adoration for the loveliest village, including a shot from A-Day and a picture of the national championship game.
  The 18-year-old actress plays Norrie on the CBS scifi drama "Under the Dome" in addition to appearing in 2012's "The Hunger Games" and "Drop Dead Diva".
3. Heldenfels, Rich (2015-08-28). "Mailbag: Mystery solved on Arthur Conan Doyle series; sisters on 'Under the Dome' and 'The Walking Dead'; 'Aloha Vet' star died of cancer". Akron Beacon Journal. Archived from the original on 2016-02-16. Retrieved 2016-02-16.
  The article notes:
  
  Q: Are Mackenzie Lintz from “Under the Dome” and Madison Lintz of “The Walking Dead” sisters?
  A: They are, and they are not the only actors in their family. You may also have seen brothers Macsen and Matt. You can find out more about them at www.lintzkids.com.
  Although this is not significant coverage and I'm not using it to establish notability, I'm listing it here because it can be used to verify information in the article.
4. Hawkes, Rebecca (2015-11-06). "The Hunger Games: where are the tributes now?". The Telegraph. Archived from the original on 2016-02-20. Retrieved 2016-02-20.
  The article notes:
  
  Girl-District 8
  Played by: Mackenzie Lintz
  ...
  Where are they now? In 2013, Lintz was cast as Eleanor "Norrie" Calvert-Hill in the Steven Spielberg executive-produced CBS series Under the Dome: the show was axed in 2015 after three seasons. She’s also currently studying at Auburn University in Alabama.
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Mackenzie Lintz to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 05:49, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Where is this purported "significant coverage"? You yourself admit that the sources you listed don't constitute significant coverage, so why not present a case for the significant coverage rather than list examples of the lack of significant coverage? Swarm ♠ 08:26, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

From Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Basic criteria, "If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability; trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources may not be sufficient to establish notability."
Sources 1 and 2 are significant coverage. Sources 3 and 4 are not significant coverage. I think the combination of all four sources amounts to substantial coverage of her per Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Basic criteria.
Cunard (talk) 19:06, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The sources above prove the case for deletion. The first two are just notices about her having minor roles, and are evidence that the role are indeed minor. The third refersto her as having "connections to celebrity". I think that's a good example for what is not notable. DGG ( talk ) 18:58, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As reliable sources have been found, the remaining question is notability; although most of the coverage is for a single role in Under the Dome, there is also coverage in the RS Hollywood Reporter of her role in Hunger Games, so the WP one event rule doesn't seem to apply, also appearing in 39 episodes of a notable production, so I think WP:GNG is passed.Atlantic306 (talk) 01:10, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

She had a lead role for 3 seasons on a MAJOR Broadcasting network (CBS), not to mention a Saturn Award nomination which i just realised i did not add to her article..will add now..award noms are quite notable..--Ste moc 01:52, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yeahbut: WP:NACTOR specifically requires "significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions." She doesn't have that. If she were the lead on a single TV show, that might be enough to except NACTOR, but she was a supporting player on Under the Dome... Like I said, if she takes on another major role in the next couple of years, the article can always be restored. But I think NACTOR basically demands that it be moved to Draftspace for now. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 05:14, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but you are reading that wrong, its not a requirement to have significant roles on TV and Films its TV and/or Films.. The likes of Leonardo di Caprio or Matt Damon didn't have TV roles, are they less notable than George Clooney who has had significant roles on both?..She was a "supporting" actor in season 1 on UtD, but she was one of the main lead in seasons 2 and 3... not to mention a major nomination for her (not for the whole cast) which is notable (we have added articles for people with no nominations). The Hunger games was a major movie (franchise) and she had speaking lines in the first movie so thats "notable films" for you..again, she went back to school thus why nothing after UtD, just because she is not acting now doesn't mean she is no longer notable...--Ste moc 09:00, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

She had a bit part in THG. How do I know? Because it wasn't even a named role. IOW, it does not qualify as a "significant" role. So, we're back to her having just one significant role. Ergo, she fails WP:NACTOR. (I will just emphasize again that I think this article should be Userfied/Draftified, rather than outright deleted, in this case, because she may pass NACTOR in a couple of years. But Swarm is correct that she doesn't pass NACTOR now...) --IJBall (contribs • talk) 18:52, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The "reliable sources" were not missing to begin with, and notability has always been the only issue here, which brings me back to the same point that the coverage that is out there is not "significant" by any remote stretch of the imagination. On the contrary, it's all very insignificant and thus it's in contrast to GNG.. Also, to address the above assertion that her role in the Hunger Games constitutes a second significant role, I just don't see how that's rooted in reality. Whether you're looking at the sources that discuss the film and/or her role in it, or whether you just watch the movie personally, that is in no way what one could consider a significant role. It's quite blatantly a minor role and not something that would satisfy what NACTOR is talking about. All that is needed to refute the argument for deletion is proof of significant coverage. For all the keep votes, no one has even been able to present a borderline case to address this. It is really not difficult to demonstrate the existence of notability according to the policy, and the fact that no one is actually able to do so is telling. Swarm ♠ 08:26, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have unstricken this vote, which was stricken out by Spinningspark (talk · contribs), who wrote "Striking duplicate keep".

This is not a duplicate keep.

Cunard (talk) 07:01, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Cunard: it is a duplicate keep, the user has already voted on 7 February, second bullet after the proposer, here's the diff. SpinningSpark 07:33, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You struck the vote of Atlantic306 (talk · contribs). The editor who voted in the diff is Stemoc (talk · contribs). Cunard (talk) 07:49, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, my mistake. Permission granted to trout. SpinningSpark 14:14, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - clearly fails WP:NACTOR, and the brief mentions in the media don't rise to the level sufficient to satisfy WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:06, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 15:50, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

keep I think people should keep this as a reference. when looking up who someone is after seeing them on TV, wiki is always the first place i go. --Jimhorts (talk) 21:20, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Striking invalid !vote as per WP:SOCKSTRIKE. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 00:59, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The sources provided do not appear to constitute non-trivial independent coverage. I think we've wrung our hands enough about this one. If/ When she is the non-trivial subject of published works in reliable independent venues, an article on her will be justified. That time doesn't look like it's come yet. KDS4444^Talk 09:28, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep - IMHO she just about meets NACTOR by being in the Hunger Games & Under the Dome (It isn't amazing but there's some articles here that've been kept on the basis of they've been in 1 notable film), I've found a few sources [2] and a few books [3] so IMHO she meets GNG (Sorry I would put individual sources here but my laptop as always prefers to be a dick ... bit like me really ... Wait nevermind ). –Davey2010^Talk 01:31, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(Davey, it is my understanding that the subject specific guidelines like WP:NACTOR are only meant to give editors a quick tool to assess whether or not a particular subject likely warrants an article, not as a definitive guide for determining notability, which, in the end, must still be met via WP:GNG if brought into question-- yes? KDS4444^Talk 13:53, 25 February 2016 (UTC))[reply]

Actors don't need to meet NACTOR and GNG .... As per WP:GNGACTOR they can meet either, As an aside for the last 3 years I also thought they needed to meet both but I found out 2 weeks ago they can meet either .... IMHO metting both is better but whatever, But yeah they should meet one or the other which in this case I think both are met anyway, –Davey2010^Talk 15:38, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:52, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. GNG applies to all articles. sst✈ 03:33, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Reliable sources and coverage have been properly referenced. Definitely passes WP:GNG. Bruno Mammoth (talk) 09:09, 27 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 | 13:06, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Poor Act 1697[edit]

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

Got a few things going on here:

The Act discussed in this very short article is not the Act described by the title. It is not and, as far as I can tell, never called the "Poor Act" by anybody outside of Wikipedia. I don't even think there was a "Poor Act" enacted during the Parliament of 8 & 9 Will. III. Normally, this would be grounds just for a move, of course, but there's a little more happening here.
The "meat" of the article (one sentence) is an unsourced claim about the legal effects of this statute about vexatious litigation... which honestly appears to be unverifiable. I've searched the hell out of HeinOnline about the Act described (8 & 9 Will. III, c. 11) and found absolutely nothing to support it. So that material should be removed... which brings us to the next problem:
Without that sentence, we've got a rephrasing of the title and a link to Mega... which should probably be nixed too. Even if it's a work that's out of copyright, Mega itself is well known as hosting a lot of copyrighted material. As WP:COPYLINKS states: "Linking to a page that illegally distributes someone else's work sheds a bad light on Wikipedia and its editors." So we should probably lose the link. But if all that's left is a restatement of the article title, we're failing A3. SOFIXIT, you might say? That brings us to the next problem.
As I stated above, I've searched the hell out of HeinOnline's collections on English law (which include all the nominate reporters, a bunch of law digests, an enormous amount of secondary sources on English law both ancient and modern, and the Selden Society's entire back catalogue). There are a number of mentions of the Act (the 8 & 9 Will. III, c. 11 one on vexatious litigation), but honestly I'm doubtful as to whether they rise to significant coverage. It's almost exclusively bits and pieces in cases and digests illustrating various points about the law, but virtually nothing cohesive. As such, I believe any article on this subject would probably violate WP:IINFO (and if it didn't, it'd have to glue those bits and pieces together with a substantial amount of original research).

Put briefly, we've got a bad title, bad article, and a rather niche topic. We're well within WP:DEL7 territory, probably within the penumbrae of WP:DEL1 and WP:DEL2, and improvement just does not appear to be practical. We need more articles on law, very badly. But what we've got here just isn't it. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 14:33, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 14:58, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 14:58, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 14:58, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment In 1697, an Act For supplying some Defects in the Laws for the Relief of the Poor (8&9 Will III c.30) did provide in Part III for costs to be awarded to avoid "vexatious removals and frivolous appeals". A Practical Treatise on the Poor Laws, as altered by the Poor Law Amendment Act ... and an appendix of the Statutes, etc. 24.151.10.165 (talk) 17:30, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Yeah, law digests are out there. As are footnote mentions in some treatises. I came across both in my initial research. I'm really uncomfortable with treating those as secondary sources for a variety of reasons. Furthermore, it doesn't really get us past the problem of writing an article that's more than a sentence long, but not full of indiscriminate case citations. I mean, like I said I could support a redirect to an appropriate article... but I'm not sure one exists. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 18:05, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - Oh wait, I just noticed your citation. That's a completely different statute. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 18:07, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The author does appear to have mashed up the Relief of the Poor Act (1697) and the Administration of Justice Act 1696. I've added the reference for the 1697 Act if that is deemed notable, but an argument could be made for deleting this as a fork of the 1696 Act. 24.151.10.165 (talk) 19:52, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting. Maybe this can be rescued. I'll have to check Hein when I get a chance later. Thank you for sorting this out. Sadly, searching on Hein is hard without just the right keywords. I'm still grimacing at the "cannot be repealed" statement in the article, but that's relatively minor. Again, thanks. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 20:31, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm grimacing at the whole thing. The 1697 Poor Act probably is notable but most likely not for the costs part. I'm looking for more reliable sources but this reference suggest that is known for introducing "badging the poor". [4]. 24.151.10.165 (talk) 20:41, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The article has been fundamentally rewritten since the AfD was brought, thanks to the able help of 24 above. I think we can call this withdrawn. I would argue that the old versions prior to nomination are probably capable of being revdel'd under RD5, as the old versions would have been deletable under A10 as duplicative of Administration of Justice Act 1696. But I'm not going to fight over that. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 11:08, 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 procedural close. Wrong venue - please take this to WP:MfD. (non-admin closure) ansh 666 00:26, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:S[edit]

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

Per WP:DEL3. obivious spam/junk page. Boomer Vial^Holla 13:05, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This is the wrong venue for this page. As it is in the Draft: namespace, it should go to Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion. Johanna^{(talk to me!)} 16:31, 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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 01:39, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Searchblox[edit]

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

Notability. There is a total lack of independent sourcing here.

The company is an internet business. It seems to have neither technical or commercial importance. It is a business, it does exist, but it doesn't seem to have attracted any coverage of it as a business. It hasnt innovated any new technology, it's just running off-the-shelf products. Viam Ferream (talk) 10:25, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 15:38, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Software company article of unclear notability, lacking independent references. A search turned up no significant WP:RS coverage of this company except for possibly securityweek.com which is just a report of vulnerabilities in the product. Dialectric (talk) 16:26, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as Books, News, browsers and Highbeam found links but this is still questionable for its own notability. SwisterTwister talk 08:08, 24 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. I will make the suggested redirect. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 01:35, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

List of Indian doctors' associations[edit]

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

One item "list" —teb728 t c 09:58, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Completely fails WP:ORG. Indeed, the sole item on the 'list' is a dental organisation, not even a doctors'... and noting that 'A single independent source is almost never sufficient for demonstrating the notability of an organization' which this even lacks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.68.139.189 (talk) 12:55, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 15:39, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 15:39, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and redirect - Consider List of medical associations#India - WP:CSC and WP:LISTCOMPANY allow for lists of non-notables but this is better served in the aforementioned article (which has already got 4 notable orgs). Conflicted about the redirect, not sure if its a useful title. Drmies (talk · contribs) has recently been editing this page, their opinion would be useful here.Olly^{say hi} 17:09, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- I just pruned the hell out of it, that's all. I don't think ORG applies: this isn't an ORG, it's a list of ORGs. LISTCOMPANY is interesting and has an even more interesting history; I think it is not a good idea to have such a guideline (non-notables may be included) because it leaves open the possibility that these lists become directories, which is indeed what happened. Moreover, the status of this guideline was never really agreed on; see Wikipedia_talk:Stand-alone_lists/Archive_3#LISTCOMPANY, a discussion that should be revisited. For now, I think your redirect is a fine idea. It would be better, of course, if we had more articles on medical associations in India... Drmies (talk) 18:52, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - Thanks for your reply Drmies, as a much more experienced editor, this perspective (esp re LISTCOMPANY) was needed. I was pretty confused about this myself, because LISTCOMPANY seems to conflict quite directly with WP:NOTDIR. Before I noticed the List of medical associations page, I was wavering on a weak keep for this reason, and as you say, including a request for interested editors to establish these Indian med association articles. I agree that ORG can't apply here. At least for now, further work could continue inside the aforementioned page, with a possibility for establishment of a separate list in future, should enough notable org articles arise Olly^{say hi} 23:46, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:19, 22 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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 01:05, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

12 Labours of Hercules (video game series)[edit]

(Find video game sources: "12 Labours of Hercules" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · TWL · NYT · WP reference · VG/RS · VG/RL · WPVG/Talk)

Fails WP:GNG. Using the video game reliable sources custom Google search engine, it only brings up Metacritic and GameRankings. Not notable. Soetermans. T / C 09:49, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 15:39, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Article is not notable and fails WP:GNG. No reliable sources seem to cover them extensively. AdrianGamer (talk) 12:30, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom. Also highly promotional - a trend that is getting really annoying. -- Hybris1984 (talk) 21:41, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a non-notable video game series failing WP:GNG with no reliable independent in-depth sources, such as WP:VG/RS. The list does not pass WP:LISTN as a stand-alone list, nor are individual four video games notable. No meaningful hits in custom RS search, primarily directory entries. Even unreliable sources are scarce. The available sources do not provide enough material to write a meaningful article without WP:PLOT and WP:GAMECRUFT and with WP:WAF in mind. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 15:36, 25 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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 01:03, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jacquil Taylor[edit]

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

I had initially tagged this for A7, but it has been persistently removed by a third editor.

Honestly this article subject categorically fails WP:NCOLLATH:

He has not won a national award or set a major D1 record.
He has not been inducted into the college basketball hall of fame.
He has not gained national media attention as an individual (see below for a more thorough discussion of this)

More generally, there are virtually no sources on this college basketball player, and none that are both reliable and provide significant coverage. Simply from a search engine test, we can see that 93 ghits is not promising, especially not for a college basketball player today, and definitely not for someone with more than a season under his belt. Because there are so very few, it was possible to review all of them very rapidly. Nothing in these provide evidence of the national media attention that NCOLLATH requires. Everything is either routine coverage or local coverage (and even that is sparse, and generally not reliable).

I'd be fine with this closed as a speedy (i.e., without the preclusive effect of AfD in case there's some good reason to have an article on this subject that's eluded my analysis), because the mere statement that he plays for Purdue is not a claim of significance sufficient to meet the requirements set out in A7, but this isn't going to get reviewed by anybody so long as the speedy tag keeps getting removed. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 07:50, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

'Keep'NeutralDelete: I've added some citations and additional claims. Poor writing since I don't know anything whatsoever about basketball but the amount of writing on this allows the player to meet WP:GNG. It's still very borderline on GNG though - some coverage that's specific to him (versus events) but relatively short. Too few sources with not enough significant coverage to meet GNG or NCOLLATH. Revised opinion due to original opinion founded based on my work adding to the article rather than the actual subject—in the end it's just not a notable subject. ~~Appable (talk) 14:13, 19 February 2016 (UTC)~~ revised to delete Appable (talk) 19:05, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- ... all of which is routine coverage and duplicative reports of the same event. There's nothing notable about this fellow at this time. It's just too soon for him to have an article. Maybe he'll be better in the future, but Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 14:52, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 14:55, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Does not meet the above criteria, which were developed to address exactly this issue.--Rpclod (talk) 15:07, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 15:40, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 15:40, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete He's the 11th man on the team, for chrissakes. Fails GNG. The few sources that are available are purely local and not national. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 09:27, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:39, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Doesn't meet WP:GNG or WP:NCOLLATH. Rikster2 (talk) 12:48, 26 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 ActiveState. (non-admin closure) sst✈ 03:34, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ActivePython[edit]

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

I found no significant coverage for this software per WP:N. SL93 (talk) 01:47, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. FallingGravity (talk) 02:28, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The term "ActivePython" (in quotes) gets 194 hits on books.google.com. I haven't checked every single hit, but it appears most or all of them are genuinely about this software package. scholar.google.com gives 113 hits. Looks to me like WP:RS covering this topic exists. SJK (talk) 07:30, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Draft and userfy at best for now unless it can be better improved before this AfD closes as the current article is still questionable. SwisterTwister talk 05:56, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Clearly notable per the Google Books and Scholar searches spoon-fed by the nomination process. The whole point of Wikipedia is that articles get improved when they are visible to the general public rather than hidden in draft or user space. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 22:43, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:01, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I can find some reliable trade references to this, although it isn't a a major development tool. It does seem about consistent with entries for other similar products. Shritwod (talk) 09:57, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to either CPython or ActiveState. I checked the GBooks mentions and most are in passing; some of them are just the main program's startup banner, printed. At some point down the list, GBooks just produces Python books, even with the search string in quotes, that don't seem to even mention ActivePython. The GScholar results aren't much better, and largely overlap with the GBooks ones. This product has good rep, but little in-depth coverage, so it would deserve mention in a list of prepackaged CPythons, but not a separate article. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 10:30, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 06:31, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

merge to ActiveState. There was a time once when this particular package had some significance, as a popular way of deploying a useful Python environment onto Windows, with an installer that worked and without needing to scrape together the useful bits and bobs that Win32 development would need. But that was a long time ago.

Merging to CPython would be a bad idea. This package might include CPython, but that's not to say it has any lasting importance to CPython. Viam Ferream (talk) 14:57, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note that we might make much the same comments here about ActivePerl. Viam Ferream (talk) 14:58, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to ActiveState. I don't see enough here to justify a stand-alone article. There's a number of pre-built python distros; there's nothing in particular about this one that makes it stand out from the crowd. I suspect the same is true for Active Perl, but that's another AfD. -- RoySmith (talk) 02:08, 27 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) sst✈ 03:34, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hardcore Lives[edit]

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

Self-promotional and otherwise non-notable recording. Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:25, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 15:40, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I was fully expecting to vote delete on this, but I was able to find a pile of reviews - unanimously positive ones, too - and interviews from a variety of websites. This isn't my kind of thing and I'm not necessarily qualified to assess how reliable as sources these are, but then again, you wouldn't expect to get New York Times and Rolling Stone reviews for this kind of band. The fact that I was able in five minutes to find five positive reviews makes me think this is as much a keep as any album in this genre is likely to be. Blythwood (talk) 22:15, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- I found a lot of reviews, but none from reliable sources. Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:32, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Notable artist, album has plenty of articles on many different music websites, and has enough coverage to have an article about it. No need to delete. TheSickBehemoth (talk) 22:16, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- @TheSickBehemoth: Are you serious? Not all works by notable artists are notable. Show some RSes that support the notability of this recording. Walter Görlitz (talk) 07:13, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The sources currently present in the article strike me as enough to meet the WP:GNG - dedicated articles by Blabbermouth, Loudwire, and Alt Press. I think the nominator is setting the bar a little too high in this case. Sergecross73 msg me 20:21, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:51, 25 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. Clear consensus that the subject isn't notable, hence delete. No consensus about whether or not to redirect. That means that anybody is free to create a redirect, which may then be challenged via RfD. Sandstein 09:48, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ori Calif[edit]

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

This lawyer made the news for demolishing a historic pub, but that's not enough to satisfy WP:BIO. Clarityfiend (talk) 02:25, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The subject is covered in reliable sources but mainly for his involvement in "demolishing a pub", which falls under WP:NOTNEWS and WP:BLP1E. Meatsgains (talk) 02:40, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 03:37, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 03:37, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 03:37, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect into Carlton Tavern, Kilburn. Other than a description of the Tavern demolition, there's not a whole lot of other information that isn't from sources independent of the subject.--Prisencolin (talk) 00:42, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and per Meatsgains. Arthistorian1977 (talk) 14:37, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Carlton Tavern, Kilburn. He is notable only for that incident. Maproom (talk) 17:26, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Carlton Tavern, Kilburn as we generally do in such cases. Cavarrone 21:05, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete preferred; Redirect if you must. The discussion of Calif in Carlton Tavern, Kilburn borders on WP:COATRACK. There's really nothing about him in the article except for a tiny mention that is probably out of line under WP:CENTURY. In the unlikely event someone looks to Wikipedia for information about Ori Calif, they're not going to find anything in that article. As between Redirect and Keep, Redirect is the lesser of two evils, but Delete is really the way to go. TJRC (talk) 00:13, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Delete or redirect? sst✈^(conjugate) 05:07, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, sst✈^(conjugate) 05:07, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Meets the GNG. Has coverage in a variety of secondary sources in 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012 and extensive coverage in 2015 that is not in this article as excessive but may be found in the Carlton Tavern article. He is synonymous with his company so those sources are actually about his actions. Has also written four books on international taxation (in Hebrew). Philafrenzy (talk) 09:54, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - References 1, 3, 4 are trivial industry listings and do not show notability. Reference 2 is a short vanity interview of subject. Nothing that indicates notability. Reference 5 does not mention the subject. References 6, 7, 8 are about demolition of Carlton Tavern, not the subject. (8 requires registration and should be deleted.) Reference 9 is about common business investment litigation and does not demonstrate notability. Reference 10 is a listing regarding another individual. I don't see a reference to the subject and even if one exists it is trivial. There is nothing that indicates notability.--Rpclod (talk) 15:22, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The GNG states that "Significant coverage" means that the source addresses the topic directly and in detail. Industry sources are not excluded from this, nor are sources requiring registration or news sources that report in depth on court cases the subject has been involved in. There are multiple sources here that address him as a person over a period of years plus the Carlton Tavern sources which are relevant because he is the "developer" they are talking about in those sources. I see ref 10 was broken. I have fixed it to go to the right place. It's about him. Philafrenzy (talk) 17:51, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I think people concerned by this case will be searching for it, not him. Blythwood (talk) 22:06, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as per recommendations above. -- Hybris1984 (talk) 23:58, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. In the spirit of WP:BLP I don't think we should be redirecting people's names to articles which primarily contain negative coverage of them. Moreover, this isn't even what he's primarily known for. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:49, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:49, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:49, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:49, 25 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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:58, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

MeraEvents[edit]

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

not notable company. Very similar article previously deleted and salted. Subsequently recreated as Meraevents and then moved here. $10 million companies ae not notable in any country. The refs, as would be anticipated , and just PR and notices. DGG ( talk ) 04:58, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I've looked at this article a few times previously and I was thinking it might get better with a little time and some effort. However, several weeks, and many edits by many editors doesn't seem to have adequately improved it's promotional tone, nor the fact that there just doesn't seem to be adequate references to establish notability for this 7 year old company. The fact that it was recreated directly from the source of the previously deleted article doesn't help matters at all either. Chrisw80 (talk) 08:27, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:11, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:11, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:11, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:11, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Insufficient in-depth coverage to satisfy WP:CORP. SmartSE (talk) 22:31, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as searches also only found expected coverage at News, questionable at this time at best. SwisterTwister talk 07:40, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I pulled a bunch of sources from many different news sites, but after running them through WP:CORPDEPTH, I am only left with two sources ([5], and [6]). This does not meet the requirement of having significant coverage per WP:GNG and the primary criterion listed in WP:NCORP. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 05:39, 26 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. No valid reason has been given for deletion, "Unreferenced article" isn't a valid reason and is a clear indication WP:BEFORE wasn't followed, Also sources were provided in the previous AFD so this AFD is just plain ridiculous!, As an aside Musa_Raza you should stop constantly nominating the article as you're not going to get your desired outcome. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 23:53, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jigyasa Singh[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Unreferenced article. Musa Talk 04:17, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 15:42, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 15:42, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 15:42, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep have added references to the article from RS such as Times of India and Indian Express, that were found by Editor E at the last Afd Atlantic306 (talk) 02:25, 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. Uncontested. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:57, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Apache BigTop[edit]

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

Project that appears to lack notability. PROD was removed. Meatsgains (talk) 03:21, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Cannot find any substantial coverage in reliable secondary sources. Vanamonde93 (talk) 05:54, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
delete It's a distro not a technical innovation, so that needs widespread adoption and independent coverage to make it notable. This doesn't (perhaps oddly) seem to have made it. Viam Ferream (talk) 15:02, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:41, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as none of this suggests better independent notability for its own article. SwisterTwister talk 08:06, 24 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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:53, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Danielle Rose Russell[edit]

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

Article about a minor actor. One minor source covers her is some detail, and she gets passing mention in a few others, bit otherwise is not particularly notable. Fails WP:NACTOR. - Mr X 02:00, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable bit actress. HangingCurve^{Swing for the fence} 02:29, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Notable sources and current references only mention her in passing. Meatsgains (talk) 02:30, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Amazing performance in Aloha. She is what? 15. We should be adding to this article; her career may be something we are proud to have covered from the start. 73.238.133.102 (talk) 23:33, 23 February 2016 (UTC)— 73.238.133.102 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 15:43, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 15:43, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non notable actress, Fails NACTOR and GNG .–Davey2010^Talk 00:01, 26 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. Sandstein 15:55, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

International Kickboxer Magazine[edit]

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

The article lists no independent sources and my search also found no significant coverage by independent sources. Papaursa (talk) 23:59, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Papaursa (talk) 23:59, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:08, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:08, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As per nominator - only references are an advertising requests page and the home page of its parent company.Peter Rehse (talk) 11:54, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect into a parent article Blitz Publications & Multi-Media Group, there is another stub, Blitz Magazine and the publisher owns several more magazines. There are a small amount of internal-links back to these articles. The FaceBook page for International Kickboxer Magazine has 39,000 followers and the Google Page Rank for the website it 4/10 (respectable). There really should be some sort of exception for boutique publishers, much like WP:ACADEMIC. Publishers are not likely to write about, nor even mention their competition, so most of these otherwise WP:RS sources are not likely to meet WP:N for organizations, but circulation (especially hard-copy) and longevity can be notable aspects in themselves in this Internet age. In terms of writing articles, blue-links are very handy for keeping articles compact. AKA, I don't have to explain to the reader that, "International Kickboxer Magazine is the world’s leading and longest-running kickboxing and Muay Thai magazine." 009o9 (talk) 04:17, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Self-promoting claims don't show notability without independent support.Mdtemp (talk) 15:53, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:28, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No independent coverage of this magazine and it makes no sense to redirect to an article that doesn't exist yet.Mdtemp (talk) 15:53, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It's not so much this stub I'm concerned with. I just feel that publishers should have their own guidance. WP:NPUBLISHING (a failed proposal) does not discuss the shortcoming in the guidance that local boutique publishers experience. Much like WP:ACADEMIC, their notability relies upon their research, which is primary in relation to their own topic. Academics are judged upon whether their work is cited in other publications -- generally a passing mention. The properties that are generally notable about a publisher is, longevity, circulation in relation to genre and outside investment/purchases. The parent firm also owns Women's Health and Fitness and has 105,328 readers which is a little larger than the Miami Herald. New guidance on the subject could also help determine which college newspapers are RS. Cheers 009o9 (talk) 18:31, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Additional There is guidance at WP:PERIODICAL (an essay), but it looks like the essay was modified to suggest that only academic periodicals are welcome. The original verbiage took circulation and years of publication (10) into consideration. Archive copy Apparently, these were simply removed as a bold edit, during a discussion without closing consensus. WP:JOURNALCRIT (an essay) also provides guidance on this topic. 009o9 (talk) 01:04, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Notability (media) is another essay which looks like it had a little momentum last year. 009o9 (talk) 03:02, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

One problem is that these are, at best, essays (and seem to be failed ones at that) and don't carry the full weight of an SNG. The second problem is that even an SNG is secondary to the GNG. Papaursa (talk) 04:44, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I did not see one of the three that had a RfC. Wikipedia:Notability (media) is the most complete and actually has a section for magazines, but I think it also overstep its bounds because it has static lists included in it that the Wikiprojects may change along the way. For instance, NBOOKS is very active and does not require anything more than a see main article hat. I'm thinking of proposing that a magazine, with a continuous ten year history or more AND a large paid circulation base for its genre should be considered for notability. Apparently, there are official databases where this information is available (Audit Bureau of Circulations). It is also probably more appropriate (in my opinion) to collect the magazine articles under the parent publisher with redirects rather than maintain half a dozen stubs. The discussion in Notability (media) is structured after what was accomplished in WP:ACADEMIC which is a widely accepted additional guidance. Thanks for your input on this Papaursa. Cheers! 009o9 (talk) 21:00, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

COI Disclosure: None, my interest in a finished guideline and this article is as a volunteer and uncompensated. (This requirement gets really tiresome and easy to forget) 009o9 (talk) 20:48, 24 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. Uncontested. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:50, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

JQuantLib[edit]

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

I couldn't establish that it meets WP:NOTABILITY. Boleyn (talk) 20:13, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Dialectric (talk) 10:05, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:28, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Subject's only coverage is self-published and primary. Meatsgains (talk) 03:18, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
delete Needs independent coverage, which is lacking. Viam Ferream (talk) 15:05, 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 no consensus. Sandstein 15:56, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Embassy GolfLinks Business Park[edit]

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

The subject of this article fails to meet WP:N and other relevant notability guidelines. References 1 and 3 are primary sources. References 2, 7, 8 do not mention the subject. References 4 - 6 are essentially the same press release. References 9 and 10 only mention the subject peripherally in a list. Rpclod (talk) 20:31, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:19, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:19, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as an unlikely solidly notable place. SwisterTwister talk 06:19, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is a major landmark in Bangalore, which is a major city in India. EGL has played a significant role in the recent history of Bangalore. Multiple sources exist. Biwom (talk) 09:55, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 19:35, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It seems to have a highly silly name but it does seem to be a business center in Bangalore. Like the Embassy GolfLinks page says, notable companies residing are Goldman Sachs and IBM. Other Embassy business centers are Manyata Embassy Business Park and Embassy TechVillage. --Mr. Magoo (talk) 20:33, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:22, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:32, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:32, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Article seems to have a satisfactory number of WP:SECONDARY sources already. Fiachra10003 (talk) 15:40, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, most of the sources are not independent and can be discounted. Of those that are in reliable sources, they don't seem to mention this particular park in any depth. This one, for instance, seems to refer to a much smaller 25 acre site in Chennai, a long way from Bangalore. This is used to support a sentence about the community on the site, but doesn't actually mention the site at all, instead having a brief press-releasey statement about the developer's corporate responsibility policy. A much more thorough examination of the sources needs to occur, but I'm not seeing from what's presented here that this is anything other than a garden variety office park. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 11:53, 27 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. WP:NOQUORUM, closing in favour of delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 01:29, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Recession Proof (Ces Cru EP)[edit]

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

Seems like a cut-and-dry WP:NMUSIC violation. Only source right now is the album's iTunes page, and there don't appear to be that many other potential sources forthcoming on Google. Nathan2055^{talk - contribs} 19:16, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 19:25, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as my searches found nothing at all and I was also going to nominate if. SwisterTwister talk 19:26, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 19:35, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:19, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:31, 25 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 E.Y.E.: Divine Cybermancy. (non-admin closure) sst✈ 03:36, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Streum on studio[edit]

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

Developer of notable video games doesn't make developer notable. Fails notability, no reliable sources have reported on the studio. Soetermans. T / C 15:37, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 16:07, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 16:07, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 16:07, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Per Soetermans. Chrisw80 (talk) 21:54, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 19:35, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The games are notable but I had hard time finding articles mentioning the studio being about the studio and not the games. In addition I think I've seen other unnotable developers which had made notable games not have their own articles. Yet I can't vote for delete because at the time I found it odd to not to be able to view the other developers' past work. --Mr. Magoo (talk) 20:10, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:17, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect' to E.Y.E.: Divine Cybermancy, given that there new Space Hulk hasn't appeared to receive any significant coverage yet. edtiorEهեইдအ😎 05:19, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect I think a redirect to E.Y.E.: Divine Cybermancy is a good idea as well. It's their sole game as of yet. Space Hulk is 2016 TBA. That means it may easily slip in to 2017... --Mr. Magoo (talk) 13:10, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I added a mention of E.Y.E.: Divine Cybermancy to Space Hulk: Deathwing as well. --Mr. Magoo (talk) 13:19, 22 February 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 developed notable video games is WP:NOTINHERITED. Usable sources, such as [7], exist, but are not in-depth and focus on games rather than developer. Redirect might be suitable as a valid search term. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 14:31, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per WP:GNG and WP:NCORP. The only acceptable-ish sources I could find that kind of discuss the company itself are this and this - and that's still a big stretch, especially when taking WP:CORPDEPTH into consideration. I didn't find any sources that cover the company in-depth at all, so passing WP:GNG is out. And because of WP:CORPDEPTH, WP:NCORP isn't met either. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 07:43, 26 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. Uncontested. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 01:26, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Cafero[edit]

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

Possibly self-congratulatory article about a non-notable actor who has done some work (e.g., acting in the current version of The Awesome 80s Prom and in five episodes of As the World Turns) but doesn't appear to have received much, if any, coverage for this. Most references to him are from sources he's affiliated with (cast list bios and the like, or interviews). There are several articles discussing him in local newspaper The Hour (1 2 3 4 5 6), but they only discuss him in the context of high school, like acting in a high school student production, being class president or winning a scholarship upon graduating. I don't think this sort of local coverage suffices to show WP:BASIC notability. /wiae /tlk 18:21, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 18:22, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as not better for WP:CREATIVE. SwisterTwister talk 19:06, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Connecticut-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 19:07, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 19:34, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:17, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Autobiographical vanity article. MiracleMat (talk) 22:38, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete--Ymblanter (talk) 08:20, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

OttoQL[edit]

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

Per WP:NOTMANUAL. This doesn't read like an encyclopedia page, it reads like a manual or textbook. Searches didn't turn up anything to suggest the topic is notable either. FuriouslySerene (talk) 18:50, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:42, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:15, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A search reveals no books discussing this and only 15 hits in GScholar. Most were papers by the creator. The non creator papers only had passing mentions. Without multiple, independent, in-depth, reliable sources, this article cannot stand. --Mark viking (talk) 04:36, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
delete Student project? No significance technically, no independent notability paid to it. Viam Ferream (talk) 14:59, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:30, 25 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. Uncontested. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 01:26, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Kieran Cassidy[edit]

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

Per WP:PERPETRATOR, no indication of notability outside of the crime he committed, for which coverage was not long-lasting. The crime itself is now covered in Vehicle matching scam, created by same WP:SPA. Prod contested by anonymous editor. NeemNarduni2 (talk) 15:41, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. NeemNarduni2 (talk) 15:42, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. NeemNarduni2 (talk) 15:42, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete cant see any evidence of notability. MilborneOne (talk) 17:18, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:15, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

So I ran a quick search: cocaine dealing [8], assault and battery [9], othe stuff on a google news search, so I went to a Proquest search and he popped up being denied bail after slugging someone because he was already on bail for something else [10] , there was a surprising amount of national and wire service coverage for the car seller scam, including some form later dates in which he was interviewed about how this sort of scam works in article prompted by some new scam being uncovered. I kept this as a sort of running iVote as I scanned the news hits, not simple becasue there is a police officer in Northern Isreland named Kiernan Cassidy who arreste people for this sort of crime. Overall, our boy Kiernan appear to be an all-round bad apple who must have a fair amount of charm because the press covers his career with a certain degree of relish. Not certain that being a career criminal with arrests, convictions & news hits spreading over a decade or so is enough to get you a spot on Wikipedia.E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:32, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as questionable for the applicable notability, none of this is better convincing. SwisterTwister talk 06:11, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:24, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:25, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:25, 25 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) Yash ! 08:05, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

13 (Armstrong novel)[edit]

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

Non-notable book. No claim to notability provided in article; no references, either. References to substantiate notability aren't forthcoming, so I don't think this meets WP:NBOOK. Mikeblas (talk) 15:35, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:56, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:56, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment this is the final (13th, even) vol of a series, Women of the Otherworld: if this is deleted then for consistency the other 12 should be looked at - the series article has no sources. The author article, Kelley Armstrong, cites a couple of her books, including number 7 in this series, as being NYTimes best-sellers but is fairly thin on sourcing too. PamD 16:49, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I found two reviews and an article. Technically this is enough for it to pass NBOOK, but I'd prefer that there be more to justify inclusion since this is fairly light. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 09:22, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - no proper reason for a deletion. As Tokyogirl79 said: there's enough coverage for it to be kept. --Fixuture (talk) 18:55, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:15, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, meets WP:GNG and WP:NBOOK ie. 2 or more reviews from reliable sources. Also, i know library holdings aren't used for notability but WorldCat has it held in over 900 libraries, pretty good for the final book in such a large series. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:58, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as references have now been added by Tokyo Girl and WP:BASIC is met.Atlantic306 (talk) 02:40, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:18, 25 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 Mirko Vučinić. (non-admin closure) sst✈ 03:37, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

List of international goals scored by Mirko Vučinić[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. Besides, he has only scored 17 goals. C. Ronaldo Aveiro (talk) 15:19, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2016 February 12. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 15:30, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
He is his country's highest scorer of all time '''tAD''' (talk) 15:32, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 15:41, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Montenegro-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 15:41, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Mirko Vučinić. Same reasoning as at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of international goals scored by Gareth Bale. The parent article isn't particularly lengthy and can handle a merge, and page likely fails WP:NOTSTATS. FuriouslySerene (talk) 18:55, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as he's the top scorer for his country, easily meets WP:GNG and see this AfD too. Also, the nom has only been here for 4 days and is on a mission to AfD all these types of lists. Anyone else smell socks? Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 19:11, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Per FuriouslySerene, either merge or delete it. CR7 (talk) 02:48, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

So now you want to withdraw your AfD as you support a merge? Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 10:37, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete and merege. No reason to have this list as its own article. Move the (yes notable) table of goals to the main page Mirko Vučinić! (Not even a link back to the main page at present.) (If this was not listed here I might have just bolded the page straight into the main page section it is linked from!) Each goal itself is not notable. No one would ever write an article about a goal? The goals make the person who scored them notable, so put the goals with the thing they are making notable. Ditto all of these lists. Aoziwe (talk) 13:17, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 15:45, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 18:30, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge or Keep although merge would probably be more important. The information is relevant though and shouldn't be lost. Inter&anthro (talk) 20:17, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:14, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge, does not warrant its own article.--Zoupan 13:28, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Mirko Vučinić. 23 editor (talk) 14:58, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Mirko Vučinić. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:41, 27 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 Montenegro in the Junior Eurovision Song Contest 2014. A merge has been proposed since July 2015 and has received no opposition. Having reviewed this discussion, as well as the discussions at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lejla Vulić and Talk:Montenegro in the Junior Eurovision Song Contest 2014#Merger proposal, I conclude that a consensus does exist across Wikipedia to merge the articles to Montenegro in the Junior Eurovision Song Contest 2014. If additional information surfaces in the future that would justify recreation of the article, it may be restored without prejudice. (non-admin closure) Mz7 (talk) 00:21, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Maša Vujadinović[edit]

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

Suspected self-promotion, non-notable child singer Sideshow Bob 10:37, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Suspected self-promotion, @Sideshow Bob:? Both Maša Vujadinović and Lejla Vulić were created by the same user Jjj1238. I pretty much doubt self-promotion falls into it here. Not unless Maša, Lejla, and the Wikipedian Jjj1238 are all the same person. And with a 2-year age gap between the two child singers, then I think it is highly unlikely they are all the same person. Wes Mouse ✒ 13:11, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2016 February 12. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 10:53, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 12:34, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note to admins This AfD is a waste of time, especially when there is a merge proposal at Talk:Montenegro in the Junior Eurovision Song Contest 2014#Merger proposal which Sideshow Bob will have seen at the top of both nominated articles. Can't exactly miss the merger tag. I would recommend this AfD be withdrawn and allow the merge to Montenegro in the Junior Eurovision Song Contest 2014 to proceed as normal. Wes Mouse ✒ 13:11, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:08, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Montenegro-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:11, 25 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 Montenegro in the Junior Eurovision Song Contest 2014. A merge has been proposed since July 2015 and has received no opposition. Having reviewed this discussion, as well as the discussion at Talk:Montenegro in the Junior Eurovision Song Contest 2014#Merger proposal, I conclude that a consensus does exist across Wikipedia to merge the articles to Montenegro in the Junior Eurovision Song Contest 2014. If additional information surfaces in the future that would justify recreation of the article, it may be restored without prejudice. (non-admin closure) Mz7 (talk) 00:20, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Lejla Vulić[edit]

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

Suspected self-promotion, absolutely non-notable child singer Sideshow Bob 10:35, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Suspected self-promotion, @Sideshow Bob:? Both Maša Vujadinović and Lejla Vulić were created by the same user Jjj1238. I pretty much doubt self-promotion falls into it here. Not unless Maša, Lejla, and the Wikipedian Jjj1238 are all the same person. And with a 2-year age gap between the two child singers, then I think it is highly unlikely they are all the same person. Wes Mouse ✒ 13:11, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2016 February 12. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 10:53, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 12:37, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Montenegro-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 12:37, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 12:37, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note to admins This AfD is a waste of time, especially when there is a merge proposal at Talk:Montenegro in the Junior Eurovision Song Contest 2014#Merger proposal which Sideshow Bob will have seen at the top of both nominated articles. Can't exactly miss the merger tag. I would recommend this AfD be withdrawn and allow the merge to Montenegro in the Junior Eurovision Song Contest 2014 to proceed as normal. Wes Mouse ✒ 13:11, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well someone ought go on and merge them already, since the existence of separate articles is utterly unnecessary and the tag has been there for almost a year. I couldn't care less about the subject, but I'm sure that the articles do not meet notability guidelines. Sideshow Bob 13:19, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well where does the burden lie? If you had noticed the merge proposal, then you could have easily carried out that merge, rather than submit a wasted AfD. And haven't we forgotten that there is a real world beyond Wikipedia, and that there is no deadline. It was already discussed in August 2015 following a debate with another Junior Eurovision (JESC) singer, and the outcome was that any JESC artist that did not place in the top 3 of the final should be should have its brief bio information written in the respect country in Junior Eurovision article, per point 9 of WP:MUSICBIO. This would also prevent the wasting of time sumbiting WP:AfDs, WP:SPEEDY, and WP:NOTREPOSITORY. Which is clearly noted at Talk:Montenegro in the Junior Eurovision Song Contest 2014#Merger proposal. Wes Mouse ✒ 14:17, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:08, 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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 01:21, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

PSHDL[edit]

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

The topic of this article, a hardware description language (HDL) called Plain & Simple Hardware Description Language (PSHDL), fails WP:GNG. It is an educational/hobbyist HDL with no meaningful acceptance. As far as I am able to determine, it is not supported by common, real-world, third-party electronic design automation (EDA) software; and there is no evidence that it has much use in tertiary-level education, academic and industrial research, or industry.

A search for this HDL at the IEEE Xplore Digital Library returns one paper ("A web based tool for teaching hardware design based on the plain simple hardware description language"), which appears to be written by the creator of this HDL, or by a person closely associated with the effort behind this HDL. It was presented at the Global Engineering Education Conference, which suggests the impact of this HDL is negligible since the premier conference for HDLs is the Design Automation Conference. The paper itself has not been cited by any other works.

A Google Scholar search returned no results for the full-name and 14 results for "PSHDL", all of which were false-positives. A Google Books and News search returned no results for either name. A Google Web search returned no results in the first 100 results that could be deemed to be independent and reliable secondary or tertiary sources (which are required to establish notability per WP:GNG). AZ1199 (talk) 04:50, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I could find no evidence of notability through independent reliable sources, just the single primary source. Kudos go to the nom for a careful description of their investigation into the topic and its notability. --Mark viking (talk) 06:14, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:28, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:06, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

delete SHDL is significant and notable. Hobbyist subsets of it aren't, unless they attract significant volumes of users and some external coverage. Viam Ferream (talk) 15:00, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:09, 25 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. This is a "soft delete"; the article may be restored on request by any administrator. MelanieN (talk) 01:36, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Enders Analysis[edit]

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

This article seems to be purely promotional, probably written by a non-neutral party. The first three sources are primary sources (the company's own website). Many of the other sources are not coverage OF the company, but just trivial mentions. No independent sources are listed, nor could I find any. Fails Wikipedia:Notability MB (talk) 04:43, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 13:10, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as none of this suggests better applicable notability. SwisterTwister talk 19:20, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:28, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:21, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:05, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. It's very difficult to find sources that are about the company. I think this is partly because it's such a popular source for quotations and analysis. However, I did find this: [11] from The Guardian. It's perhaps more about the founder than the company, though. I can see how this might be either kept as a popular source of analysis in the media or deleted for lack of coverage. Paradoxically, I guess either result is OK with me. Sorry for the wishy-washy comment. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 01:00, 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 with no prejudice. (non-admin closure) — Jkudlick • t • c • s 13:45, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Agricultural theme park[edit]

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

There is not enough reliable sources directly covering the article. FiendYT 02:59, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. utcursch | talk 03:06, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Afd should be listed in the Agriculture deletion discussions.--DThomsen8 (talk) 12:13, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as pure self promotion by use of a term that has not gained currency, acquired meaning, or spurred emulation. Note, however, that a handful of promoters have called their projects "agricultural theme parks" one in California [12] in 1998; another in Costa Rica [13], one being promoted in Korea now [14]. Note also that Farm museums exist, as do U-Pick and Pick-Your-Own (PYO) Farms, many with playgrounds and picnic tables, but they are not this (nor is Knott's Berry Farm.) In sum, Agricultural theme parks may catch on, just, it hasn't yet.E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:23, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:27, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. LadyofShalott 18:31, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Afd should be listed in the Agriculture deletion discussions. Should not be deleted without posting there.--DThomsen8 (talk) 20:26, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- @Dthomsen8: If you're talking about deletion sorting, I'm not aware of any Agriculture category (see list here: Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Flat). If you know better, I'd encourage you to list it yourself. On the other hand, if you're talking about article alerts, that's done automatically based on WikiProject banners (and assuming the WikiProject has signed up for article alerts). So that's already visible here: Wikipedia:WikiProject Agriculture/Article alerts. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 21:10, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - - Thank you for that information.--DThomsen8 (talk) 00:49, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:02, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The claim of the nomination is false. For example, in Japan Tourism, "One company called Farm Group has specialized in agricultural theme-park projects and has completed fifteen such parks nationwide since 1986". In New Zealand, "Agrodome This popular agricultural theme park features live sheep shows where you can watch sheep shearing demonstrations, sheep auctions and sheep dog trials." Andrew D. (talk) 09:38, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete, even though I've visited the "Agrodome" theme park that Andrew D. mentions above, and it is reasonably describable as an "agricultural theme park" (I'm great at parties, by the way), I'm not sure that we can see that the term has caught on enough not to run afoul of WP:NEO. If Andrew D. could actually provide links to the sources he's talking about, that might be helpful. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 11:59, 27 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. The arguments don't have the strongest link to policy, but after a month nobody has come along supporting a deletion other than the nominating editor. No prejudice against renomination again in a couple of weeks to try and get a more substantial discussion going. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 11:55, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Eesti tippmodell (cycle 4)[edit]

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

This individual season of a country specific version of this television show fails notability guidelines. Safiel (talk) 02:22, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 03:42, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Estonia-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 03:42, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The season is just as important as other seasons from NTM series. It also features more references than most of modelling reality-based TV shows. --SkySmileLo (talk) 16:02, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This discussion shouldn't be held and the activities of the user who started it really needs to stop his habbit of deleting articles for certain TV shows. Shameless (talk) 21:53, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. What is the need to delete this? Why don't we all nominate every season of every NTM available for deletion? Maxtron32 (talk) 15:16, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Keep your comments focused on the merits of the article. I suggest you give a valid reason for keeping the article and refrain from criticizing other editors or commenting on their motives. Comment on the encyclopedia, NOT the editors. Safiel (talk) 21:14, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:23, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 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. Michig (talk) 07:26, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

List of records of India[edit]

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

Indiscriminate list. It's in poor condition right now, and can't decide if it wants Indian records or world records set by Indians, and it's also the target of a fairly inept sock, but the bigger problem here is that it is an invitation to just list everything that happens in the subcontinent for the first time, is the biggest, is the smallest, is the fastest, is the richest, whatever. In other words, the very term "record" is the problem. Drmies (talk) 00:50, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

delete Holy crap batman, what is this? The nomination is quite the understatement; this is a totally indiscriminate collection, and has a tinge of nationalistic POV to it. Vanamonde93 (talk) 05:59, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and a serious look at the other "records by country" pages linked in the navigation template. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 07:53, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Way too broad/indiscriminate to be an appropriate list. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 13:22, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 15:47, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 15:47, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Wikipedia is not the place for excessive statistical lists. Seeing as nearly any "record" could be placed in this article, it is too broad to be included here. /wiae /tlk 15:48, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Quite the crufty list here. This is a clear of example of how Wikipedia is not a host of indiscriminate information. RickinBaltimore (talk) 15:49, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Thomas.W ^talk 16:45, 24 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. This is a "soft delete"; the article may be restored on request by any administrator. MelanieN (talk) 01:28, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Kadaltheerathu[edit]

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

This article makes no claim to notability, and a web search turns up nothing that would suggest this film is notable. Therefore, I propose its deletion. —♦♦ AMBER^(ЯʘCK) 01:50, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 03:54, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 03:54, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

alts:

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

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

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

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

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

WP:INDAFD: "Kadal Theerathu" "T. Rajeevnath" "Gopalakrishnan" "Amir Abbas"

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:01, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:33, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, sources are notoriously difficult to find for non-mainstream Indian 1980s films, and I suggest to delete the article until sources are found.--Ymblanter (talk) 08:18, 26 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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:39, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

F. R. Carrick Institute[edit]

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

Subject lacks notability, and the page is currently just an ad for the institute. Search for secondary sources resulted in only fluff pieces or blogs criticizing individual researchers. Page could be merged with Frederick Carrick, but it suffers from the same problems. The Institute is listed on the Clinical neuropsychology page as a "US university" which it isn't, as far as I can tell. Of two references, one is a broken link, and it led to the Institute's own page. - Tim D. Williamson ^yak-yak 03:10, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. - Tim D. Williamson ^yak-yak 03:23, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 03:37, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. Subject is not notable, content violates WP:OR and WP:PROMO.--Ddcm8991 (talk) 21:39, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:30, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:07, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:07, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:07, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

delete fails WP:ORG. Only primary sources provided. LibStar (talk) 15:48, 25 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 Dromahair. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:45, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Drumlease National School[edit]

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

Primary school with no indication of notability per WP:GNG and WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES. No significant coverage online from WP:Reliable sources. Someone local wrote a book on its history, and that's about it. Prod contested by another editor on the grounds that it's got references. NeemNarduni2 (talk) 20:25, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. NeemNarduni2 (talk) 20:28, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. NeemNarduni2 (talk) 20:28, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~: Doesn't meet SCHOOLOUTCOMES or get an endrun as a historic building. Limited controversy regarding school prayer doesn't currently appear to meet GNG (and should go in an article relating to Irish Atheism instead if it ever becomes notable). ^~~Hydronium^~Hydroxide^~(Talk)~~ 12:29, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/redirect to Dromahair per Boleyn below. ^~~Hydronium^~Hydroxide^~(Talk)~~ 06:58, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/redirect to Dromahair per WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES. This recommends merge/redirect for primary schools if it can't be established that they meet WP:ORG or WP:GNG. 19:10, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:15, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to Dromahair per WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES as suggested. Regards, Yamaguchi先生 (talk) 00:22, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect as suggested given that it is not a secondary school. VMS Mosaic (talk) 06:31,
Merge/redirect Anmccaff (talk) 23:17, 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.