< 2 February	4 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 redirect to Non-Summit. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:25, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Przemysław Krompiec[edit]

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

I would put up a BLP prod-but there is technically a source-even though calling Instagram a source is laughable (Facebook/Twitter/Linked In would be more reliable even!) Anyway-possibly non notable celebrity with no reliable sources Wgolf (talk) 23:32, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Non-Summit -- Kanghuitari (talk) 00:21, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A redirect to Non-Summit? That would work since that's all he seems to be known for. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 23:53, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 04:21, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 04:21, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as currently questionable for WP:CREATIVE. SwisterTwister talk 04:21, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I agree that as currently written, he fails WP:ARTIST. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 13:45, 8 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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:45, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

French Horn Rebellion[edit]

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

Article includes Facebook, AllMusic, SoundCloud, YouTube, and Vimeo as sources, all of which fail WP:IRS. The remaining two are good but there is simply not enough outside of it online. WP:MILL. Mr. Guye (talk) 23:23, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Mr. Guye (talk) 23:23, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Mr. Guye (talk) 23:25, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The Guardian is not chopped liver, and to have been featured in Andy Warhol's Interview magazine indicates it is among "some of the world's biggest celebrities, artists, musicians, and creative thinkers" (what Wikipedia says). That's no high school garage band. --do ncr am
Keep - I found a couple of 2013 articles: Rebel Rock and Indie Pop and Dance s Headline Milk Festival via Questia (subscription required) in the Sarasota Herald Tribune that mention this band being the headliner at the Harvey Milk Festival in Sarasota. From 2014 is the sfgate (Hearst Communications) review of the band style. This article was just started. I think we should give them time to develop the article. — Maile (talk) 00:08, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – @Mr. Guye: Note that per WP:NEXIST, "notability is based on the existence of suitable sources, not on the state of sourcing in an article". North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:58, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- @Northamerica1000: WP:NEXIST was what I meant by "simply not enough outside of it online". But nevertheless, it seems an adequate amount of reliable, significant coverage was found, so I'm withdrawing my nomination. --Mr. Guye (talk) 22:43, 4 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 Snow Keep. ...more or less.. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 23:32, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Stripe (company)[edit]

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

Small company, apparently one of the minor players in the industry. with references either notices or press releases. They just document investments in it. Not notable. DGG ( talk ) 22:35, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 22:54, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 22:54, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This company is hugely notable in the software space and start-up world, considered a huge success and powering many other businesses. Just for one peek at this, see their page on CrunchBase. They are notable enough that over twelve hundred *users of Crunchbase* have starred or favorited this company, for example. Stripe is also referred to as a success story, making it something that readers will want to look up on Wikipedia for years into the future. Here is an example I just read, by chance, today: (analysis of why Parse is closing down — mentions Stripe as a success story). --X883 (talk) 23:01, 3 February 2016 (UTC) — edited for formatting / explicit vote --X883 (talk) 18:21, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and I would've nominated it myself also as the current coverage and overall article seems questionable for the applicable notability. SwisterTwister talk 22:56, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Notability in "the software space and start-up world" doesn't equal notability in the greater world. Wikipedia is not a business directory. This company is not remarkable in any way and doesn't belong in an encyclopedia. Chisme (talk) 05:35, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. while the current article text isn't particularly compelling, I feel the topic is sufficiently notable Cariaso (talk) 08:04, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I agree with Cariaso that the current article text is questionable, but there exist more than enough reliable, independent sources that the topic meets the Wikipedia:Notability criteria. (I once added a reference to an essay by Paul Graham that discusses Stripe and implies that Stripe is remarkable,[1] but later someone deleted that reference.[2]). --DavidCary (talk) 05:03, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - bad article but clearly notable. Blythwood (talk) 09:17, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep- One of the bigger Paypal competitor and meets WP:CORPDEPTH. I will suggest rewrite than considering for delete. Forbes, Wall Street Journal and many more. I request to research in detail, before AFD. Amitbanerji26 (talk) 15:26, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Obviously meet WP:CORP and WP:GNG. I understand DGG's concern on companies with minor media coverage but this particular one appears to be notable. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 18:41, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The absence of references in an article does not indicate that a subject is not notable. If significant coverage can be found for a topic, deletion due to lack of notability is inappropriate. Notability is not temporary, it does not need to have ongoing coverage, in this page we have ongoing coverage. It has attracted attention over a sufficiently significant period of time. Ireneshih (talk) 06:00, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. The nominator and other interested editors are encouraged to improve the article instead of nominating it for deletion. (non-admin closure) Esquivalience ^t 01:22, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Editing of anime in American distribution[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

This article is in a very bad condition. It is full of trivia and is rather unencyclopedic. Some of the sections are completely unsourced. It was nominated once before, but no improvements have been made since early 2008. DodingBeast (talk) 22:00, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. --Calathan (talk) 22:20, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:DINC, this article would not fall under any WP:CSD criteria. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 22:25, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep While the article does need major help, the subject meets the notability guidelines. Opencooper (talk) 22:55, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep As stated the subject is extremely well covered in reliable expert sources, and has been since the very birth of anime fandom. There is more than enough sources already attached to show this. The issues of content itself can all be largely resolved by simply removing entire blocks of material so we can assess what is left. As much as we could nuke it and start again, we can also start that process by hacking away at the material which is causing the issue. I'm pretty sure I can do that first part at least.SephyTheThird (talk) 23:11, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've started the process, however I can only do so much on a tablet so will continue later. I'm being quite aggressive, some things I recognise and can be sourced but leaving them in just in case they get fixed later wouldn't be solving the issue. I'll see about leaving a list on the talk page of possible additions.SephyTheThird (talk) 23:44, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Article is now almost half the file size. I've removed a lot of the obvious trivia, statements supported by fansites and statements making obvious WP:OR comparisons and conclusions. There is surely more that could come out but it's no longer excessive and will naturally be changed through development of that page. I'll look into some source articles for long term editing but this article was fairly easy to start cleaning up. There is no need to delete it.SephyTheThird (talk) 02:10, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It needs some cleanup for sure, but it's a very notable topic in relation to anime, which is a big industry. 72.196.117.242 (talk) 01:03, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Not much needs to be said about this one. --Mr. Magoo (talk) 02:46, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:01, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:01, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:01, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:02, 4 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. -- RoySmith (talk) 00:32, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

2016 Masters Champions League[edit]

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

Apparently MCL is a tournament for "retired cricketers" and according to main article The players must all have been former international cricketers. So it seems like it is just an exhibition tournament with not enough notability for season articles. The notable content can be included in main article. Qed237 (talk) 21:40, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Qed237 (talk) 21:58, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Its a proper tournament and its 10 year tournament so how many seasons you will cover in one article? also i have corrected your spelling mistake "retired *cricketeers" GreenCricket^TALK 10:16, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The notable content (not all content) could be kept in the main article. Like a table of winners and runners-up. Qed237 (talk) 12:20, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: What is the point of creating an individual article for a season in a sports league that consists of entirely retired players. These guys are no longer professional and these games don't have any major significance past this tournament. --ArsenalFan700 (talk) 06:13, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Retired players meaning that the players are not available in international arena only. Most of players are still active in domestic tournament like Indian Premier League and Big Bash League. Tournament organisations are hoping to continue in next year too. So I stand with keep the article. (Price Zero (talk) 07:29, 6 February 2016 (UTC))[reply]
Keep The tournament has become quite popular. The article will provide useful infomation to the cricket fans.--সাজিদ রেজা করিম 16:34, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep While I agree with some of the nominator's concerns, this is getting significant international coverage, and easily meets our notability criteria. Harrias ^talk 14:55, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge: My initial thoughts on this are that it should be merged into the Masters Champions League. To clarify a point above, GreenCricket says it is a "10 year tournament". To be specific, the organizing committee has been granted a 10-year licence. This is the first season and there is no guarantee there will be a second. Until such point in time that there are multiple tournaments each with their own coverage, then there is no purpose in having separate articles. AtHomeIn神戸 (talk) 06:12, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If merge article it'll be used more space. And it can be difficult to understand useful point.(Price Zero (talk) 09:52, 8 February 2016 (UTC))[reply]

Are you sure? Look at the current contents of Masters Champions League. The only things different/not in the "2016" article are the lead, 5 sentence of history and the 8 "key people". Merging that small amount of information with the 2016 article will not be "difficult to understand" if done properly. AtHomeIn神戸 (talk) 09:59, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No one can predict about future of any league..if league disestablished then merge it like it happens with Champions League T20 GreenCricket^TALK 11:00, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You have it the wrong way around. We should have it merged first because right now there is only one league; there is no prediction involved in making that statement. Then, we can split in the future if there is too much information to be contained in a single article. Working on an assumption that there will be ten seasons just because there is a contract for ten years violates WP:CRYSTAL. AtHomeIn神戸 (talk) 00:11, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: While their is talk of removing it, I agree on what the nominator is saying but its worth keeping to see if it last another year and if not, then remove it. Matt294069 is coming 05:36, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Swarm ♠ 04:04, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ben roulston[edit]

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

Fails the notability criteria for people and our General notability guideliness. Coverage of one of the sources is not in depth and the other one is not a reliable source. I could not find any references on Google News or Google Books. Broght to AfD after Prod was removed. Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 20:33, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Just as a housekeeping move, I moved the page to the correct MOS for the subject's name by capitalizing it. RickinBaltimore (talk) 21:06, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete While he's worked with notable acts, I'm not sure if he himself has established notability for his own merits. Doing a search online I don't find many sources to show he is notable. RickinBaltimore (talk) 20:12, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:03, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as unlikely independently notable. SwisterTwister talk 07:24, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. Speedy deleted by Y, CSD G3: Blatant hoax. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 20:20, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Pakistan's Top 10 Hackers[edit]

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

Contested PROD. If not a hoax, this is totally non-notable. "WHA" was said in early versions to be the "World Hacker Association", about which I can find no reference but this content-less page. The link provided goes to Computerworld, where I find no mention, even when you search the site, of WHA, or of Muhammad Aanish Ayaz, the supposed winner. Searches found a list of Top 10 Pakistani Hacker Teams, but it bears no relation to this.

The article history shows a number of IPs tinkering with the names on the list and their order, which strongly suggests that there is no official announcement, just a bunch of guys playing games. The supposed winner, who was only second in the first version of the article, has been trying to post about himself here at Muhammad Aanish Ayaz Farrukh and User:Aanish Ayaz. JohnCD (talk) 20:12, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. JohnCD (talk) 20:16, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. JohnCD (talk) 20:23, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete clearly not notable. Looks like some sort of personal essay or post, and should be removed as per WP:NOT. FuriouslySerene (talk) 20:25, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete Plain case, could have been speedied IMO. I couldn't find any information about the people or the event. The linked website's last news article about Pakistan was from November 30. --Mr. Magoo (talk) 02:50, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - notability of this (alleged) competition not established. SJK (talk) 08:44, 4 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. The article subjects are found to lack notability. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 22:16, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yamaha FZR250[edit]

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

Insufficient sources to meet notability guidelines, per WP:PRODUCT: "Avoid creating multiple stubs about each individual product PU-36 Explosive Space Modulator, Q-36 Explosive Space Modulator, R-36 Explosive Space Modulator, etc.) especially if there is no realistic hope of expansion.".

This group of Japanese 4-cylinder, 250 cc four stroke motorcycles, including the FZR250, Honda CBR250, Kawasaki Ninja ZX-2R, Suzuki GSX-R250, Suzuki GSX250FX, Kawasaki Balius, and Yamaha FZX250 have hung around with notability questions for 5+ years. We have passing mention in sources like a 200-word Cycle World (August 1991, p.39) sidebar that verifies only that a bike exists, but tells us virtually nothing about it. Without sources to base the content on, we have nothing but original research and questionable info cribbed from fansites and forums. These bikes have been a subject of fascination, no doubt, but the existence of these Wikipedia articles implies a level of reliability to the data that is unjustified. Better readers should google this information in a forum post, or personal we page and caveat emptor.

It looks to many editors that our policy is to create one article per motorcycle ever made, and it's understandable why you would think that. @The Bushranger: has said "Per long-standing WP:CONSENSUS, individual models of motor vehicles are notable provided they meet WP:V." I'm not sure if they still feel that way, but it is a reasonable point of view. The problem is I can't find any basis in policy or guidelines for that, and the problems it creates -- having many motorcycle articles with zero reliable sources -- are best solved by either deleting or redirecting to List of Yamaha motorcycles etc.

My previous search for AfD consensus on this issue is at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Yamaha FZ700, where from what I can tell, motorcycles must meet WP:GNG just as much as a toaster or hamburger stand, i.e. WP:PRODUCT. If not, how would that work, exactly?

By the way, a few years ago Motorcycle Consumer News wrote a long feature about the Japanese graduated licensing system that was responsible for the existence of these 33kW-limited learner bikes. That subject, the licensing scheme and its effect on JDM motorcycles, would be a good article topic, though again with woefully little reliable information about the actual bikes themselves. Dennis Bratland (talk) 19:42, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I am also nominating the following related pages for reasons above:

Honda CBR250 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Kawasaki Ninja ZX-2R (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Suzuki GSX-R250 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Kawasaki Balius (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Yamaha FZX250 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) --Dennis Bratland (talk) 19:50, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all 6 - I agree with the nominator. This seems like a textbook case of WP:PRODUCT. There's no significant coverage of these models, and the parent company page for the four motorcycle manufacturers are not nearly long enough to justify splitting off for an individual page. They can be adequately covered in those pages. FuriouslySerene (talk) 20:30, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: @Dennis Bratland: I'm pretty sure the "make+model=notable" is a case of WP:EDITCONSENSUS as opposed to anything written down. However, I'm not sure how applicable it would be to motorcycles - they're a bit out of my experience area and, while Yamaha certainly doesn't qualify as such, are a lot easier for "one guy in a garage" to churn out a few for his buddies, as opposed to an automobile, so... No opinion on these, although I will note that they should probably pass GNG, but WP:TNT until proven may be a reasonable option. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:22, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all at best and move this content elsewhere if needed as the current articles seem questionable. SwisterTwister talk 05:47, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all I agree with the reasons listed above, so I believe these articles should be deleted.Will211 (talk) 04:38, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all I have nothing particular to add to what the nominator and Bushranger wrote above. Hallward's Ghost ^(Kevin) ^{(My talkpage)} 21:02, 11 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. Consensus appears clear and this nomination also seemed to lack WP:BEFORE. Hence, the need for an early closure. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 17:26, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Alexandru Dimca[edit]

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

There's no particular indication this individual may meet WP:PROF. - Biruitorul ^Talk 19:39, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I'm the creator of the article, and imho Alexandru Dimca meet WP:PROF.

1. The person's research has made significant impact in their scholarly discipline, broadly construed, as demonstrated by independent reliable sources. “The most typical way of satisfying Criterion 1 is to show that the academic has been an author of highly cited academic work – either several extremely highly cited scholarly publications or a substantial number of scholarly publications with significant citation rates.”
According to [3], he has one publication cited 580 times, three publications cited more than 100 times, and 112 publications. His h-index is 24, which is particularly significant.
Alexandru Dimca is a distinguished mathematician according to [4].
This source [5] says : Alexandru Dimca, s-a remarcat prin cercetările sale de vârf în domeniul geometriei algebrice. Este astăzi un matematician şi un profesor cu reputaţie internaţională, invitat în mari centre de matematică ale lumii să facă cercetare sau să ţină conferinţe. Publicaţiile sale i-au adus numeroase premii şi burse de cercetare (translation : Alexandru Dimca was noted for his research in algebraic geometry. Today he is a mathematician and a professor of international reputation, invited the world's great centers of mathematical research to make or keep conferences. His publications have brought numerous awards and fellowships).
4. The person's academic work has made a significant impact in the area of higher education, affecting a substantial number of academic institutions. “Criterion 4 may be satisfied, for example, if the person has authored several books that are widely used as textbooks (or as a basis for a course) at multiple institutions of higher education.”
His books Sheaves in topology and Singularities and topology of hypersurfaces are very highly cited, and usually used in algebraic geometry courses in University (three examples [6][7][8]).

Jean-Noël Sapin (talk) 10:31, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. GScholar gives an h-index of 24, which is comfortably above the level we generally accept for mathematicians, particularly in a highly theoretical area like algebraic geometry, as satisfying WP:PROF#C1. While GScholar can sometimes be overgenerous in what it counts as a citation, experience in theses AfD discussions suggests that the most reliable citation counters (to which I do not bave access) are very unlikely to give an h-index low enough (distinctly below 20 in this field) to change my judgement. PWilkinson (talk) 15:25, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:56, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:56, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The high citation counts for his monographs (and also for the Annals paper "Hypersurface complements, Milnor fibers and higher homotopy groups of arrangments") should be good enough for WP:PROF#C1 in a low-citation field. The festschrift also adds support to the case that he has a high profile as a mathematician. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:12, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I understand Biruitorul's nomination, because what Jean-Noël Sapin has argued well here is not in the article -- would you please add this? Instead the arguments are mainly based around mathematics competitions as a kid which do not do enough for WP:PROF. However, the citations, the Festschrift, and the honorary degree are each alone enough for WP:PROF for me. -- Michael Scott Cuthbert (talk) 20:36, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- I added the Olympiad results after the article was already nominated for deletion. I agree they do not add much for notability, but that is not a good reason for keeping them out of the article. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:42, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Passes WP:Prof for reasons very clearly expressed above. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:50, 6 February 2016 (UTC).[reply]
Keep Passes WP:Prof for reasons very clearly expressed above. Moreover, this is one of a series of Romanian language WP:PRODs which points out a systemic bias. A lot of serious Romanian scholarship is not translated into English. So they are underrepresented in various search engines. in fact, the change in lettering and names creates a GIGO conundrum for searchers, even though they may be diligent and seemingly thorough. Finally, this motion fails because of WP:Before. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 21:55, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. There is another Romanian AfD here Alin Suciu . Xxanthippe (talk) 23:02, 6 February 2016 (UTC).[reply]
Comment. There is another Romanian AfD here Fernando Carcupino. And I've got more. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 02:21, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Xxanthippe. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 03:26, 7 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 Snow Keep. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 23:32, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Cho La incident[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

This article is about a skirmish that happened in Sikkim between Chinese forces and Indian forces. It is one of many skirmishes that are reputed to have happened during this time. The article is portraying the skirmish as some sort of great military victory battle of the Indians over the Chinese with 350 Chinese killed and 450 wounded, when in reality according to a neutral source [9] on page 197 the casualties are as followed: 36 dead for India and an unknown dead for China. This number is from Taylor Fravel who is an MIT professor as mentioned here [10]. I therefore do not think it meets notability requirements as specified here WP:Notability to warrant its own article. It is already mentioned over here China–India_relations#1960s and here Sino-Indian_War#Later_conflicts and having its own article appears to be an attempt to rehash materials from other articles to promote the same idea again and again. Similarly, I do not think the case of it being advertised as a great Indian victory is warranted and violates WP:NPOV since the sources that are making such claims are largely Indian, whereas a more neutral source here [11] on page 103 claims that the result was a ceasefire, not an Indian victory. Since the entire article revolves around this idea of it being some sort of great military battle victory for India, it should be deleted as the article violates WP:NPOV. The sources are also primarily Indian and attempts to introduce more neutral and academic sources in December 2015 did not amount to much. I think due to the lack of neutral sources and total lack of Chinese sources (and near full reliance on Indian sources), this article again violates WP:NPOV. Upon searching for material on the conflict, the majority of sources are non-neutral and non-academic. The few academic sources that do make mention of it, barely mention it, or simply focusing on the bigger picture. Due to the lack of overall neutral and academic sources available, this article not only violates WP:Notability, but it also becomes very difficult to adhere to WP:NPOV and therefore should be deleted altogether and mention of the incident should be left within the articles mentioned above. Xtremedood (talk) 19:33, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, tentatively. The fact that the incident is linked from two major articles suggests that having one treatment in a separate article is worthwhile. Expanded information can be provided just in this article, and the mentions can be brief. Mention in China–India_relations#1960s is basically 5 sentences (which may be reduced), and the mention in Sino-Indian_War#Later_conflicts is 1/2 sentence. Deletion of the article would mean that each of those mentions should be expanded because they must be self-contained, I guess, which is not what the nom would want.

It being advertised as a great Indian victory is something to state in the article, and is all the more reason to provide an article that will debunk the propaganda. An apparent bias in numerous sources does not mean the item is not notable, and in fact it makes it more notable, perhaps: the fact of disagreement of views/sources can and should be mentioned and explained. The view of the Indian military should be clearly identified as that. The apparent assertion of different numbers (and perhaps "ridiculous" numbers) in India's parliament seems worth mentioning (from the Talk page: "claims of 88 Indian dead and 300 Chinese dead comes from an Indian Defense Minister, see here [7] at parliament...").

Can't the article be developed using sources appropriately? The nom refers to numerous sources and seems to accept at least one source as unbiased, and even biased sources can provide non-controversial detail that is helpful. I see that the article was edit-protected for some period and that there is much discussion of sources at the Talk page that seems to suggest that some reliable sources exist (at least stating that the official Indian view is X, while an official Chinese view is not available).

An incident in which 36 (the lowest estimate for India) plus unknown number of Chinese (perhaps 2X) are killed seems significant to me, especially if this outside of a proper war. There are extensive articles about incidents in the U.S. West where just a few were killed, for example.

I agree with the nom's identification of problems in the article as it is now. It should be improved, but "AFD is not for cleanup" (wp:AFDISNOTCLEANUP), and the Talk page discussion was sort of working, I believe. --do ncr am 20:38, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Just to make mention of the two articles, the first one [12] references the incident alongside the Nathu La incident and refers to it as simply as a "clash" whereas the second source here [13] too references the incident alongside the Nathu La incident and states that a multitude of various incidents, skirmishes, and clashes have happened around that area and the Himalayas region. I still think that notability should be considered, as a minor clash among many similar clashes does not, in my opinion, warrant its own article. Xtremedood (talk) 21:47, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The pair of incidents were important and stand out from the much more numerous number of border incursions (60? 150?) in that period. I don't know but gather from context that the others were perhaps just patrols which went over an asserted boundary, and might have involved some gunfire, but no deaths and few or no injuries? I see that the two incidents are mentioned together (usually? almost always?). It seems the total of deaths across the two incidents is what matters. And I see that Nathu La incident does not exist as an article, it is just a redirect to the section in major article China-India relations. So how about change this article to cover the two, together: rename it to Nathu La and Cho La incidents (currently a redlink)? The major China-India relations article should not (and doesn't) include tactical-level detail about what happened within each of the incidents (like names of officers, and acts of heroism, or specific small advances and retreats, and so on), but this combo article could. Is some such detail available? [Yes, e.g. at China's Shadow Over Sikkim: The Politics of Intimidation pages 193-195, which reports based on Indian sources about Chinese soldiers approaching "feature 15450" (which we could probably pinpoint in a geolink) and so on, and reports on what a Chinese diplomatic "Note" (which must be available in full somewhere) about a Chinese commander shouting over the border about 5 bodies, etc., and what China's "The People's Daily said on October 8, etc.] It would be useful to let the reader understand what is being termed merely an "incident" or a "clash", vs. a fighting "skirmish" or a "military conflict". Consider that what the U.S. calls an incident, the Gulf of Tonkin incident, apparently involved naval gunfire but no U.S. deaths and possibly 4 North Vietnamese deaths (and is covered in Wikipedia in detail involving ship names and officer names). What some call an "incident" on the China-India border is a lot bigger, it seems to me. So: combo? --do ncr am 22:35, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

And here's great detail about Natha Lu, like Indian general Sagat Singh reportedly having "fortitude" and refusing to obey a command to withdraw, which was appreciated two years later, and various officers and the laying of a barbed wire cable, etc., etc.. See Similar account by Maj. Gen Sheru Thapliyal (and same here covering "martyrdom" of Indian soldiers under machine gun fire, but Indian artillery observation posts being superior, at Nathu La, and less about Cho la. I find detail by googling "Indian officer Nathu La" and similar phrases. You might argue the detail is not important, but to the Indians apparently it is, and to them the idea that they "bloodied the nose" of China is important, and the incidents are notable because the Indians think it is notable, in effect. Compare to the Americans' idea that Battle of Bunker Hill (where 226 British and approx 140 colonials were killed) was a really big deal bloodying nose of Britain, when that was a tiny incident relative to many European battles, say. --do ncr am 23:02, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep no rationale provided by nominator other than "India won this war, and I don't want to believe that", while discussion about the notability of this article is not needed, I would rather add that Xtremedood had socked on this article in order to right great wrong,[14] misrepresent sources and promote racist bias.[15] Capitals00 (talk) 03:45, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep History can not be re-written by the whims of one individual. This article is well sourced.Ghatus (talk) 14:09, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Xtremedood (talk) 06:13, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Xtremedood (talk) 06:13, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: the incident seems significant enough, IMO, to warrant an article by itself and the sources seem to satisfy WP:GNG. Per Doncram's suggestion, it is possible that the other major incident could be merged into this one and the article renamed, also. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 07:20, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There are more than enough sources to satisfy the GNG. Philg88 ^♦talk 07:59, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Rename Sino-Indian conflicts, 1967 and merge into it material on Nathu La incident, which is currently a redirect to another article at rather too high level. If some one would prefer "incidents" rather than "conflicts", or some other word, I will not stand in their way. Peterkingiron (talk) 20:23, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and Rename to 1967 Sino-Indian conflicts per doncram and Peterkingiron. The nominator is correct to point out that the article has been infested with a large number of single-purpose Indian nationalistic editors who have repeatedly removed neutral, academic sources and replace them with Indian sources that try to paint a minor border clash into a great Indian victory (see talk page). The current content is garbage and needs to be rewritten, but the topic is definitely notable. -Zanhe (talk) 19:00, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the article is well sourced and history cannot be changed/re-written by the whims of one individual. MBlaze Lightning (talk) 19:07, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy Delete per WP:G10. (non-admin closure) RickinBaltimore (talk) 19:41, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

MoonMan's life[edit]

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

Article already exists. Mademoiselle La Souris (Squeak!) 19:17, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete I think we may have tagged the page nearly at the same time, as I added a CSD tag for it just prior, duplicating the Donald Trump article. RickinBaltimore (talk) 19:18, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Swarm ♠ 04:04, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Positive and negative reinforcement[edit]

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

Article is a fork of Reinforcement#Reinforcement. It is an orphan and works better described in the context of reinforcement. May be worth merging the "in the classroom" example into reinforcement maybe at Reinforcement#Applications. The only counter consideration is that reinforcement is getting very long. It might be worth having a new "reinforcement applications" article as there are so many applications - for example see search for "positive reinforcement" in Wikipedia. Penbat (talk) 18:38, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:13, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as being redundant to the Reinforcement page. I don't see anything in here that's worth saving. This reads like a textbook/essay, not an encyclopedia page. FuriouslySerene (talk) 20:33, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a WP:CONTENTFORK of Reinforcement#Reinforcement. Anything that is salvageable can be merged to the articles suggested above. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 22:42, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - I'm inclined to take FuriouslySerene's line on this. The "in the classroom" text is a flabby example rather than a tight application. Also reinforcement is long enough already.--Penbat (talk) 09:11, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete at best as there's currently nothing to suggest a keepable encyclopedia article. SwisterTwister talk 04:18, 8 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. Sarahj2107 (talk) 13:00, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Professor Alexia Thomas[edit]

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

Vanity/autobiographical page. Author keeps removing deletion notices. Hama Dryad (talk · contribs · email) 18:27, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Im currently working on this article, this is not autobiography, is a research im currently working on about this controversial person, im gathering more information about her, please dont delete the article, im working on it.If you keep deleting the article while im working on it you affect my ability to contribute to wikipedia...— Preceding unsigned comment added by Alexia thomas15 (talk • contribs)

If it's not an autobiography, then why is the subject's name also in your own username? Bearcat (talk) 21:04, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There isn't anything in the way of notability on the page. Also reading the above comments, this looks clearly to be a vanity page. RickinBaltimore (talk) 18:42, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: apparent COI and blatant promotionalism. Wikipedia is not LinkedIn. Quis separabit? 20:08, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – Note that the article has been significantly copy edited after it was nominated for deletion. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:49, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete technically a WP:G5, as both creator and CSD-remover have been blocked for sockpuppetry, otherwise clearly promotional/vitale without proper reliable sourcing.--☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(ring-ring) 01:18, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I don't believe it qualifies for Speedy G5 -- the creator was not banned when the article was created. She became banned for actions after creating the article. -- Michael Scott Cuthbert (talk) 20:41, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You are correct, my bad. The article has been significantly improved from the initial version. The organisations which she started would need articles, especially for her politician role as she does not appear to be an elected/appointed politcal figure. The others could have sections under her article.--☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(ring-ring) 21:26, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As stated by others; this is not social media. 331dot (talk) 03:29, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep now that the page has been rewritten to be less promotional and by someone unaffiliated with this person. Kudos to Wikicology. 331dot (talk) 11:32, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for changing your vote to Keep. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 11:38, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There is little of any substance in the refs I can find, but lots of self promotion. - Arjayay (talk) 08:57, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Strong and snow Keep subject of the article meet WP:GNG per significant coverages in multiple independent reliable sources. We usually don't measure notability per sources provided in the article. Editors are expected to check if more reliable sources exist before considering a deletion. I found Independent Newspaper, The Latest News, Safari News, [Daily post, The Lead, Leadership newspaper, The Nation Newspaper, Leadership Newspaper, The Nation Newspaper, Leadership Newspaper, Ventures Africa, Leadership Newspaper, Vanguard Newspaper, CNN iReport, Vanguard News to mention few. I understand that the older version is shambolic but WP:AfD is not for cleanup and it is better to do this than to spend more time and energy on deletion discussion. I'm also aware of the obvious WP:COI but we can easily handle this. I will point the article creator to the relevant guidelines. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 11:38, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- iReport is not a reliable source. It should never be used in a BLP. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 14:21, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, IReport looks like a user-generated source to me and its usage on BLP may seem controversial but it's one of CNN's platform and only stories that are verified are approved for use on all CNN platform yet, I have no concern about its removal. Warm regards. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 15:18, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's not verified. These stories even say "not verified by CNN" on the page. It's an easy mistake to make, but you need to watch out for these hosted "citizen journalism" portals on news sites. They are typically posted verbatim without any editing or fact-checking. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 15:59, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 15:26, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 15:26, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 15:26, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 15:26, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Spirit Ethanol (talk) 12:51, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

speedy delete pre arguments above. Spirit Ethanol (talk) 12:52, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What arguments? This is not an helpful comment and I don't see how this is a policy-based comment neither do I see how this comment is relevant. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 13:00, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- Wikicology's findings (except iReport) all seem to hold up to GNG (not WP:PROF) and (as I commented above), Speedy delete G5 does not apply since user was not blocked when article was made. -- Michael Scott Cuthbert (talk) 20:41, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Ive been working on the article, Ive added more sources and information, the article right now is more neutral than its original edition, so I think it can be keep right now. The person seem to be a controversial figure, Ive found some posts in some websites saying she is a scammer and a fraud (but nothing credible so far), it might be a good idea to include a section in the article about these things. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Foxtros66 (talk • contribs) 16:36, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep including if it can be better improved. SwisterTwister talk 04:16, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, subject has coverage in tabloid media (newspapers), which are not reliable sources and perhaps not fully independent of the subject. Promotional article has no place in Wikipedia. Amitbanerji26 (talk) 15:46, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I wondered if you might be familiar with WP:RS. You may quickly want to read it, digest it, perhaps for one or two days, relax for another one day, then return here to review your vote. I also have concern about your understanding of WP:ADVERT and it's relationship with WP:BLP. Please familiarize yourself with basic policies and guidelines before commenting at WP:AfD. Kindly note that AfD is not a poling unit. Cheers.Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 16:10, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not a very WP:CIVIL comment. The sources in the article are quite non-WP:RS. A number of references have the exact same phrasing and rhetoric, and based on their "About Us" sections seem more pr-oriented than news. Her political party is non-notable (no article), and if so opposed to the current political makeup of the UK you'd think there would be a reference from that country. She's a PhD.. of what and from where? A professor at what university? We are encroaching upon a WP:FRINGEBLP without adequate sourcing.--☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(ring-ring) 01:10, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Loriendrew, the fact that a subject do not have an article on Wikipedia does not make it non-notable. There are millions of notable topics out there and the fact that someone have not written about them here does not simply means they're not notable. Looking at this thread, I don't see where anyone argued that she passes WP:ACADEMIC. She obviously meet WP:GNG per significant coverages in multiple independent reliable sources. I couldn't verify the claim of "Professorship" and I've removed it for now per WP:V. You said the sources provided are unreliable. How are they unreliable? Can you point out the unreliable sources in the article? Does the news outlets belongs to her? Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 04:40, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – The subject meets WP:BASIC per a review of available sources and those posted above by Wikicology. Furthermore, the article has been significantly copy edited after it was nominated for deletion. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:47, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Coverage now passes at least WP:BASIC, and in my opinion also WP:GNG, and the article re-write has toned down the promotional aspect, although it still needs more trimming. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 02:33, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I'm in agreement with much of the above arguments. The degree to which, as of right now, the article needs systematic cleaning up is troubling. Still, I think that the coverage that's been cited above as well as in the article itself push things past the hurdle of WP:GNG. There should be more eyes on the page, yes, but it shouldn't be deleted. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 07:18, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep- Although the article is still in need of work that should not take away from the fact that the subject of the article is worthy of a place in Wikipedia. It seems she is an important figure in Nigeria, and her many projects,talents and influence seem to make her notable and worthy of an article.192.126.83.36 (talk) 10:50, 11 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. Swarm ♠ 04:05, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Gordon Brody[edit]

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

Successful, yes, but I couldn't establish that he meets WP:BIO or WP:GNG. Boleyn (talk) 18:15, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Wisdom89 ^♦talk 19:27, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Wisdom89 ^♦talk 19:27, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete While this physician has been mentioned or quoted several times as a consulting or primary care physician in sports, there doesn't seem to be much to establish his overall notability. Much of it consists of one-liners or brief mentions. Wisdom89 ^♦talk 19:39, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as the current article is currently questionable for the applicable notability. SwisterTwister talk 05:48, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Casio. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:56, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Casio CTK-691[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Unsourced, no indication of notability. BoxOfChickens (talk · contribs · CSD/ProD log) 18:08, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:03, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:03, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:03, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect or delete to Casio this is simply unlikely independently notable. SwisterTwister talk 05:48, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Swarm ♠ 04:08, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Joan Harvey[edit]

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

I can't find any evidence that this meets WP:NACTOR or WP:GNG. It is confusing because a better-known actress shares her name, and she is pre-Internet. She was in 2 notable films, but if found non-notable, her links should be removed from them and this page should redirect to the other Joan Harvey, Joan Perry. Sending WP:APPNOTE to Wgolf, tagger and actual creator of article, Chris the speller. Boleyn (talk) 17:10, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 17:46, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. My contribution some years ago was to create a redirect IOT clear up some confusion, but rationale for deletion as non-notable is sound. – S. Rich (talk) 02:44, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no evidence her roles in the films is enough to establish notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:02, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as not yet better satisfying WP:CREATIVE. SwisterTwister talk 05:46, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was re-direct to Irinyi János Reformed Secondary School. They are clearly the same school based on the contents of the pages and the fact they were created by the same person. I don't see anything in the existing article or in the page history worth merging in, so a simple re-direct should do. CT Cooper · talk 21:10, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Irinyi János Reformed School[edit]

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

Seems to be the same institution as Irinyi János Reformed Secondary School. If someone could verify, this could be speedily deleted. PanchoS (talk) 17:07, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It is obviously the same school, but as a plausible search term, it should become a redirect, not deleted. Since a page nominated at AfD cannot be blanked, I am pinging an admin with the school project to close this and redirect it. Ping CT Cooper. John from Idegon (talk) 18:41, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Spartaz ^Humbug! 11:39, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Droon[edit]

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

Article topic lacks significant coverage from reliable, independent sources. (?) It had no meaningful hits in a custom Google search of reliable music sources. There are no worthwhile redirect targets. If someone finds more (non-English and offline) sources, please ((ping)) me. czar 22:48, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. czar 22:48, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nothing better convincing yet. SwisterTwister talk 06:41, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 17:06, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:53, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Charles Rollings[edit]

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

WP:BLP of a writer, which does little more than assert that he exists, and sources it only to his "our authors" page on the website of his own publisher. A writer does not automatically become entitled to a Wikipedia article just because his existence can be verified in primary sources; rather, reliable source coverage must be present to support a claim of notability that passes WP:AUTHOR. Delete, without prejudice against future recreation if his sourceability improves. Bearcat (talk) 21:57, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As the stub creator, I noted that Rollings's books are cited in at least ten WP articles on POW subjects, meriting some more information on him. However, I respect both the objection and the AfD outcome. Bjenks (talk) 02:00, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Not even any minimal signs of WP:CREATIVE notability. SwisterTwister talk 05:56, 3 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 17:06, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no indication he comes anywhere near to reaching the level of notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:54, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:53, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

V. Mahadevan[edit]

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

Tamil actor who does not appear notable. The article is entirely unsourced and in trying to source it, I cannot find any record of his acting in any of the films listed, of dying in 2014 etc. This is all quite recent so some indication should be findable. Some Tamil sources may exist, but I can't find them. Happy Squirrel (talk) 19:14, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 19:58, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as not currently better satisfying WP:CREATIVE. SwisterTwister talk 05:54, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 05:54, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 17:05, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails Wikipedia:Actor and WP:NM. JackTracker (talk) 20:22, 8 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. It's unclear where the content should be merged. In any case, the expansion of an acronym is not copyrightable so we don't need to keep the history around, and anyone should feel free to add it to the appropriate list and create a redirect to the list. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:51, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

AFAICS[edit]

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

Just a definition which violates WP:DICT. There's not really anything written about the saying like when it was coined for example and Wiktionary already has a page for it. Jackninja5 (talk) 06:04, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:45, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:45, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mkdw ^talk 06:09, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a stub that can never be expanded. Legacypac (talk) 06:15, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep/merge into a page such as Glossary of Internet-related terms. Andrew D. (talk) 13:28, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and merge to another page as mentioned above. SwisterTwister talk 03:42, 3 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 16:50, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect and Merge as above. --Mr. Magoo (talk) 02:56, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Dictionary definition that is already present on Wiktionary. Not a technical term in any way, so I don't see what purpose it serves on the Glossary of Internet-related terms. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 14:32, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect or merge as appropriate to some list/glossary, such as List of acronyms: A. I don't know exactly what the best target is, but this is just a dictionary definition. A soft redirect to Wiktionary would be alright, too, especially if we can't figure out the best place to redirect it. I'm not opposed to deletion, but I think a soft redirect to Wiktionary would be better. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 14:41, 4 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 Iron Chef America. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:48, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Iron Chef America Countdown[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Iron Chef America Countdown

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

non-notable show, seems to fail WP:GNG, edit: Not a lot of sources found online, the premise of the show seems to be that it uses clips previously found in Iron Chef America. Prisencolin (talk) 00:51, 20 January 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 January 20. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 01:17, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Show appears to have been featured on major television station for full season. These should pass GNG. Sourcing is need though. Valoem ^talk ^contrib 04:06, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk) 13:26, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:39, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:39, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mkdw ^talk 06:05, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I do not see how this can possibly be regarded as having independent notability from the main show. DGG ( talk ) 01:48, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete if needed but certainly Redirect to the main show as this still need applicably connected to the original show. SwisterTwister talk 02:06, 3 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 16:50, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Iron Chef America Yes, it had a full season, but it's literally just a re-compiliation series like How It's Made Remix where older episodes are re-cut to feature certain themes. Alone this is pretty much non-notable time filler. Nate • (chatter) 19:03, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Iron Chef America, which presently has no mention of this content in it. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:12, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Spartaz ^Humbug! 11:45, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Faizan Aslam Soofi[edit]

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

Relisting from incorrect use of CSD, article lacks explanation of notability or significance, is very vague, and lacks useful encyclopedic content. Scientific Alan 2 ^{(What have I said?)}^{(What have I done?)} 08:57, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. clpo13_(talk) 09:01, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. clpo13_(talk) 09:01, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep The subject is a very young author, but there appears to be sufficient coverage, albeit low, of their early works to fulfill WP:GNG here. I've made some initial improvements to the article to reflect that coverage. The main claim to notability is the young author bit, but there is more coverage beyond that. I, JethroBT ^{drop me a line} 09:59, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. clpo13_(talk) 07:02, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:07, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No evidence of notability for the author, of a single non-notable book. Being a promising very young author makes for posible notability--in the future. DGG ( talk ) 06:57, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete with nothing currently better for WP:CREATIVE. SwisterTwister talk 07:05, 3 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 16:49, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NAUTHOR. Has written only one non notable book and is upcoming at best a case of WP:TOOSOON. Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 17:13, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:47, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Internecine (film)[edit]

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

Non-notable, unreleased short film with zero coverage. Blackguard 08:04, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk) 13:22, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk) 13:22, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Delete per being at kindest TOO SOON for this short student film to have an article. If or when it is released and gets coverage, the topic can be revisited. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 11:52, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:06, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 16:49, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per MichaelQSchmidt. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 07:47, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete at best for now until a better article is available. SwisterTwister talk 06:38, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. WP:NPASR. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:47, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Vetta[edit]

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

The article was first created by a sockpuppet of a blocked user and did not contain a single reliable source. I PRODded it, and it was deleted. Within days, a close paraphrase of a deletion version was recreated, with four sources. One of them is reliable and contains the mere mention of the film (the director gives an interview about smth else, and mentions in passing that he shot this film as well). IMO this does not create notability. Ymblanter (talk) 12:50, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk) 13:04, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk) 13:05, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Those things I was not aware of that. I am currently working on Mohanlal filmography, and I saw a red linked film title, so I created its article. That source you mentioned atleast tell us the film exists. Inside the Valley (talk) 14:53, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Quick note that this isn't a close paraphrase; both the deleted version and the currently existing version merely list a bunch of important facts, e.g. who's playing what role, in what's basically the only way to list these facts. Nyttend (talk) 04:42, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There are no coverage for this old movie. But the actors are notable.--Inside the Valley (talk) 09:11, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:38, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

some alt searches:

English:(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)

writer:(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)

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

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

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

WP:INDAFD: "Vetta Movie"

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 16:49, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Single-serving site. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:44, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

List of Single-Serving Sites[edit]

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

Blatant violation of WP:NOTDIR Nathan2055^{talk - contribs} 18:30, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:05, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:04, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a completely trivial list of absolutely no encyclopedic value, if I understand correctly. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:05, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
If these websites had Wikipedia articles, then a list of internal links to those articles might be appropriate. But lists on Wikipedia are a tool for helping to find articles that exist on Wikipedia, not directories of offlinks to other websites. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 19:42, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Single-serving site. Biscuittin (talk) 19:17, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I was actually about to begin creating internal links instead of URL's when I saw the Deletion notice. Of the 17 listings, 2 (Zombo.com and Purple.com) have pages, which is definitely small enough to Merge into Single-serving site. Supernerd11 _{Firemind ^_^ Pokedex} 13:19, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 16:33, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Single-serving site per Supernerd. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 05:49, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as this seems best. SwisterTwister talk 03:18, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 16:49, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Single-serving site, which will provide specific examples at the merge target article. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:15, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Single-serving site per arguments above. While I call bullshit about this list being trivial, the list is too short to be its own page. edtiorEهեইдအီးËეεઈדוארई電子ಇអ៊ី전자ഇī😎 01:31, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:44, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

TCO-Vidéo[edit]

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

Maybe spam, as no references, no notabilities? 333 -blue 14:29, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Belgium-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:34, 2 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 16:48, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see how this would be spam, but unless some sources turn up quickly, I recommend deletion for failing the verifiability policy. A web search turns up nothing, so sources will probably have to be of the good old dead-tree kind. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 14:34, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as there are no signs of a better notable article. SwisterTwister talk 22:11, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Spartaz ^Humbug! 11:48, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Graciela Yataco[edit]

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

WP:1E, pretty much a fork of Virginity auction anyways Prisencolin (talk) 20:56, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. sst ✈ 05:46, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Peru-related deletion discussions. sst ✈ 05:46, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:13, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 16:44, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Unlikely notable for her own article, no further information to convince. SwisterTwister talk 19:19, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 16:48, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or redirect to Virginity auction. WP:BLP1E. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 14:36, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:44, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Kleeneze[edit]

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

Tagged for notability since 2014. I added some references & another editor added more "citation needed" tags for which I can't find any RS. Discussed on talk page as not meeting Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies) & GNG. — Rod ^talk 18:37, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Evidence of notability is absent, as I outlined on Talk page here.[16]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:55, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:55, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:55, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:55, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Questionably notable company as, from what it seems, it's only a locally known and operating company, unlikely to have considerable coverage aside from the expected. SwisterTwister talk 05:26, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to CVSL, its parent company since Oct. 2015. Notable, with sufficient secondary coverage from WP:RS, but no longer worth keeping as a second article. NeemNarduni2 (talk) 11:59, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 16:35, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to CVSL per NeemNarduni2, seems most appropriate. Winner 42 Talk to me! 21:51, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Kleeneze is more notable and has more history than CVSL. Peter James (talk) 17:25, 1 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 16:48, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, it has reliable sources not included in the page. There are a lot of controversies which makes company notable, research in detail and add to the page. Ireneshih (talk) 06:30, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was snow keep. (non-admin closure) Esquivalience ^t 01:05, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

List of Pakistan women International footballers[edit]

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

should be merged with Pakistan women's national football team —OluwaCurtis »» (talk to me) 16:01, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. —OluwaCurtis »» (talk to me) 16:01, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. —OluwaCurtis »» (talk to me) 16:01, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. —OluwaCurtis »» (talk to me) 16:01, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Qed237 (talk) 16:10, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

~~Speedy Redirect~~ Keep — Pakistan women's national football team already had a section for the current team. I made a typical team template and updated it with the other players from the article in question. --Mr. Magoo (talk) 16:33, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Over time this list will get longer and longer. I see no problem with having the list separate to the main article (this is actually quite common, as you can see by the contents of Category:Lists of association football players by national team. Number 5 7 16:42, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent point, hadn't thought of such a use for the article. I was only looking at it from the perspective of it being the list of the national team. --Mr. Magoo (talk) 16:58, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - notable topic deserving of an article. Giant Snowman 18:05, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Lists of International footballers both Men and Women are notable.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 18:18, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A list of any people (male or female) playing at the top level for their country is notable. The article looks a mess, but it easily passes the notability threshold for a stand-alone list. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 19:08, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete as a hoax. I've opened up a new SPI case and I'll block the article creators. I've also protected the page to prevent further attempts to create an article about the hoax book. If someone wants to create a book about Watkins's book and can create an article that establishes notability, I'll remove the page protections. I've also salted the page for "author" since that's related to the sockpuppetry case. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 07:13, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Gratitude and the Good Life: Toward a Psychology of Appreciation[edit]

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

Not enough coverage in independent, reliable sources to verify or sustian article. Fails Wikipedia's General Notability Guidelines and WP:NBOOK. Note: This is not the book Gratitude and the Good Life: Toward a Psychology of Appreciation by Philip C. Watkins which is a textbook published by Springer in 2014 and is not about evolution. This article was CSD in December as well [17]. Jbh ^Talk 15:51, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Jbh ^Talk 15:55, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 16:03, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The book is real [18] but doesn't seem to meet NBOOK or any other relevant notability guideline. Note that article about author was speedy deleted last month as a hoax. Everymorning (talk) 16:07, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Good find. That book is "funny" (Not ha ha funny either). It looks like they took the title from the Springer book and came up with the author by copy/past from Cleveland P. Hickman Jr. (Who seems to be a legitimate author [19] but not of a book of this title.) but got the last name, first name switched about and came up with Hickman Jr. Cleveland P.. I think hoax may be a kind word for it. Jbh ^Talk 16:24, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. This is a hoax. I took a look around and found the book at Amazon, however a search using some of the sentences shows that it's clearly the Philip C. Watkins book lifted wholesale. I'll alert Springer to this since this is clear theft. The "author" tries to get away with it by citing Watkins, but the book's info gives off the impression that the author is someone else. Now what firmly pegs this as a hoax is the name "Javad Ramezani" on Amazon. This sounded familiar and sure enough, it's associated with User:جواد رمضانی شوراب, who has created multiple sockpuppets. One of his hallmarks is trying to copy stuff from other places and pass it off as Ramezani's work. In this case they decided to try to get around this by stealing someone's scientific work. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 07:04, 4 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. Consensus finds the subject is insufficiently notable for inclusion as an independent article. Some users have expressed that the content is still valuable and could be merged into another article and the consensus has no bearing on this. If someone would like to take the initiative to merge the content, I will gladly userfy it upon request. Swarm ♠ 04:16, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

List of international goals scored by Gonzalo Higuaín[edit]

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

Just like footballer João Vieira Pinto, who had List of international goals scored by João Vieira Pinto deleted after Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of international goals scored by João Vieira Pinto, there is no indication as to why this particular player deserves a list. Just scoring international goals is not enough for notability. Qed237 (talk) 15:49, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Qed237 (talk) 15:51, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 18:05, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per the previous AfD noted above, the same arguments apply. This player, although notable in himself does not hold a scoring record for his country and so there is no clear reason why the contents such a list might be inherently notable. Furthermore, I see no evidence that his international scoring prowess has been the subject of specific, significant coverage of the level to satisfy GNG. Fenix down (talk) 09:17, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per GiantSnowman & Qed237 C. Ronaldo Aveiro (talk) 17:44, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Merge data should be either kept in independent article or merged with parent article. Either way the material should not be discarded. Inter&anthro (talk) 05:06, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Gonzalo Higuaín per GA-class articles on similar topics which include this data, e.g. Nikola Žigić, Patrik Berger and so on. C 679 13:40, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:11, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Jake and the Never Land Pirates. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 23:34, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jake's Buccaneer Blast[edit]

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

Erm, so... is there a reason why a Lego Duplo series needs its own article? Describing this "Jake's Buccaneer Blast" in Jake and the Never Land Pirates or an article for Lego Duplo in general would probably be a better idea. Zeke Essiestudy (talk) 14:44, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Jake and the Never Land Pirates. I don't see how this mini-cartoon is worthy of a full article. A redirect to the main page (where there is a mention of it in the Spinoff section) would be ideal. RickinBaltimore (talk) 14:51, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect Episodes already listed at List of Jake and the Never Land Pirates episodes#Jake's Buccaneer Blast. I first thought about merge but not sure if there's anything worth even mentioning here. --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 14:57, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - I'm sure there's a Legopedia that could use this, not notable here. - SummerPhD^v2.0 16:21, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. Created by blocked user Anonymousbananas in violation of his block. Vanjagenije (talk) 14:13, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Classfever[edit]

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

Appears to be reasonably well-sourced at first glance, but upon closer examination of the sources, I see that nearly all of them appear to be user-submission based (e.g.,links such as "Tell Us Your Story!" "Get featured on this site!" No solid independent coverage from sources with any sort of notability or clear independent reporting (e.g., Time of India, The Hindu, etc.) OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 14:11, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There was a claim that it's among the 100 000 most popular websites in India (which isn't a merit in itself), but I looked and Alexa gave the number 120,107. The "Total Sites Linking In" is also extremely low at 9. --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 14:23, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Swarm ♠ 04:18, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Tiffany McElroy[edit]

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

Delete: utterly non-notable local TV personality. Joke of an article. She's even less notable than her boyfriend, referenced in the article. Quis separabit? 13:33, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I tried coming up with something to say for 4 minutes but I couldn't come up with anything. I guess I'll just agree. --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 13:52, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Lack of the adequate notability. Arashtitan 14:38, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Local news presenter, but not much after that. RickinBaltimore (talk) 15:18, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedily deleted by User:Bbb23 under criterion A7. (Non-admin closure) "Pepper" @ 05:43, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ayudar Foundation[edit]

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

Not enough coverage in independent, reliable sources to verify or sustian article. Fails Wikipedia's general notability guidelines and WP:NORG. Several mentions in non-profit listings and one passing mention but otherwise I am unable to find any coverage of this organization in RS. Jbh ^Talk 13:19, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Jbh ^Talk 13:20, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Colombia-related deletion discussions. Jbh ^Talk 13:20, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

delete fails WP:ORG. Almost a speedy. LibStar (talk) 15:02, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete, WP:CSD#A7. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 14:39, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment tagged ((db-a7)) Jbh ^Talk 15:29, 4 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. Swarm ♠ 04:19, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Inverse Records[edit]

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

Not enough coverage in independent, reliable sources to verify or sustian article. Fails Wikipedia's general notability guidelines and WP:NORG. Social media and passing mentions in album released. No actual coverage of the company. Jbh ^Talk 13:10, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Jbh ^Talk 13:12, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Jbh ^Talk 13:12, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for failing WP:CORPDEPTH. Note that most of the blue links in the list of bands are actually links to general concepts, not band articles. The few that are not are based typically on MySpace, Facebook, and maybe a single record review, giving little hope of finding good material for writing an article about the record label. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 14:43, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, clearly fails WP:CORPDEPTH and it is too soon for the page at this time. Ireneshih (talk) 06:24, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Withdrawn by nominator. (non-admin closure) | Uncle Milty | talk | 23:55, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jennifer Barrientos[edit]

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

Person that did not place in Miss Universe 2008 and though fails WP:NBIO guidelines. ApprenticeFan ^work 13:01, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:51, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:51, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:51, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

preliminary Keep. We seem to have all the successive title-holders of the national title even if they did not place internationally, and we should be consistent. Has there been any general discussion? DGG ( talk ) 07:22, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, sst✈^(conjugate) 12:53, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment per DGG. We don't have any significant coverage after her post-pageant loss and no present notability. I may sustain to either redirect to Binibining Pilipinas 2008 or delete. ApprenticeFan ^work 13:07, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -Reliable source added.--Jondel (talk) 13:48, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Withdraw this nomination for now, as Jondel said, this reliable source was added by that user above meets with WP:NOTABILITY guidelines. ApprenticeFan ^work 15:47, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:40, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

N Mohamed Yahssir[edit]

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

Fails WP:CREATIVE. Has won some minor competitions but not enough to pass Gbawden (talk) 11:00, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. clpo13_(talk) 18:23, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. clpo13_(talk) 18:23, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as not yet satisfying WP:CREATIVE. SwisterTwister talk 00:52, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, sst✈^(conjugate) 12:52, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I too do not see how any of the criteria under WP:CREATIVE are being met here. I also note that the listing of awards for several of the films do not always apply to the subject (e.g., a Best Acting award or nomination for a film in which the subject did not act, but performed some other function). NewYorkActuary (talk) 21:15, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy deleted, CSD A7: Article about a real person, which does not credibly indicate the importance or significance of the subject, and salted. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 17:35, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew Almánza[edit]

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

No assertion of adequate notability. Not enough coverage in independent, reliable sources to verify or sustian article. Fails general notability guidelines, WP:NACTOR. After removing all of the citations to Instagram, torrent sites, blogs etc there was nothing left. Bit actor with bit parts. Jbh ^Talk 12:30, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Jbh ^Talk 12:32, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Jbh ^Talk 12:32, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Jbh ^Talk 12:32, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oregon-related deletion discussions. Jbh ^Talk 12:32, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Is it going to be deleted?166.176.184.76 (talk) 13:32, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Likely so. Wikipedia requires that the subjects of articles be notable by Wikipedia standards. You can read our General Notability Guidelines and the specific guidelines for actors to see what that means. In general there must be significant coverage in independent, third party, reliable sources. Not blogs, not Instagram, not IMDB but rather newspapers, magazines, books etc. Even in those cases the articles must be independent to the subject, not PR pieces or from their agent etc.

I could find nothing like that for this person but if you can find good sources that meet our requirements then the article could be kept. This AfD will run for at least a week so you have some time if you want to improve the article.

Also, please do not link to torrent sites, download sites etc. It is not permitted. Thank you. Jbh ^Talk 13:41, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There will be discussion here for a week before a decision can be made. Ged UK 13:43, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

His name was in each of those references for The Librarians and Mystery Diners166.176.184.76 (talk) 13:50, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per yesterday's AfD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Andrew Philip Almanza. Nothing has changed since then. /wiae /tlk 13:51, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for that link. Tagged for WP:CSD#G4. Jbh ^Talk 14:06, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Swarm ♠ 04:19, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Adarsh Commercial Institute[edit]

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

Previously a WP:PROD by User:Boleyn with rationale "Doesn't meet WP:ORG or WP:GNG. Not worth redirect to town (which has over 3 million people and no mention of this institution in article)". I endorsed the Prod with rationale "No evidence found that this typing training enterprise is notable.". The article creator has challenged the Prod without explanation or addressing the issues, so I am now bringing this to WP:AFD on the same reason as before. AllyD (talk) 12:00, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete doesn't meet WP:ORG or WP:GNG, no valid redirect/merge target. I put the original prod, it's a shame it was removed without a reason being given but hopefully the creator will explain here how they think this meets WP:ORG or WP:GNG. Boleyn (talk) 12:08, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination and per Boleyn. Small school of typing and shorthand, with no coverage in English online from WP:RS. If the name shown is actually translation from Hindi, then some WP:RS might be found. NeemNarduni2 (talk) 13:03, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as this is questionable for the applicable notability. SwisterTwister talk 03:08, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Swarm ♠ 04:20, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

GunBeat[edit]

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

Not a single source, not notable. Soetermans. T / C 10:35, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Notability is not a comprehensive reason for deletion, but it lacks reference and as a cancelled game for a niche video game console/arcade system it fails WP:V. --Eduemoni ^↑talk↓ 12:01, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as failing WP:GNG with no reliable independent in-depth sources, such as WP:VG/RS. I can locate 1 non-trivial source in Strana Igr [20]. There are other hits [21], Edge #60 passing mention, Retro short mention, but nothing substantial. Unlikely that there is anything more. At best, a paragraph or two in the parent/company's article. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 15:26, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 05:43, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Not yet solidly notable. SwisterTwister talk 05:43, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:39, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Building Engineering Services Association[edit]

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

per WP:GNG and WP:NCORP. I couldn't find any sources that meet the standards required of WP:RS (and hence WP:GNG) Kavdiamanju (talk) 08:45, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

can you please explain why this is up for deletion? The Association (which has been around since 1904) is well documented and is a major player in the UK specialist contractor sector in the construction industry. It has changed its name, removing the "and", so I created a new page and copied it across. The name change is verified here: http://www.coolingpost.com/uk-news/bes-becomes-besa/

I guess the same result would happen by changing the name of the original page Building and Engineering Services Association by removing the " and " text. I don't know how to do that, so help to change the title would be appreciated. user:sourswoken

This is a title fork of Building and Engineering Services Association. Delete the [not and] fork and move the [and] article to the [non and] title. —teb728 t c 09:43, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This can be done without admin rights. You just paste the redirect text over the old one. I just did it. Apparently you had done it too, but someone had apparently undone you because "Blanking page instead of moving article and keeping the history intact". I have no idea what the person meant by that. Moving a page just creates a new copy article with the new name and then pastes the move text over the old one. It can be done manually as well. --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 10:36, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep The old page now a redirect and the multiple citations from it added to this one. --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 10:54, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
comment It appears that a number of the contributors to this mess don't understand that attribution must be maintained (see Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia), and that a cut-and-paste move is a copyright violation, which is why a move should be done by the move function, rather than by cut-and-paste. I have no comment on the notability question. - David Biddulph (talk) 11:55, 3 February 2016 (UTC

Administrator note I have deleted the copyright violation, moved the original page to this title and replaced the AfD message. Please continue to discuss whether the article is able to meet Wikipedia's article guidelines and policies. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 12:29, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment (I'm aware the article was moved while I was writing this, but figured I could still comment on that part of the whole mess) As the person who reverted the change to the original page - I was about to move the original page to the new name for the reason David Biddulph has already mentioned above (I would have moved the new page to another name first and then requested a speedy deletion for it), but by that time, the new page had already been marked for deletion, and I didn't want to mess with it. That's why I at least restored the orignal article... Not sure why some seem to think that was the wrong thing to do? KungAvSand (talk) 12:37, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What you did was OK. it was others who were confused. - David Biddulph (talk) 12:44, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I apologize for the mistake, but I hope you noticed he had made some additions and changes to the page? Because I can't see those anymore. --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 12:42, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The page was deleted at the author's request (he placed a PROD on it asking for it to be deleted to make way for a move) as well as the copyright violation. That request will include other edits he made. Regardless of any addition, the page remained an unambiguous copyright violation and would still be deleted on that basis. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 13:03, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, perfectly clear, I were just wondering/making sure admins don't have some special access to deleted bits. --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 13:13, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep The BESA is a long-established industry organisation. The apparent lack of reliable sources to meet WP:GNG is perhaps largely explained by the change of name from the HVCA in 2012 and then the recent tweak to its name to drop the ampersand. I've made some edits and added some citations to expand the pre-BESA history. Paul W (talk) 13:47, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:52, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep This association is one of the largest in the specialist engineering sector. It seems the deletion was marked simply because of a misunderstanding on the page name change - copy /paste to new page, rather than a move. The deletion would then have allowed the move to take place. Since the move has now happened, the deletion notice should be removed. Nextraterly (talk) 10:21, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:38, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Siddy Says[edit]

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

Unnotable blog. Ana r chyte 08:02, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Anarchyte (work | talk) 06:12, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Anarchyte (work | talk) 06:12, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as none of the current article and its coverage better satisfies the applicable notability. SwisterTwister talk 03:16, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, sst✈^(conjugate) 08:29, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete On Alexa it says 80% of the visitors are from Pakistan yet even then its rank in Pakistan is 18,087th most popular. I looked at the history and the three main editors were Foha, Aloochi and AreeshZee. All editors of only this article... Funnily enough the website second most commonly linking to Siddy Says is the wiki section of "wow.com": http://us.wow.com/wiki/Jawani_Phir_Nahi_Ani — someone has put up a review of the movie by Siddy Says at the bottom, next to magazines (dawn.com is ranked 30 in Pakistan). The content is particular is just taken from Wikipedia, but apparently Wikipedia isn't the target of traffic for people interested in this movie. --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 10:13, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was snow keep. (non-admin closure) Esquivalience ^t 01:24, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jiggles[edit]

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

There is nothing of note here for a worldwide encyclopedia. overage is basically limited to local press about the efforts to get rid of this establishment. I bet the locals have even forgotten about this topic already. Legacypac (talk) 08:25, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oregon-related deletion discussions. Musa^Talk ☻ 09:33, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Musa^Talk ☻ 09:33, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The nominator is wrong. There are multiple sources from across the US. Meets GNG. – Jonesey95 (talk) 14:46, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP and speedy close. GNG is clearly met in this case -- even if coverage is basically limited to local press (which is not the case, as a cursory search reveals.) Be careful to note that this is not a case of NOTNEWS, but that Jiggles' existing notability was made greater following the death and the demolishing. Its very being a noteworthy establishment in Oregon for thirty years is of note. Yes, more could be done to shift the attention away from the recent news and things such as its history could be beefed up, and prettify the game slightly, but that is definitely not grounds for deletion. Kingoflettuce (talk) 14:55, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per GNG. There are plenty of sources discussing the history of this establishment. In addition to the sources already incorporated into the article, there are more posted on the talk page and more to be found. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 15:42, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It is a now demolished single location strip club in Tualatin, Oregon population 26,000... seriously? How does it meet WP:CORPDEPTH? I only found it because this article is camped over an English word that came up in RfD. Legacypac (talk) 00:34, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oregon strip clubs can be notable:

Mary's Club,

Three Sisters Tavern. I realize pointing to other articles does not help establish notability, but I think the Jiggles article could be expanded to similar quality. ----Another Believer _(Talk) 04:50, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

See also WP:DEFUNCTS and WP:NTEMP. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:27, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep due to widespread coverage including Hawaii, UK, ABC news, Oregon Supreme Court, and a dictionary(?). —EncMstr (talk) 07:34, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – There's plenty of note here for Wikipedia, because the topic passes WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:GNG. Note that per WP:NEXIST, "notability is based on the existence of suitable sources, not on the state of sourcing in an article". North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:23, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – There is no requirement for world-wide notability (if there was, Wikipedia would be trimmed to only a few thousand articles), and the coverage passes GNG. WP:CORPDEPTH really only means you need more sources, not to mention the articles are not exactly all trivial. Plus, per WP:BEFORE did the nominator search for sources? That is required before listing at AfD. Aboutmovies (talk) 06:35, 5 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 and redirect to Bratz discography. Swarm ♠ 04:20, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Show Me What You Got (Bratz album)[edit]

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

Non-notable album receiving little to no coverage in any reliable sources. Found at AllMusic, Amazon, Discogs, YouTube but no coverage. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 08:04, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Musa^Talk ☻ 09:36, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Musa^Talk ☻ 09:36, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

REDIRECT to Bratz discography. Entirely non-notable guff.TheLongTone (talk) 13:42, 4 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 article's subject is found to be notable. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 22:02, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Battalion 1944[edit]

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

WP:GNG Non-notable dev, publisher, producer, it's just another kickstarter. superβεεcat 07:54, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This game is more than "just another kickstarter". It meets notability guidelines and has been covered by major industry analysts like IGN, Kotaku, GameSpot, and others. If it was "just another kickstarter", it wouldn't be closing in on 100k raised in under 24 hours. It has quickly developed a cult following and many people are looking for information on it across social media, and asking questions. I couldn't believe there wasn't yet an article on it. Idealist343 (talk) 07:59, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video games-related deletion discussions. Musa^Talk ☻ 09:37, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I understand the case against this game having its own article. The reason I created the article is because of the sheer response it has gotten across social media platforms and the amount of coverage it has received. All you have to do is look at the news coverage by using the hyperlink above and you will see what I mean. When someone wants to know what this game is all about, there should be a page on Wikipedia that can explain it to them. Idealist343 (talk) 21:35, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Idealist343, that someone might want to know what this game is about is not a reason to keep an article. The fact that sources have reported on it are. --Soetermans. T / C 21:47, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Right, I understand that, I was just elaborating on the fact that Wikipedia's larger purpose is to provide reliable information on things. That was how I came to create the article, because I could not find said information already here. Idealist343 (talk) 21:53, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
As you can see, I think the article has a reason to stay, but are there more sources that can be added? --Soetermans. T / C 22:00, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
There are a ton of sources and coverage. It is just picking and choosing which to use at this point. I am at work at the moment, but I just added another source on my break. Idealist343 (talk) 22:03, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The fact that the developer is not notable and that "it's just another kickstarter" shouldn't have to matter: notibility is proven by reliable sources. --Soetermans. T / C 21:46, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Obviously. But if the dev or programmer WAS notable, proving notability would be more or less trivial. A kickstarter is often WP:Crystal because the game isn't released, it's simply announced, and may be vaporware. Notability isn't temporary. The kickstarter itself would have to be notable. A lot of gaming press on the Internet produces an article for nearly every kickstarter that hits a reasonable amount of funding, but I'm not convinced that press quite meets WP:GNG, which is why I brought it to AfD. - superβεεcat 22:08, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

But are there not multitudes of articles for games, including many by independent developers that are made pre-release depending on the amount of press? Idealist343 (talk) 22:13, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, there are. I was just unconvinced of this particular one's notability, given the sources and coverage. Also, pre-release isn't the same as a kickstarter, which are notorious for producing vaporware, even on well funded projects. If THAT becomes a story, so be it. superβεεcat 22:16, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Superbeecat does have a point though, we have to keep WP:CRYSTAL in mind. I'll try to go over the sources. --Soetermans. T / C 22:18, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

My defense would be that there are precedents that had a lot less reliable sources and a lot less coverage than this. Tuesday morning, when people went to their favorite video game industry website, whether it be Kotaku, IGN, GameSpot, or what have you, they saw this game on the front page. Does that not make it inherently notable by definition? Idealist343 (talk) 22:21, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I also would go back to your original point. The sheer amount of reliable sources should be sufficient. Idealist343 (talk) 22:23, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

All fair points, except that a reliable source is only half the equation. To answer you question "Does that not make it inherently notable by definition?" No. Not at all. The coverage itself is also important. When you read the sources, they are basically repeating the announcement, and not really "covering" anything, because there is nothing to cover yet. WP:Crystal states in part "Until such time that more encyclopedic knowledge about the product can be verified, product announcements should be merged to a larger topic (such as an article about the creator(s), a series of products, or a previous product) if applicable. Speculation and rumor, even from reliable sources, are not appropriate encyclopedic content." (emphasis mine). Until there is anything tangible, the coverage of an announcement is just speculation, as far as I can see. superβεεcat 22:26, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Remember Notability is not temporary. If this was vaporware and dissolved today, would it still warrant an article? If yes, then keep, if no, then don't keep. superβεεcat 22:29, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

See you just said it though. It is half the equation. And that half it passes with flying colors. The other half is based on the assumption it may fail, which isn't likely considering it has almost reached its goal in just over 24 hours. I will stick by the fact that there are precedent video game articles that have had much less and based on much more rumor that have stayed. This game has plenty of reliable sources backing it up and as far as the other half of the equation, it could go either way, but we can better assume it will succeed than fail, but like I said, that should be irrelevant when taking into consideration the reliable sources reporting on it which will make people recognize (i.e. notablity) what it is. I stick by the fact that there has been many video game articles with much less kept. Idealist343 (talk) 22:39, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

But that's not how wikipedia (or kickstarter) work. It's not an ASSUMPTION that it may fail, until it is released, it DEFINITELY may fail, as hundreds upon hundreds of fully funded kickstarters do. Sometimes devs take the money and run. Sometimes everyone buys strippers (this just happened). Sometimes they just never finish a project. This product is in Pre-Alpha. You said yourself "it could go either way" - this is a SPECIFIC violation of WP:CRYSTAL. If something can go either way, it is speculation, until it actually goes either way. Let me put it this way, if it DOES fail, would you advocate keeping the article? superβεεcat 22:48, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

But either way, it is still making an assumption. Here is what we know right now with no assumptions: This game has been announced by a team of developers. It is a game that IS being made and already nearing Alpha. It is covered by reliable sources (multitudes of them) and it is already almost across its threshold goal on Kickstarter. That is 10x more than many preceding articles based on announced video games have had, and they have been kept. Idealist343 (talk) 22:55, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That simply is not how Wikipedia works. PLEASE read WP:CRYSTAL. IF the outcome is unknown (HOWEVER PROBABLE) it is speculation. The number of sources for other articles is entirely irrelevant, see Wikipedia:Other stuff exists. Every kickstarter known to man could have an article, and it still wouldn't have any bearing here. What you are advocating is a reversal of WP:CRYSTAL. It is an important policy. Not defenses to crystal: "But other articles..." "But it has made a lot of money and will probably exist..." "But the sources are good...". Notability cannot be temporary. That means that NO MATTER WHAT HAPPENS, whether the kickstarter goes as planned, or not, the topic has to be good. This is NOT speculation, this is the opposite of speculation. superβεεcat 23:04, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It also says to include it if it is almost certain to happen. This is almost certain to happen. Do you not concede that? It has almost reached its goal in 24 hours and is already nearing alpha. There has been much less allowed. Idealist343 (talk) 23:09, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

For video games specifically, there's WP:VG/RS. Gamerassault is not on there, I'd remove that one. Reliable sources like GamesRadar, VG247, VideoGamer.com and HardcoreGamer did mention it. The last one specifically said "Bulkhead Interactive, a studio comprised of former AAA developers and modders", but their official website doesn't have any information. On Kickstarter the game is doing pretty good so far. I wouldn't call this "speculation and rumor", as the game was actually announced. Okay, all in all, with all those RS'es mentioning Battallion 1944, I still say keep. --Soetermans. T / C 22:34, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm. Isn't every game on Kickstarter "announced"? I do agree, there is probably more than trivial coverage here at this point... but I'm still having trouble with the permanence of Notability. Many hundreds (thousands?) of fully funded kickstarters never go on to produce products, despite coverage. How do we rationalize the litmus test of permanence (i.e. even if this is vaporware and disappears today, it's still a good article) with a product that may yet never come to be without violating wp:crystal? Is every piece of vaporware notable if the product announcement was covered? (I'm willing to listen if the answer is yes... maybe kickstarted vaporware IS notable if it had decent coverage...). superβεεcat 22:43, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not every game on Kickstarter receives this amount of coverage, either. Idealist343 (talk) 22:44, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - It is also worth nothing that this is not from some random studio that just popped up there first kickstarter campaign. This is a new studio, yes, but it is compromised of almost exclusively former AAA developers. Idealist343 (talk) 22:55, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That could be useful. Do any of these Devs have articles? superβεεcat 22:57, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That is what I plan on researching as soon as I get home tonight. It is all I can do to contribute to this conversation right now on my tablet. I am at work. But yes I plan on trying to locate some tonight. Idealist343 (talk) 22:59, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Here's an example for ya. One of the most spectacular kickstarter failures was Yogventures. It made over half a million (DOUBLE what it was asking). in 2012. It was cancelled in 2014, despite massive backing and being tied to the massively popular Yogscast. THAT game, even though it is often mentioned as one of the most spectacular failures in kickstarter history, has NO article. The relevant paragraph is on the Yogscast page. It had FAR, far, far, more coverage than Battalion. I'd probably fight to GET an article for the game, as the failure itself is probably more notable than the vaporware title. We are talking about a title that may or may not ever get released. I've said my piece on it. What I WOULD advocate for, is (as proscribed in WP:CRYSTAL) adding the info to any of the devs' articles, if they have one. I think it's just too soon for this. superβεεcat 23:13, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as whether the game will be another failed Kickstarter project is not important. If reliable sources cared about the game and write articles about it, we should as well as it meets our notability guideline. Four/five sources are enough to show notability, and the article, in its current state, has enough content, which means it isn't really too soon. AdrianGamer (talk) 11:55, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as passing WP:GNG with multiple reliable independent in-depth sources, namely WP:VG/RS. Not having notable developer or other associated companies/people has no impact on the notability of the topic itself if the sources support it. Whether the product is released or not similarly has no bearing on notability if the sources support it. It's a bit WP:TOOSOON and I would say merge for now due to content size, but there isn't a suitable target, so a stand-alone article would have to do. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 15:18, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Coverage in reliable sources is WP:NOTNEWS level. It's the press release regurgitation of "this is a kickstarter project that exists" without any actual depth. This is the same argument I put forward at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tabletop Simulator, which was drafted and recreated once notable. - hahnch e n 12:05, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You say "without any actual depth" even though this article has a ton more depth than many articles left up in the past. Can you specifically tell me what it needs so that I can try and improve it to that level? Also, WP:NOTNEWS is talking about every little event surrounding a topic. There is no way this article isn't good enough for just a stub especially considering it is a fully funded game by AAA developers backed by a multitude of reliable sources. Idealist343 (talk) 13:55, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Every little event includes every time a game is announced. None of the coverage is in depth because they're just news articles, repeating what the developer has announced. There are no previews, interviews, reviews, features on the game. There are video game kickstarters running all the time, and lots of them get news coverage in IGN, Gamespot et al. Right now, there's news stories for Invisigun Heroes, Consortium: The Tower, Knights and Bikes, and others. The only difference is in popularity, not notability. We regularly delete articles that are essentially product announcements as WP:TOOSOON, this article was created mere hours after the announcement. I'd say that was too soon. - hahnch e n 19:18, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. As others have pointed out, there has been a litany of news articles about the game, and the relatively uncommon successfulness of the Kickstarter campaign is noteworthy as well. Joshua Garner (talk) 05:17, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep This is a particularly unpersuasive nomination statement in particular. The notability (or lack thereof) with regards to the principals behind Battalion 1944 is of no consequence to whether Battalion 1944 itself is notable. In my view, it passes WP:GNG, if not by a lot. Hallward's Ghost ^(Kevin) ^{(My talkpage)} 21:14, 11 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. Sarahj2107 (talk) 12:55, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Kim Feinberg[edit]

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

Non notable person whose claim to fame is founding a non profit. Fails GNG IMO Gbawden (talk) 07:44, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Musa^Talk ☻ 09:38, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. Musa^Talk ☻ 09:38, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as this is still questionable for the applicable notability. SwisterTwister talk 03:05, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete We don't even have an article on the organization, so I can't see how she could be notable for starting it.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:33, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not enough coverage in independent reliable sources to meet WP:GNG.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:50, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - From what I can tell, the organization is arguably notable but she as an individual for her role related to it is not. I agree that this should just be deleted. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 07:24, 11 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. No evidence has been presented which shows Wilton has been covered significantly (not via passing mentions) by multiple reliable sources, and therefore is found to lack the required notability for inclusion. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 22:22, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Luke Wilton[edit]

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

Non notable boxer. Fails WP:NBOX and therefore Delete. Suarez Mason (talk) 21:12, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. sst ✈ 05:22, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. sst ✈ 05:22, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 19:40, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ As per nominator.Peter Rehse (talk) 19:40, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- I think he may technically meet WP:NBOX since he fought for a BBBofC title, even though he lost, but right now I don't see the coverage necessary to meet WP:GNG. Mdtemp (talk) 16:36, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - I missed the BBBofC title (the article needs to be updated) but still there is not much in the way of sources. I strike my vote for the moment.Peter Rehse (talk) 16:54, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mdtemp added that to the article, but I haven't yet decided how to vote. Without meeting WP:GNG, I'm not sure losing a BBBofC title fight is enough--WP:NBOX notwithstanding. Papaursa (talk) 03:03, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

losing a British title fails WP:NBOX in my opinion and the sources fail WP:GNG. Possibly a case of WP:TOOSOON. --Suarez Mason (talk) 16:40, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete winning an International Masters title is not notable.--Donniediamond (talk) 13:24, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:02, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete Although, as Mdtemp points out, he technically meets WP:NBOX by the thinnest of margins, I think the lack of significant coverage more the outweighs that. Papaursa (talk) 10:07, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep He fought for a title where boxing receives significant coverage. I think fighting for the British title in an original eight weight class goes beyond meeting by the thinnest of margins (if even such a concept should exist or be considered relevant). Unless someone goes to England to research the 2013 print archives for Liverpool (fight location) as well as goes to N. Ireland to research the 2013 print archives for Belfast (fighter's home town) we have to consider this a keep since it meets WP:NBOX. RonSigPi (talk) 04:58, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This is a similar argument to one you used before when you said the only way to refute a fighter's notability was, in that case, be a fluent speaker of Polish and go to Poland and prove there wasn't significant independent coverage. Advocating going to the fight location would probably only produce routine sports reporting (promotion and results) so it's irrelevant. Since this article doesn't appear to meet WP:GNG, then the fact that he barely meets the weakest notability criteria in the generous assumptions of WP:NBOX is relevant. National runners-up in other sports aren't deemed automatically notable so why is it so in boxing? Papaursa (talk) 03:36, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

And for the article you are referring to the decision was no consensus so its not like my argument was crazy/off the wall or that it was completely discounted. Similar argument and similar logic here - we have presumptions for a reason and a 5 minute Google search finding nothing is hardly evidence of anything. I hold a presumption is valid until reasonably shown otherwise. To your other comment, other sports do have their national runners-up presumed notable. In golf, the U.S. Open is the national championship. Not only the runner-up is notable, but so is the guy finishing in 70th place. The 3rd place competitor at the badminton Canadian Open is presumed notable. Yes, those are open events so its a bit different I will admit, but they are generally considered national championships and they go beyond just the winner. Additionally, this is a bit different of a situation. Not only is the BBBofC more of an exception (to my knowledge, only the US and UK have 'national' titles awarded that confer notability so this would be for only two nations), but in a sporting context its questionable if the UK is a country or multiple countries. In soccer, rugby, and cricket England and Wales compete as nations. Same goes for athletics in the Commonwealth Games (something that finishing lower than 1st can still give a presumption of notability). The BBBofC does award, for example, Welsh and English titles. So its reasonable to treat the BBBofC as a regional body as opposed to a national body. Likewise, its reasonable to not place someone losing their British title as being national runner-up, as you would the loser of the BBBofC Northern Ireland title, but instead treat them as the runner-up in a regional contest as we do for the Asian Games in athletics.RonSigPi (talk) 04:52, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NBOX. Could be deleted on either account. --Suarez Mason (talk) 20:38, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

RonSigPi has proposed here WT:NSPORT#Boxing proposal that losers in title fights for non-world title fights not be considered notable and admits that Wilton would not meet his proposed criteria User talk:RonSigPi#Your proposal and Luke Wilton. I would also claim that it's a stretch to claim the BBBofC is an international organization equivalent to Asia's because it has subregions and that losing a title fight is equivalent to finishing second at an event like the Asian Games. It is more proper to say that it's equivalent to finishing last in a two person event as opposed to finishing second in an event with numerous competitors from many countries. Papaursa (talk) 05:00, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It does not matter what is proposed, but what WP:NBOX states now. My proposal was not my personal thoughts, but my best read on the consensus (I even said so much in my message to you). As anyone can clearly see, my proposal is being defeated quite handily so I am not sure what your point actually is. Regardless of the point trying to be made, I stand by my argument. We have SNG for a reason. They give a presumption that an article's subject is notable. It is up to those that want to see the article deleted to establish that the presumption is wrong in this case and therefore the article should be deleted. You may not like the SNG and the presumption the BBBofC title gives, but the presumption exists none the less and it must be respected. Until someone shows that efforts have been made to search the areas one may find sources, and that includes local print and non-print sources and the like that may not make it online, then I presume it likely that sufficient sources exist to satisfy the inclusion criteria. RonSigPi (talk) 05:04, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete As nominator~~. --Suarez Mason (talk) 20:35, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Localised coverage from reliable sources is perfectly acceptable -- that is what it is most of the time! And GNG can be easily established with a 5-minute cursory search, as I have elaborated on below. Kingoflettuce (talk) 15:21, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please articulate? As PRehse said, the nomination was proven wrong. It's one thing to agree with Papaursa who articulated why the user thinks WP:NBOX should be ignored, but another to agree with an already disproved nom. RonSigPi (talk) 00:13, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Struck duplicate !vote from nominator; the nomination is considered as your !vote. However, feel free to comment all you'd like. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:07, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

My apologise. I didn't realise the etiquette.--Suarez Mason (talk) 16:19, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:50, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP The breadth of sources compensates the lack of depth, ala material with significant biographical detail. Yes, some of the reliable sources mentioning him may only do so in brief (there is also a short sentence on him here) but that is enough to warrant a keep. Additionally, his profile on BoxRec nicely underlines his notability as a boxer, no matter how small -- while BoxRec is not considered a reliable source, much like IMDB for film, it is indicative of the presence of other reliable sources regarding him elsewhere, and well complements what we have at hand. General notability is met and that is all we need to justify keeping this article. Yes, more can be done to spruce things up, but prettification is another matter entirely... Kingoflettuce (talk) 15:08, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[22], [23], [24], [25], [26], in popular culture!, [27]... Kingoflettuce (talk) 15:17, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As a new editor I would point out the fact that routine sports coverage is not considered as meeting WP:GNG--and fight results are considered routine sports reporting. Papaursa (talk) 05:00, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I was confused by the bad grammar -- are you the new editor? Anyway, I respectfully disagree. Both GNG and V are fulfilled, and the sheer wealth of sources, local or not, in-depth or not, prove so. It is not always the case that notability can only be shown with a really thorough source. Breadth over a period of time can overcome depth. Most significantly, he has received sustained coverage in Belfast as an up-and-coming boxer. Kingoflettuce (talk) 10:12, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

he does not pass GNG. Purely trivial coverage. Also fails WP:NBOX as he hasn't won a notable title. --Suarez Mason (talk) 16:16, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

So you indeed are the new editor -- can infer so. Was trying to draw logical link to your 'as a new editor' statement; turns out that had not much purpose except for enforcing the opposite. I suggest, instead of badgering your points, you should try to digest my arguments, as well as RonSigPi's, and the policies GNG, SNG, etc. Kingoflettuce (talk) 16:40, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Brain not working at this time, forgot there were a few entities, didn't look at the timestamps. Nonetheless my points stand. Kingoflettuce (talk) 16:42, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

FYI TOOSOON is not a policy. Kingoflettuce (talk) 16:43, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:N requires "significant coverage" that I'm not seeing. Kingoflettuce's claims that lots of passing mentions are enough is wrong. Routine sports coverage is what he currently has. WP requires someone be notable and "up and coming" means he's not there yet.Mdtemp (talk) 21:20, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that he warrants coverage in a reputable and reliable source, routine or not, over a sustained period of time (few years) is enough to establish GNG at the barest levels. And much insight is to be gleaned from these sources. There's plenty more to be found, the state of the article now is independent of the subject's notability. Kingoflettuce (talk) 10:12, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Routine coverage is never enough to show notability on its own. Please don't make up your own notability criteria.Mdtemp (talk) 01:10, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and draft & userfy instead because this article still needs work until solidly available at mainspace. SwisterTwister talk 03:13, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per Mdtemp. Fails NBOX, as a bunch of fight result reports isn't enough to overcome the complete lack of significant coverage. Hallward's Ghost ^(Kevin) ^{(My talkpage)} 20:57, 11 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. Sarahj2107 (talk) 12:54, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Diego José Tobón Echeverri[edit]

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

fails WP:BIO. ambassadors are not inherently notable including being an ambassador to Russia. there's coverage for a football player "Diego Echeverri" but not this ambassador. LibStar (talk) 06:24, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Musa^Talk ☻ 09:39, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Musa^Talk ☻ 09:39, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Colombia-related deletion discussions. Musa^Talk ☻ 09:39, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 14:53, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In my opinion, all ambassadors are significant, interesting and unusual enough to deserve attention and therefore satisfy the criteria to that effect set out in the introduction of WP:BIO. They are accordingly notable. I also agree with the argument, sometimes advanced by User:Necrothesp that this would alternatively follow from WP:COMMONSENSE. A person who is verifiably an ambassador should, at an absolute minimum, be included in, and redirected to, the relevant parent article, which in this case would be Ambassador of Colombia to Russia. Accordingly, as a plausible redirect with merge-able content, this article appears ineligible for deletion. I haven't analysed all the sources yet, and it is not helpful that they are mostly in foreign languages, but there does seem to be a 26 minute television programme. James500 (talk) 07:40, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No, ambassadors are not inherently notable and community consensus has shown this. This article is not ineligible for deletion. Lastly you have now popped up recently at many AfDs I've been involved in as well as contacting an editor I've been in disagreement in and conveniently siding with him. I'm noting this now for future action. LibStar (talk) 09:47, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The claim that such a consensus exists was rejected at Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Common outcomes. You know perfectly well that I have been editing at WP:DSBILATERAL, and bilateral relations related pages generally, for months. I didn't side with any editor, I attempted to explain to an editor how to cite sources, and your response was to start pestering me for no reason. The purpose of my presence at this AfD is to enforce Wikipedia's inclusion policies and guidelines. You pop up in many places that I go on this site, and contact and side with editors that I have disagreements with. You might like to bear in mind WP:AVOIDYOU before making any further off topic comments. James500 (talk) 10:22, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Collapsing extended discussion
So why this constant following me around the last 48 hours? LibStar (talk) 10:46, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply] I haven't done that. Even if I had, it would be legitimate if done for the purpose of enforcing policies and guidelines. And you, in my opinion, have broken a lot of those in the last 48 hours or whatever. This nomination is, in my opinion, and in the opinion of others such as Necrothesp, an example of that. We are getting wildly off topic here. James500 (talk) 11:17, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply] your edit history shows clearly you are following me. You're not picking these AfDs at random. LibStar (talk) 11:28, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply] Both AfDs are on WP:DSBILATERAL, where I have participated for a long time. Your edit history shows that you are trying to assert ownership of that deletion sorting list. James500 (talk) 11:40, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply] Not only popping out at AfDs but contacting editors I've had disagreements with and conveniently siding with them. Also in the last 48 hours LibStar (talk) 11:32, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply] You've already made that accusation and received an answer. WP:BLUDGEON. James500 (talk) 11:40, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply] Anyone can see out of your edits from 6 February, 90% of them are on AfDs I am involved in, and article prodded and contacting and taking sides with an editor I've had disagreement with. The pattern and your motive is plainly obvious. LibStar (talk) 11:46, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply] There exists a WP:PRODLIST. The only PROD I have removed recently is one that was placed on a notable topic and told epic lies about the level of sourcing available. That was an appropriate removal to enforce the notability guidelines and the policy against disruptive behaviour. Your statistic is fictitious, and the rest of your accusations have been answered. James500 (talk) 12:03, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply] Then how did you find HoldenV8? LibStar (talk) 12:06, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply] Irrelevant. And by telling the editor how to cite sources properly I was actually helping you. Unless you are upset that, since the editor won't make the same mistake of failing to cite his source in the future, you won't have any further reason to criticise him. James500 (talk) 12:22, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply] You found HoldenV8 by following my edit history. Just like you've been doing the last 48 hours . It's highly relevant how you found him. Your response here just confirms this. LibStar (talk) 12:24, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply] the only way you could have found Holden was by following my edit history. You've never worked on rugby league articles so there is no other explanation. LibStar (talk) 12:28, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply] What possible objection could you have to me telling someone how to cite sources properly? And how do you know that I don't read articles on rugby league and other sports besides? I read huge numbers of articles about film and television for many years before I started actually sticking my beak into a few of them. And yes, I do read articles about rugby league. And I have edited sports related project pages. In fact, I read almost everything, because I am one of those polymath super geniuses you have heard so much about. James500 (talk) 12:54, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply] I object to following me around and if it was only about citing sources the tone of your comments and subsequent defence of him show your real motive. Again you still haven't said how you found Holden besides the usual diversionary excuse making. Read almost everything , pull the other one. We both know you have been following my edit history looking for an opportunity to pounce. LibStar (talk) And how would you know whether I edit rugby league articles, unless you've been following me for a very long time? And I didn't make any further comments about HoldenV8 until you insulted me for no reason at all (provocation) and then I noticed how abrasive your previous comments towards the other editor were (justification, ie enforcing the civility policy) and then you placed an erroneous warning template right in front of my eyes as I was talking to the pair of you (more justification). The tone of my subsequent comments indicates that I don't like unprovoked impudence being put on my talk page for no reason and I don't approve of needless rudeness. James500 (talk) 13:26, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply] Simple question. Which rugby league articles have you been working on that made you encounter HoldenV8? Please provide a diff. Otherwise we both know the real way you found him. LibStar (talk) 13:28, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply] Simple answer: Irrelevant. I do not need your permission to try to help an editor to cite their sources properly. And the moment you put an unprovoked false accusation on my talk page, WP:BOOMERANG came into effect against you. Nor would it even matter as we are entitled to follow editors to enforce policies and guidelines, and you can't accuse me of anything that does not consist of enforcing them. James500 (talk) 13:55, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply] It is highly relevant in proving my claim you are following me. You didn't encounter HoldenV8 by random (if you did you would have easily provided a diff to prove this). Your excuse making is fooling no one. And your motivations for recent following me around is clear. LibStar (talk) 14:47, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply] You've already said this, and you have had an answer. WP:BLUDGEON. I think you know perfectly well that I !voted the way I did above because I think that ambassadors are notable, something that I have said many times before for years. James500 (talk) 15:12, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply] You claimed to find HoldenV8 via your editing of rugby league articles. When asked to provide evidence you failed. Of course you'll respond with some long winded excuse. LibStar (talk) 15:26, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply] I didn't claim any such thing. I point blank refused to answer your question on grounds of irrelevance. I did profess to read articles on rugby league, but I didn't say whether that was how I became aware of that editor, because it is irrelevant and, frankly, none of your business. I said that I did not edit rugby league articles, but that your knowledge of this was proof that you have been following my edits for many months. James500 (talk) 15:47, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply] The irrelevant card is such a diversion from you using my edit history to find HoldenV8 and then side with them to have a go at me. Factored in with you following me on AfDs last 24 hours it's an obvious pattern. Anyone can see your edit history. LibStar (talk) 16:02, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply] No, LibStar, the sequence of events is that you had a go at me first because I innocently tried to explain to that user how to cite a DVD as a source. James500 (talk) 16:16, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply] Again you have failed to explain how you came across Holden. The fact that you keep giving diversionary responses clearly points you to using my edit history, there are 10s of 1000s of editors and by sheer chance you stumbled onto one. That is relevant because you've gone on a 24 hour pattern of following me since then . Yet the hilarious excuse making continues. LibStar (talk) 16:34, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply] And what happened after that was the result of your failure to control your paranoia in twice accusing other editors of things they had not done. As you are failing to control it now. I don't see a pattern, and if there was one, it does not matter, as I have acted only to enforce policies and guidelines. James500 (talk) 16:48, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply] You also didn't deprod anything else out of all the articles on the list. OF course when you saw it was me it was immediate action stations. Your fake innocence is fooling no one. LibStar (talk) 12:09, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply] No, when I saw that the PROD was on a film festival (I like films), that the topic was notable, and that the PROD told epic lies about the level of sourcing available, it was immediate action stations. James500 (talk) 12:22, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply] Any one with eyes in their head could see that you are trying to disrupt this AfD with a massive wall of off topic comments. James500 (talk) 12:27, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply] WP:KETTLE if I ever saw it. LibStar (talk) 12:44, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply] KETTLE, with bells on, could be applied to every accusation you have made here. James500 (talk) 13:55, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply] You have a long history of barracking anyone who argues for the application of WP:IAR at WP:DSBILATERAL, and you are just proving that now. James500 (talk) 12:34, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply] You have a long history of arguing verbosely in MfD and AfDs to the point where an admin recently warned you about your personal attacks. LibStar (talk) 14:50, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply] This, even if it was accurate, would be totally irrelevant. And if you don't like verbosity, the thing to do would be to stop trying to force me to answer you over and over again by making further accusations. James500 (talk) 15:12, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply] That's right you're never wrong and also love to respond to every comment contrary to your view. Just to prove it, see if you can't resist responding below. LibStar (talk) 15:19, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply] Yes, I can see you've just nominated the parent article Ambassador of Colombia to Russia for deletion. All that would mean is that, at worst, both articles would be merged and redirected to Colombia–Russia relations. It fundamentally changes nothing. James500 (talk) 10:40, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Collapsing extended discussion

So why this constant following me around the last 48 hours? LibStar (talk) 10:46, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't done that. Even if I had, it would be legitimate if done for the purpose of enforcing policies and guidelines. And you, in my opinion, have broken a lot of those in the last 48 hours or whatever. This nomination is, in my opinion, and in the opinion of others such as Necrothesp, an example of that. We are getting wildly off topic here. James500 (talk) 11:17, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

your edit history shows clearly you are following me. You're not picking these AfDs at random. LibStar (talk) 11:28, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Both AfDs are on WP:DSBILATERAL, where I have participated for a long time. Your edit history shows that you are trying to assert ownership of that deletion sorting list. James500 (talk) 11:40, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not only popping out at AfDs but contacting editors I've had disagreements with and conveniently siding with them. Also in the last 48 hours LibStar (talk) 11:32, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You've already made that accusation and received an answer. WP:BLUDGEON. James500 (talk) 11:40, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone can see out of your edits from 6 February, 90% of them are on AfDs I am involved in, and article prodded and contacting and taking sides with an editor I've had disagreement with. The pattern and your motive is plainly obvious. LibStar (talk) 11:46, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There exists a WP:PRODLIST. The only PROD I have removed recently is one that was placed on a notable topic and told epic lies about the level of sourcing available. That was an appropriate removal to enforce the notability guidelines and the policy against disruptive behaviour. Your statistic is fictitious, and the rest of your accusations have been answered. James500 (talk) 12:03, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Then how did you find HoldenV8? LibStar (talk) 12:06, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Irrelevant. And by telling the editor how to cite sources properly I was actually helping you. Unless you are upset that, since the editor won't make the same mistake of failing to cite his source in the future, you won't have any further reason to criticise him. James500 (talk) 12:22, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You found HoldenV8 by following my edit history. Just like you've been doing the last 48 hours . It's highly relevant how you found him. Your response here just confirms this. LibStar (talk) 12:24, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

the only way you could have found Holden was by following my edit history. You've never worked on rugby league articles so there is no other explanation. LibStar (talk) 12:28, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What possible objection could you have to me telling someone how to cite sources properly? And how do you know that I don't read articles on rugby league and other sports besides? I read huge numbers of articles about film and television for many years before I started actually sticking my beak into a few of them. And yes, I do read articles about rugby league. And I have edited sports related project pages. In fact, I read almost everything, because I am one of those polymath super geniuses you have heard so much about. James500 (talk) 12:54, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I object to following me around and if it was only about citing sources the tone of your comments and subsequent defence of him show your real motive. Again you still haven't said how you found Holden besides the usual diversionary excuse making. Read almost everything , pull the other one. We both know you have been following my edit history looking for an opportunity to pounce. LibStar (talk)

And how would you know whether I edit rugby league articles, unless you've been following me for a very long time? And I didn't make any further comments about HoldenV8 until you insulted me for no reason at all (provocation) and then I noticed how abrasive your previous comments towards the other editor were (justification, ie enforcing the civility policy) and then you placed an erroneous warning template right in front of my eyes as I was talking to the pair of you (more justification). The tone of my subsequent comments indicates that I don't like unprovoked impudence being put on my talk page for no reason and I don't approve of needless rudeness. James500 (talk) 13:26, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Simple question. Which rugby league articles have you been working on that made you encounter HoldenV8? Please provide a diff. Otherwise we both know the real way you found him. LibStar (talk) 13:28, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Simple answer: Irrelevant. I do not need your permission to try to help an editor to cite their sources properly. And the moment you put an unprovoked false accusation on my talk page, WP:BOOMERANG came into effect against you. Nor would it even matter as we are entitled to follow editors to enforce policies and guidelines, and you can't accuse me of anything that does not consist of enforcing them. James500 (talk) 13:55, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It is highly relevant in proving my claim you are following me. You didn't encounter HoldenV8 by random (if you did you would have easily provided a diff to prove this). Your excuse making is fooling no one. And your motivations for recent following me around is clear. LibStar (talk) 14:47, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You've already said this, and you have had an answer. WP:BLUDGEON. I think you know perfectly well that I !voted the way I did above because I think that ambassadors are notable, something that I have said many times before for years. James500 (talk) 15:12, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You claimed to find HoldenV8 via your editing of rugby league articles. When asked to provide evidence you failed. Of course you'll respond with some long winded excuse. LibStar (talk) 15:26, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't claim any such thing. I point blank refused to answer your question on grounds of irrelevance. I did profess to read articles on rugby league, but I didn't say whether that was how I became aware of that editor, because it is irrelevant and, frankly, none of your business. I said that I did not edit rugby league articles, but that your knowledge of this was proof that you have been following my edits for many months. James500 (talk) 15:47, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The irrelevant card is such a diversion from you using my edit history to find HoldenV8 and then side with them to have a go at me. Factored in with you following me on AfDs last 24 hours it's an obvious pattern. Anyone can see your edit history. LibStar (talk) 16:02, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No, LibStar, the sequence of events is that you had a go at me first because I innocently tried to explain to that user how to cite a DVD as a source. James500 (talk) 16:16, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Again you have failed to explain how you came across Holden. The fact that you keep giving diversionary responses clearly points you to using my edit history, there are 10s of 1000s of editors and by sheer chance you stumbled onto one. That is relevant because you've gone on a 24 hour pattern of following me since then . Yet the hilarious excuse making continues. LibStar (talk) 16:34, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

And what happened after that was the result of your failure to control your paranoia in twice accusing other editors of things they had not done. As you are failing to control it now. I don't see a pattern, and if there was one, it does not matter, as I have acted only to enforce policies and guidelines. James500 (talk) 16:48, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You also didn't deprod anything else out of all the articles on the list. OF course when you saw it was me it was immediate action stations. Your fake innocence is fooling no one. LibStar (talk) 12:09, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No, when I saw that the PROD was on a film festival (I like films), that the topic was notable, and that the PROD told epic lies about the level of sourcing available, it was immediate action stations. James500 (talk) 12:22, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Any one with eyes in their head could see that you are trying to disrupt this AfD with a massive wall of off topic comments. James500 (talk) 12:27, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

WP:KETTLE if I ever saw it. LibStar (talk) 12:44, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

KETTLE, with bells on, could be applied to every accusation you have made here. James500 (talk) 13:55, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You have a long history of barracking anyone who argues for the application of WP:IAR at WP:DSBILATERAL, and you are just proving that now. James500 (talk) 12:34, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You have a long history of arguing verbosely in MfD and AfDs to the point where an admin recently warned you about your personal attacks. LibStar (talk) 14:50, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This, even if it was accurate, would be totally irrelevant. And if you don't like verbosity, the thing to do would be to stop trying to force me to answer you over and over again by making further accusations. James500 (talk) 15:12, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That's right you're never wrong and also love to respond to every comment contrary to your view. Just to prove it, see if you can't resist responding below. LibStar (talk) 15:19, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I can see you've just nominated the parent article Ambassador of Colombia to Russia for deletion. All that would mean is that, at worst, both articles would be merged and redirected to Colombia–Russia relations. It fundamentally changes nothing. James500 (talk) 10:40, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- Yes, we can verify that this person exists and has a job. But that's really about all we can say. Ambassadors are not inherently notable, and the sourcing is just not sufficient to justify this article. Reyk _YO! 10:23, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Ambassadors are accepted as notable if we can write and reliably source something genuinely substantive about them that gets them over WP:GNG — but they are not granted an automatic presumption of notability because ambassador. If all we can really write is "this person exists", and all we can really source them to is government press releases about their initial appointment with no media coverage of anything they did outside of that particular moment in time, then they don't get over the bar. But the latter is all we've got here. Delete, without prejudice against recreation in the future if somebody can do better than this. Bearcat (talk) 18:31, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Not enough in-depth coverage from independent reliable sources to show they pass WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 02:25, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as apparently still quest for the applicable notability. SwisterTwister talk 04:30, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- RoySmith (talk) 00:34, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

BOP (computing)[edit]

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

Incomprehensible content. The article appears to claim that BOP is some sort of protocol for some sort of serialization for some sort of objects (as in objects from object-orientated programming?) that is "defined in every programming languages (sic)". This is completely devoid of any context. What does "protocol", "serialization", and "objects" refer to? The claim that this is something defined for every programming language is highly dubious and is unsupported by any citations or references (the article actually has none). The article then claims that the "protocol" can be "extended" with "other custom serialization". If this is something defined in every programming language, then how can it extended by the end-user, given programming languages are defined separately by their respective standards bodies? The article then goes on to say something about a JavaScript library. If the article is actually about this specific JavaScript library, then the article fails WP:GNG due to the lack of any WP:RS. This article also has a bizarre article history. It appears though that the current version is not the result of vandalism. I considered speedy deletion, but given this article's nature, I thought some discussion regarding its fate was warranted. AZ1199 (talk) 04:52, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete If you look at the history it used to be where the acronym BOP was listed. The actual computing article was create in July 23, 2015 by an editor who made two edits to this article and hasn't edited since. Anyone after that was only doing Wiki-management. The actual content of the article is about a specific example of a Boyer–Moore string search algorithm. Even if BOP were a bit notable it would be merged to that article, but as I searched for any information about the BOP, all I could find was that github. To add to the insult, the github was last updated a year ago. Lastly: it's typical of programmers to list their own specialized executions of some general algorithm with a really cool name on github, but in the end it's most likely just a school project. --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 08:12, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Musa^Talk ☻ 09:40, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - notability not established. SJK (talk) 08:47, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for failing WP:V and WP:GNG. The source given in the edit history is a link to the author's personal project on GitHub, now defunct. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 14:47, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete at best and restart later as there's not yet an acceptable article. SwisterTwister talk 23:53, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 04:47, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Reetika Khera[edit]

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

The topic of this article does not meet Wikipedia's notability guideline for academics. Uncletomwood (talk) 04:47, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Musa^Talk ☻ 09:41, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Musa^Talk ☻ 09:41, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Espresso Addict (talk) 16:49, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep perhaps if the citations suggest a keepable article.Delete perhaps as there seem to be not convincing signs of the applicable notability aside from the imaginable Associate Professor at the Institute of Technology. Notifying DGG for analysis. SwisterTwister talk 23:12, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Apparently notable based on the citations to her work: Google Scholar shows citations of 137, 139, 109, 102, 88, 83, 69, 65, 59 ... etc. I've added the information to the article. DGG ( talk ) 06:48, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As DGG demonstrates, citations are conclusive pass of PROF c1. Agricola44 (talk) 17:34, 9 February 2016 (UTC).[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep now that the article has been improved and there are no serious concerns for AfD (NAC). SwisterTwister talk 23:10, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Tchindas[edit]

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

Reason μηδείς (talk) 03:24, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There is no proof of notability, and the article was apparently created by a sock of the indeffed user:Neptunekh who has be forbidden from creating categories, for which see the user's talk page history. μηδείς (talk) 03:24, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In addition to the fact that this article seems to have been created by an indeffed sock User:Mito9999 of the indeffed user:Neptunekh, it began as a cut and paste copyvio and no other source has been given. μηδείς (talk) 03:34, 20 January 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 January 20. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 03:37, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. sst ✈ 05:05, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. sst ✈ 05:05, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per meeting WP:NF. While authorship is a concern, the film topic is notable none-the-less and merits an article. And while poorly sourced when nominated, that lack is an addresable minor issue in the face of WP:NRVE. Easy WP:BEFORE finds lots of sourcing: HollywoodReporter, Time Out Chicago (1), Frontiers Media, Time Out Chicago (2), 76 Crimes, Outfest Los Angeles, and others. Like it or not, the topic meets WP:NF. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 06:21, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Update: Since its nomination and based upon my own WP:BEFORE, the article has met with some major improvements. Y. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 03:01, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I nominated this article only because one the main contributors, User:Neptunekh, who is a notorious sockmaster, is well-known to me. I otherwise have no opinion on the dubious notability of the subject, although someone should check the copyright status of any to be retained material. μηδείς (talk) 03:05, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Fine, then I hope folks will look to my attentions as a non-involved editor which establish it as meeting the criteria of WP:NF. And as it has now been improved by someone uninvolved and not-a-sock, let's not dwell on how it got here. Thanks.Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 03:16, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:57, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: enough sources have been added to show this is a notable and prize-winning film. Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:57, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:14, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, why is this still open? Keep it per WP:HEY, actual sourcin makes this film notable beyond any reasonable doubt. Cavarrone 20:31, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:36, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ropewalk (film)[edit]

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

The article is unsourced and it fails Wikipedia:Notability (films). Hitcher vs. Candyman (talk) 01:53, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. sst ✈ 05:08, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

alts:

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

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

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

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

Delete... for while it was easy enough to address article format, and while a theatrical release is fine, this one does not seem to have made any waves. WP:NF is failed. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 06:09, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:40, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:56, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:13, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete at best as there are no signs of the applicable notability. SwisterTwister talk 23:14, 8 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. Der yck C. 16:29, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Gary Vandy[edit]

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

Fails WP:BIO and WP:CREATIVE. Clarityfiend (talk) 03:53, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: per rationale by Clarityfiend. Quis separabit? 13:50, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Lack of the adequate notability. Arashtitan 14:39, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Nothing to suggest better independent notability. SwisterTwister talk 23:13, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Searches did not turn up enough in-depth coverage from reliable independent sources to show he passes WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 02:16, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:36, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Pgeezy[edit]

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

Artist from Natalac Records which is also up for deletion. There are a few sources, but nothing reliable and nothing in-depth. Fails WP:GNG. CNMall41 (talk) 03:11, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:52, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 04:07, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Carolina-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 04:07, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as not satisfying the applicable notability. SwisterTwister talk 04:08, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Spartaz ^Humbug! 12:01, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Natalac Records[edit]

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

Record label and fails WP:GNG as there are no reliable sources that cover it in-depth. Listed artists may also be non-notable (some are listed as "incarcerated, probation, or deceased"). CNMall41 (talk) 03:08, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep These Wikipedia Pages since previously has been on for 10 years, but after 10 years later demoted to User Draft because of improper format and lack of references" Now some references have been added.... I believe as a artist grows so do their enemies...Yameka (talk) 08:59, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No significant coverage from reliable sources. I note that the MTV site used as a reference for several statements is user-generated. And the prlog.com site is just that -- a repository for press releases. None of these references are independent of the subject organization. NewYorkActuary (talk) 09:05, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:03, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:52, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as none of the current article and coverage is convincing enough for the applicable notability. SwisterTwister talk 04:06, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete due to lack of evidence of notability. Guy (Help!) 09:04, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. Max Semenik (talk) 09:20, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

BucketMan - Coloring your city[edit]

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

Articles is written by the game developer himself; Game itself appears to be not notable. No third-party sources. Author is not willing to follow WP:COI. Hawks Discuss^{^edits} 03:27, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The article text is promotional copy so a potential CSD G11? Anyway, no evidence of notability found. AllyD (talk) 08:12, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, maybe merge: I am willing to edit the page. All I initially wanted to do, is adding my game (yes I'am the developer, and yes, I changed my username, to not be another violation of the Wiki Terms) to the list of software that uses OpenStreetMap data (OpenStreetMap#Commercial_services). So when adding it there, I thought I need a page to link to, so I created it. I am sorry that there is no, or not enough notability on the internet jet. I just didn't had the money to pay for reviews jet. I updated the page today. If you want I remove the store links, no problem. I don't know how to bring in more third-party sources. Can be these ones? Mangotron, theandroidgalaxy? Best, FelixButz (talk) 11:58, 3 February 2016 (UTC) (Note that FelixButz is not a username change, it's a sock account (albeit an inadvertent one, I'm sure), and is now also blocked with a direction to seek unblock/rename on the original account. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 00:08, 4 February 2016 (UTC))[reply]

Those are all sources written or copied by you. Let me say it bluntly: You are not allowed to create an article about your own game. When you have third sources, we will reconsider. But as it stands now, this article has no place here. Third sources constitute something written by a reputable source, by an unbiased author who is in no way or form connected to you. --Hawks Discuss^{^edits} 14:58, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Just to add for authors sake, WP:COI doesn't preclude creating content about something one is associated with. It is however highly inadvisable for many good reasons. Certainly using self-written sourcing is a big no-no. A good rule is to simply not write anything, and if the topic is notable, someone is bound to make an article. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 15:35, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, at least for now. The game is relatively new so it's not surprising to find a complete lack of significant third-party coverage. If that changes, we can always revisit the issue. Pichpich (talk) 15:36, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete G11' - User spamublocked -- Alexf^(talk) 17:08, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not notable and currently reads like one big ad. --Soetermans. T / C 21:48, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete No assertions of notability, blatantly promotional. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 04:12, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as WP:PROMO -- there is no worthwhile content beside basic facts. If the game gets significant coverage, we can rewrite properly. For now, fails WP:GNG with no reliable independent in-depth sources, such as WP:VG/RS. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 15:30, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. czar 16:15, 6 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) 08:15, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Kaleigh Schrock[edit]

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

Minor league player whose entire career was with one team. John from Idegon (talk) 02:48, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:44, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - That he played for only one team should have no bearing on his notability. That the team is not even a high level minor league does. And he does not seem to have won any major awards that would imply notability either. Rlendog (talk) 21:13, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not meet the notability requirements for hockey players.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:11, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as questionable for the applicable hockey notability. SwisterTwister talk 23:00, 8 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:34, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Electrical Impedance Tomography Reconstruction Software[edit]

Note: Article has been renamed Electrical Impedance and Diffuse Optical Tomography Reconstruction Software; Electrical Impedance Tomography Reconstruction Software (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats); (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL); (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL); (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable software. References all seem to be papers announcing or promoting the software, written by its creators. No third party references or sources, and a search turns up none. JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 01:47, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The lack of references is probably as the title is wrong, if the article is about EIDORS specifically It was EIDORS but the title was changed. However it is certainly widely used. This paper has over 200 citations for example [28] This one over 100 (according to Google Scholar [29]. Is that enough to be notable or not? Most groups working on biomedical or process EIT use it, but those are small scientific communities (with annual scientific meetings attended by around 150 people for example).Billlion (talk) 08:06, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A Google Scholar search for EIDORS gives over 600 articles [30] Billlion (talk) 08:16, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The citation count is used for academics, not software projects, and even for academics it should be used with care. In this case it may be helpful in finding references but does not on its own prove notability, no more than a Google search. I did search on EIDORS, it seemed far more likely to turn up references than the current longer title, but I found nothing.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 08:58, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Of course it is true that a citation count is an academic measure. However, it is relevant to the question on notability. Widely used software is notable. And a large citation count is one measure of the use of the software. Also, however, the title of the article is wrong, EIDORS is "Electrical Impedance Tomography and Diffuse Optical Tomography Reconstruction Software". As a minimum, the article title should be corrected. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.117.63.148 (talk) 14:32, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

JohnBlackburne I am confused as to what the Google search you did that did not convince you of notability. Of course Google will not give the same results for different locations and users, but I did a Google search for EIDORS and it comes up with a mixture of academic publications (by plenty of people who are not the authors of the software) and web sites from academic users. It says it returns around 8000 hits and the ones I sampled were all on this software (not some other use of the word). I am unclear what kind of notability you are expecting to find in a google search about a software toolbox. Here is a link to the search I just did, although it might produce different results for you [31]. You claim that there are "No third party references or sources" but you already admit that is not true as there are hundreds of academic papers not by the authors that mention that they used EIDORS. Then you change your claim to somehow say academic citations do not count. Do you mean some other sort of notoriety is needed like coverage in the popular press? You say a search turns up none, but certainly a Google search contradicts that. Can I suggest that the case for deletion is withdrawn and instead it is moved back to the correct articlename? And maybe tagged for improvement for example that the article should cite articles by users other than the authors (in a meaningful way to say how it is used in different applications). Billlion (talk) 14:44, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions#Google test; a Google or other search proves nothing. The way Google works means it turns up many low quality results, many duplicates, and often many unrelated results if words are common or used in other languages/fields. The main criteria for inclusion is notablity, which requires “significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject”. Google may help you find such sources but the search itself is not evidence.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 03:43, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

OK JohnBlackburne so as you say lets us discount your and my Google search. Not repeatable and somewhat flawed. Useful at least to find that EIDORS does not seem to be used to mean anything else taht is visible on the web. Could you please have a look at the new references I added to the article and the paragraph about uses of EIDORS. I looked for references that seemed to me to be in reputable academic journals, that used EIDORS for a wide variety of different applications and as far as I could tell were not associated with the authors of EIDORS (although EIDORS is open source so anyone who uses it could contribute bug fixes etc, possibly anonymously, I mean the authors that appear on the main academic articles about the software). The 600 or so Google Scholar hits include plenty of conference proceedings etc so I looked for what appear to be mainstream journal articles. I also looked at the (approx 99) citations listed on the IoP web site of one of the main papers by the EIDORS authors. There are still over a hundred journal papers that mention EIDORS in proper journal not including anyone visibly associated with the project. I chose the ones I added as references in the article to illustrate interesting applications rather than simply to establish notability. As far as I can tell these articles actually use the software in a significant way rather than citing it is some tangential way (for example to to say "we tried EIDORS and it doesn't work", or something like that). Can you see if that satisfies as you say which requires “significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject”. If not can you say roughly how many references to independent journal articles would satisfy of notability, or if you would expect them to satisfy some additional criterion? Billlion (talk) 18:04, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I had another look at WP:GNG "The absence of sources or citations in an article (as distinct from the non-existence of sources) does not indicate that a subject is not notable. Notability requires only the existence of suitable independent, reliable sources, not their immediate presence or citation in an article. Editors evaluating notability should consider not only any sources currently named in an article, but also the possibility or existence of notability-indicating sources that are not currently named in the article. Thus, before proposing or nominating an article or deletion, or offering an opinion based on notability in a deletion discussion, editors are strongly encouraged to attempt to find sources for the subject in question and consider the possibility of existent sources if none can be found by a search." So perhaps I was wrong to add all those sources to the article to establish notability. In any case I tried to do it in a way that is useful for the article so that is OK. The point is that according to the above one should check before nomination for deletion on notability grounds. I think what happened is you tried to do that but in good faith used the wrong title (and the title had been changed in good faith too), and you found no evidence for notability. On the other hand I pointed out that if you searched for EIDORS (and the search for EIDORS in Google Scholar appear, for me at least as an automated link in the AFD page) it shows up hundreds of independent reliable sources. I suggest therefore that the nomination for deletion is an unfortunate mistake and that you withdraw it (if that is possible procedurally) rather it actually going for a vote (so far no one has voted as such, but maybe that is normal. I have been editing Wikipedia for 11 years but not so regularly and policies and mechanisms do change and I don't keep up).Billlion (talk) 18:15, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I read up on the mechanism. What I was thinking of was speedy keep'. WP:SK. JohnBlackburne could you do that if you accept the argument above otherwise I think an admin has to close the debate after 7 days have elapsed.

Redirect to Electrical impedance tomography, where sufficient information is already present, so no merge is necessary. DGG ( talk ) 01:37, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- This is to misunderstand the subject of the article. The article is about a specific piece of software which can be used, inter alia to reconstuct images from EIT. It would be like redirecting adding machine to double entry bookkeeping. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 13:29, 3 February 2016 (UTC).[reply]
Redirect as mentioned above, because this article is currently questionably solid. SwisterTwister talk 02:10, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:36, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and Redirect to Electrical impedance tomography instead of just redirect. I don't think sufficient information is present there. If either gets more votes here I'll just add some of this material to the Electrical impedance tomography article as a subsection. --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 04:04, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Changed my vote. I think I'll still add some more to the Electrical impedance tomography article later. --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 12:33, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep but rename Notability established as above, and nomination for deletion was in my opinion, a confusion caused by the wrong article name. But article name should be reverted to EIDORS. One problem with moving it to a section of Electrical impedance tomography is that that article is curently about biomedical applications of EIT, while Electrical resistivity tomography (ERT) covers the geophysical case and industrial process tomography is now only covered in Industrial process imaging. See references inEIDORS article for uses in a variety on non medical areas. If EIDORS were to be merged it would have to be a section in a new article Calderon's inverse boundary value problem which would cover the mathematical problem irrespective of application Billlion (talk) 09:17, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: As it is relisted perhaps some users of EIDORS get a chance to look at this as the article certainly needs some improvement. As there is plenty of open source example images and meshes on the EIDORS web site and some of those could be used to illustrate the article. The idea of an article on Calderon's problem generally is growing on me, and I hope to start this irrespective of the outcome of the debate. The subject of electrical imaging is a difficult one for Wikipedia in that it appears different to the different communities medical, industrial and geophysical even though mathematically they are doing the same thing. I think a mathematical article that covers both uniqueness and stability of solution and numerical methods of inversion sounds like a good idea as then the application articles can focus on what is specific to those areas.Billlion (talk) 10:04, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: While the article is certainly under-developed, EIDORS is definitely notable. It is widely used in research on Electrical Impedance Tomography (aka ERT). In fact, it is frequently used as the gold standard implementation against which new algorithms are compared (e.g. ^[1]^[2], recent scientific articles by authors not associated with EIDORS). As Billion argues, scientific articles are the best independent reliable sources for this scientific software. Bgrychtol (talk) 11:22, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Here's an open-access article example: Saeedizadeh N, Kermani S, Rabbani H. A Comparison between the hp-version of Finite Element Method with EIDORS for Electrical Impedance Tomography. Journal of Medical Signals and Sensors. 2011;1(3):200-205. ^[3]/ Bgrychtol (talk) 14:11, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Rename: The article title should be (or contain) "EIDORS", such as e.g. on the EIDORS website: "EIDORS: Electrical Impedance Tomography and Diffuse Optical Tomography Reconstruction Software" ^[4]. "Electrical Impedance Tomography Reconstruction Software" is too generic and could as well contain a list. Bgrychtol (talk) 11:22, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - while it's hard to establish (GNG-)notability without the access to paywalled papers, there are indications that coverage rather than mere mention of the software takes place - e.g. " More recently, the application of image reconstruction to a specific tomography problem has become simplified by the introduction of user-defined functions implemented from Electrical Impedance and Diffuse Optical Reconstruction Software (EIDORS)."

Moreover articles such as that included in Computer Networks and Intelligent Computing: 5th International Conference on Information Processing, ICIP 2011, Bangalore, India, August 5-7, 2011. Proceedings on page 622 cover the software before moving on to modifications and other matters.

There is reason to believe that sufficient independent reliable coverage exists to keep this article.

All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 13:23, 3 February 2016 (UTC).[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:37, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: (but rename article) This software is also used in industry (though I guess my citation is proprietary). Sewebster (talk) 17:54, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:32, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Phoenix Film Festival[edit]

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

After 10 years this article still has not acquired a single independent reliable source. An Internet search turns up multiple sources that lack independence and trivial mentions in other contexts. Article needs to have multiple independent reliable sources that indicate that the festival itself has been their non-trivial subject. KDS4444^Talk 01:43, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:31, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:31, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:31, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I'm finding some sources like this and this. They're brief, but they're not really press releases or routine notifications per se. I think that the easiest way to assert notability here might be to see how many places have republished their awards results. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 11:47, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This looks promising. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 11:49, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The focus of this article. So far I'm finding mostly local sources and not really any reprints of award results. I'm seeing where other newspapers have commented on specific recipients, but not really general awards announcements. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 11:52, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. It's not much, but there's this article by Variety. Getting mentioned in Variety counts for something, I suppose. Also, MovieMaker has a bunch of listicles that ranked this festival. For example: [32], [33], [34]. Make of that what you will. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 15:26, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
weak Keep. on the basis of the Variety article. DGG ( talk ) 01:35, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for now perhaps as the current article also seems convincing enough. Notifying Onel5969 for local analysis. SwisterTwister talk 02:11, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:34, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Consensus to delete is clear following relisting. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:31, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ReelHeART International Film Festival[edit]

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

Subject does not appear to have received non-trivial coverage by multiple independent reliable sources. Article contains no sources of its own (after 10 years), and an Internet search turns up Twitter, Facebook, IMDb, etc. KDS4444^Talk 01:33, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 01:48, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:37, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:37, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. zero reliable evidence for notability.DGG (talk), 1:34, February 3 2016

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:11, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now as this is a questionably notable local festival. BTW, Northamerica1000, you may want to know I was typing this as you relisted (edit conflict). SwisterTwister talk 02:14, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Wikipedia is not a public relations platform on which every film festival that exists gets to keep a profile for promotional purposes — which is indeed at least partially what's going on here, as the article has been extensively edited in the past by User:ReelHeART. But the reliable source coverage needed to support an encyclopedia article about it simply isn't there — on both Google News and ProQuest, it only gets passing hits on mentions of its name in articles about films that have screened at it, and isn't the subject of any coverage that I can locate besides its own self-published press releases on PRWeb. This is not how a film festival gets a Wikipedia article. Bearcat (talk) 21:29, 5 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. Test AFD. I'm assuming Twinkle passed the test and will live another day. (non-admin closure) | Uncle Milty | talk | 01:46, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User:Jmatazzoni/sandbox[edit]

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

Jmatazzoni (talk) 01:39, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:31, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Owens Park[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Not much encyclopaedic information; not notable on its own - It is included in the Fallowfield Campus article. ツStacey (talk) 20:56, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. sst ✈ 01:23, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 13:21, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 13:21, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:36, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I don't really see any change in notability since the 2007 AfD. For that reason I would still make similar comments, that the tower is notable as a local landmark, and that the groups that have formed there (The Chemical Brothers, Van der Graaf Generator) make it worth keeping. The article still needs improvement, however. --David Edgar (talk) 02:09, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid the groups that formed there might be completely false - I find no evidence of them anywhere (though some lazy newspapers have since copied it from the article) ツStacey (talk) 10:28, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, sst✈^(conjugate) 01:09, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There are lots of list-articles and individual articles about university buildings. Here there are 5 residence hall articles and many more buildings' articles in Category:Buildings at the University of Manchester. One could argue they ought to be combined into one or two list-articles, with redirects from each current title. Certainly the Owens Park one should redirect to a list-article, rather than be deleted outright. I don't want to create the list-article, do you? It simply takes more work than it is worth to try to reduce here. --do ncr am 00:12, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think the 'list' style you might be referring to is the Fallowfield Campus article which includes all the buildings within the campus. In that article it only includes the sourced and useful information.. This Owens Park article unfortunately includes a lot of fluff, possible incorrect information and is largely un-sourced.ツStacey (talk) 10:03, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect perhaps where it is mentioned at the University of Manchester article as this is questionably independently notable. SwisterTwister talk 23:04, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:31, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Rise Up (Colors of Peace)[edit]

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

Fails WP:NMUSIC - no indication of notability or even significance. No external sources. 71 Google hits. Likely a promo of Fethullah Gulen. — kashmiri ^TALK 23:45, 19 January 2016 (UTC) — kashmiri ^TALK 23:45, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. sst ✈ 01:20, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. sst ✈ 01:20, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:37, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, sst✈^(conjugate) 01:09, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and I would've also considered redirecting because this article is questionable including questionably improvable. SwisterTwister talk 22:58, 8 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:30, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

AF107[edit]

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

"The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline and the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (companies) requirement. This was prodded in the past by User:Alan Liefting and was deprodded by User:Andy Dingley with the following rationale "historically significant transistor, albeit obsolete today". I can't find any good sources, nor have any been added to the article. WP:ITSIMPORTANT is not a valid assertion unless backed up by sources, so - can anyone find anything? _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 20:21, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Having failed to delete any of the other transistor articles you've gone after Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/TIP31 (2nd nomination), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/KD503, you do still keep trying, don't you? Andy Dingley (talk) 21:27, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- KD503 was merged, which is fine with me. Now, do you have anything to say about this one? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:29, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:30, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 17:51, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As noted at the outset, this was a transistor of the 1960s which occupied an important role at the time as "the" radio frequency small signal transistor. Expanding and sourcing the article is waiting on someone who still has the reference texts of those days. Andy Dingley (talk) 18:39, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Except for your assertion of WP:ITSIMPORTANT we still are missing even a single reference that would help estabilish the subject's notability. Could you provide one? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 19:18, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - To explain why it's notable isn't the same thing as just claiming blankly that "it just is". Lack of space some years back mean that I no longer have the paper sources to allow me to fully cite this. I would hope though that some other editors might have them. Andy Dingley (talk) 18:40, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, sst✈^(conjugate) 00:59, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

weak Keep. we normally have pretty full coverage of technical subjects in electronics. It doesn eeda further referene--perhaps Draft space or a combination article? DGG ( talk ) 01:15, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for now as this seems convincing enough. SwisterTwister talk 02:20, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Chancellors Hotel & Conference Centre. Note to nominator: WP:BLAR could have been invoked here and in other uncontroversial redirection cases. (non-admin closure) Esquivalience ^t 01:09, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Firs Botanical Grounds[edit]

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

Not much information; no references; not notable - It is included in the Fallowfield Campus article under 'Facilities' ツStacey (talk) 20:52, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:25, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 17:51, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom (with no prejudice to the creation of a redirect). Neutrality^talk 20:46, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, sst✈^(conjugate) 00:59, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Chancellors Hotel & Conference Centre. DGG ( talk ) 01:17, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as mentioned because I see no serious for deletion and this is enough to save the article. SwisterTwister talk 02:17, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Spartaz ^Humbug! 11:47, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Flashpoint Studios[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Flashpoint Studios (2nd nomination)

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

Due to some events this past year, it has come to my attention that there are some articles and images regarding me and my former business on Wikipedia. And while eager and well-meaning, I believe a former associate of mine is responsible, at least in part, for this content. Both articles either contain some privileged information or general inaccuracies. I’m not really sure why this article even still exists. I would have to agree with the article’s notation of questionable notability. Flashpoint Studios, now discontinued, was simply a consultation and promotional arm of my core media development company. And while it is tied to some high-profile projects, it’s more of a footnote and hardly seems noteworthy to your global audience. And, it contains some inaccuracies and wording that can be misleading. Kevin carvell (talk) 22:50, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. sst ✈ 01:21, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: User has also proposed that the Kevin Carvell article be deleted. ^~~Hydronium^~Hydroxide^~(Talk)~~ 06:20, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note - The Kevin Carvell AFD ended as Delete on 26 January 2016 --| Uncle Milty | talk | 01:54, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as well because my searches found nothing better than a few links with "Flashpoint Studios". SwisterTwister talk 06:31, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 17:52, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanjagenije (talk) 00:58, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:29, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Julian Bunetta[edit]

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

vanity page, fails WP:GNG, no secondary sources at all -- Y not? 17:18, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral - While it does look like it is written in the form of a vanity page, it does seem like it can be improved with secondary sources and a less vain way to talk about him. Jackninja5 (talk) 18:56, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- It would indeed be true if there were secondary sources. However, there aren't any. -- Y not? 22:19, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - Then unless someone finds any, I would say Delete. Jackninja5 (talk) 04:08, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 17:51, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanjagenije (talk) 00:56, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete lack of sources to support the claims of article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:08, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as no signs of a better convincing article. SwisterTwister talk 22:46, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:29, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

PlayMillion.com[edit]

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

Online gambling site that does not meet WP:GNG. Plenty of references, but nothing in-depth from WP:RS. Claim is that it is ranked as one of the top 100 worldwide gaming sites. Claim is dubious and not supported by reliable source. CNMall41 (talk) 21:40, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep - this company is listed as in the Top 100 Casino sites in the world. Subtropical-man talk
(en-2) 21:52, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That is a dubious honor, but where are the reliable sources that discuss this? I see the sources, but I do not see any reliable source that would meet WP:RS. --CNMall41 (talk) 21:57, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

For example, the Canadian Gambling Insider article links out to PlayMillion.com. However, if you look close, it is an affiliate link to the site. A publication that is unbiased and has editorial oversight is not likely to include an affiliate links like that within an article. The only reason to do so is to make money which shows that the article is likely written to drive traffic to PlayMillion.com - and referral revenue for CGI. --CNMall41 (talk) 22:15, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

According to me, meets of WP:RS. Subtropical-man talk
(en-2) 22:54, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:06, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, sst✈^(conjugate) 00:56, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I am not convinced there are independent reliable sources, and the article is basically an advertisement to the extent I would consider G11 speedy: "The company actively promotes responsible gaming in a safe environment and protects vulnerable persons from any possibility of abuse or danger. " DGG ( talk ) 01:32, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as not yet better convincing for the applicable notability. SwisterTwister talk 02:16, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep without prejudice against a future merger into a list article of Casio calculators when one is written. The discussion below reached a rough consensus that we ought to keep some description of this (and most other) Casio calculator series, as the information can be sourced and there exists independent media coverage to make them notable. An eventual merge into a list article may be a better way to present the information, but there is little appetite for outright deletion. Der yck C. 16:36, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Casio 9860 series[edit]

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

Unsourced, no indication of notability. Essentially a fansite. BoxOfChickens (talk · contribs · CSD/ProD log) 00:54, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:52, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:02, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I don't see the problem with keeping articles about individual models/series of electronic calculators from major manufacturers, provided they have substantial content (as this one does). In terms of notability, there are media references to this series of calculators (e.g. [35]). In any event, how is this worse than having an article on an individual model/series of cars? SJK (talk) 06:06, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, sst✈^(conjugate) 00:55, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The AfDs before with the exception of Casio fx-991ES were about interfaces where as this is about the seemingly newest series of calculators from Casio. --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 05:59, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This AFD and other Casio product AFDs is not a good way to discuss better editing, I mean real editing like a book publisher does, of Wikipedia's coverage of Category:Programmable computers or of Casio products. How about write an essay evaluating the coverage of TI and Casio and HP and Sharp and IBM calculators, and propose how it should all be consolidated into list-articles (perhaps, or whatever), and have an RFC about it. Singling out the Casio ones, or just selected Casio ones, doesn't produce a useful consensus that would stick. Maybe there is less detail about Casio ones than TI ones, and the TI ones should be reduced. Where should we draw a line? And, note that it would be better to redirect this and other Casio calculator articles to a list-article of them, than to outright delete the material. --do ncr am 00:26, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to a list or main article. BoxOfChickens (talk · contribs · CSD/ProD log) 00:50, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect if needed. SwisterTwister talk 22:50, 8 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 Casio 9860 series. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:28, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Casio fx-991ES[edit]

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

Unsourced, no indication of notability. BoxOfChickens (talk · contribs · CSD/ProD log) 00:52, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:52, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:02, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, sst✈^(conjugate) 00:54, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete/Redirect This is less keep-worthy than Casio 9860 series but more keep-worthy than the Casio interfaces, so it was harder to make a decision here. What won me over was that this article links to Casio_V.P.A.M._calculators. Much but not all of the information is already repeated there. The "feature list" of Casio fx-991ES is meaningless as it's typical for any calculator these days. --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 06:21, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This AFD and other Casio product AFDs is not a good way to discuss better editing, I mean real editing like a book publisher does, of Wikipedia's coverage of Category:Programmable calculators or of Casio products. How about write an essay evaluating the coverage of TI and Casio and HP and Sharp and IBM calculators, and propose how it should all be consolidated into list-articles (perhaps, or whatever), and have an RFC about it. Singling out the Casio ones, or just selected Casio ones, doesn't produce a useful consensus that would stick. Maybe there is less detail about Casio ones than TI ones, and the TI ones should be reduced. Where should we draw a line? And, note that it would be better to redirect this and other Casio calculator articles to a list-article of them, than to outright delete the material, to preserve material that can be merged and refined. Create the list-article first, following example of Comparison of Texas Instruments graphing calculators, perhaps. --do ncr am 00:31, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to a list or main article. BoxOfChickens (talk · contribs · CSD/ProD log) 00:50, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect if needed. SwisterTwister talk 22:49, 8 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 Casio FX-702P. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:28, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Casio FP-10[edit]

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

Unsourced, no indication of notability. BoxOfChickens (talk · contribs · CSD/ProD log) 00:52, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 00:54, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:02, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, sst✈^(conjugate) 00:54, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect I added some of the article's tiny contents to Casio_FX-702P#Interface. Information about FP-10 already existed there. --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 05:58, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This AFD and other Casio product AFDs is not a good way to discuss better editing, I mean real editing like a book publisher does, of Wikipedia's coverage of Category:Programmable calculators or of Casio products (see Casio#Calculators). How about write an essay evaluating the coverage of TI and Casio and HP and Sharp and IBM calculators, and propose how it should all be consolidated into list-articles (perhaps, or whatever), and have an RFC about it. Singling out the Casio ones, or just selected Casio ones, doesn't produce a useful consensus that would stick. Maybe there is less detail about Casio ones than TI ones, and the TI ones should be reduced. Where should we draw a line? And, note that it would be better to redirect this and other Casio calculator articles to a list-article of them, than to outright delete the material, to preserve material that can be merged and refined. Create the list-article first, following example of Comparison of Texas Instruments graphing calculators, perhaps. --do ncr am 00:33, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to a list or main article. BoxOfChickens (talk · contribs · CSD/ProD log) 00:49, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect if needed. SwisterTwister talk 22:49, 8 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 Casio FX-603P. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:27, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Casio FA-6[edit]

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

Unsourced, no indication of notability. BoxOfChickens (talk · contribs · CSD/ProD log) 00:50, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:53, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:01, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, sst✈^(conjugate) 00:53, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect I added some of the article's tiny contents to Casio_FX-603P#Interface. Information about FA-6 already existed there. --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 05:57, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This AFD and other Casio product AFDs is not a good way to discuss better editing, I mean real editing like a book publisher does, of Wikipedia's coverage of Category:Programmable calculators or of Casio products (see Casio#Calculators). How about write an essay evaluating the coverage of TI and Casio and HP and Sharp and IBM calculators, and propose how it should all be consolidated into list-articles (perhaps, or whatever), and have an RFC about it. (And Mr. Magoo and McBarker's edits mentioned are much less than creating a decent list-article.) Singling out the Casio ones, or just selected Casio ones, doesn't produce a useful consensus that would stick. Maybe there is less detail about Casio ones than TI ones, and the TI ones should be reduced. Where should we draw a line? And, note that it would be better to redirect this and other Casio calculator articles to a list-article of them, than to outright delete the material, to preserve material that can be merged and refined. Create the list-article first, following example of Comparison of Texas Instruments graphing calculators, perhaps. --do ncr am 00:36, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to a list or main article. BoxOfChickens (talk · contribs · CSD/ProD log) 00:50, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect if needed. SwisterTwister talk 22:48, 8 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 Casio FX-502P series. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:27, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Casio FA-1[edit]

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

Unsourced, no indication of notability. BoxOfChickens (talk · contribs · CSD/ProD log) 00:50, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:53, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:01, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, sst✈^(conjugate) 00:53, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect I added some of the article's tiny contents to Casio_FX-502P_series#Interface. Information about FA-1 already existed there. --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 05:56, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This AFD and other Casio product AFDs is not a good way to discuss better editing, I mean real editing like a book publisher does, of Wikipedia's coverage of Category:Programmable calculators or of Casio products (see Casio#Calculators). How about write an essay evaluating the coverage of TI and Casio and HP and Sharp and IBM calculators, and propose how it should all be consolidated into list-articles (perhaps, or whatever), and have an RFC about it. (And Mr. Magoo and McBarker's edits mentioned are much less than creating a decent list-article.) Singling out the Casio ones, or just selected Casio ones, doesn't produce a useful consensus that would stick. Maybe there is less detail about Casio ones than TI ones, and the TI ones should be reduced. Where should we draw a line? And, note that it would be better to redirect this and other Casio calculator articles to a list-article of them, than to outright delete the material, to preserve material that can be merged and refined. Create the list-article first, following example of Comparison of Texas Instruments graphing calculators, perhaps. --do ncr am 00:35, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to a list or main article. BoxOfChickens (talk · contribs · CSD/ProD log) 00:50, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect if needed. SwisterTwister talk 22:48, 8 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 Casio FX-602P series. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:26, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Casio FA-2[edit]

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

Unsourced, no indication of notability. BoxOfChickens (talk · contribs · CSD/ProD log) 00:49, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is a perfectly good article. There is no need to let this deletionist rid wikipedia of all information on Casio. This evil person is launching a jihad of censorship against Casio and needs to be stopped. Malcolm's office (talk) 07:09, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Lol. BoxOfChickens (talk · contribs · CSD/ProD log) 07:16, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User has made no edits elsewhere. Wonder who the sockmaster is. GAB^Hello! 00:24, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Quick checkuser maybe? BoxOfChickens (talk · contribs · CSD/ProD log) 01:51, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Go ahead, but I'm unsure who the master would be... GAB^Hello! 20:42, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A quick checkuser request is now open. BoxOfChickens (talk · contribs · CSD/ProD log) 19:35, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:53, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:01, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, sst✈^(conjugate) 00:53, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect I added some of the article's tiny contents to Casio_FX-602P_series#Interface. Information about FA-2 already existed there. --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 05:55, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This AFD and other Casio product AFDs is not a good way to discuss better editing, I mean real editing like a book publisher does, of Wikipedia's coverage of Category:Programmable calculators or of Casio products (see Casio#Calculators). How about write an essay evaluating the coverage of TI and Casio and HP and Sharp and IBM calculators, and propose how it should all be consolidated into list-articles (perhaps, or whatever), and have an RFC about it. (And Mr. Magoo and McBarker's edits mentioned are much less than creating a decent list-article.) Singling out the Casio ones, or just selected Casio ones, doesn't produce a useful consensus that would stick. Maybe there is less detail about Casio ones than TI ones, and the TI ones should be reduced. Where should we draw a line? And, note that it would be better to redirect this and other Casio calculator articles to a list-article of them, than to outright delete the material, to preserve material that can be merged and refined. Create the list-article first, following example of Comparison of Texas Instruments graphing calculators, perhaps. --do ncr am 00:36, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to a list or main article. BoxOfChickens (talk · contribs · CSD/ProD log) 00:50, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect if needed. SwisterTwister talk 22:47, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:26, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

XXYYXX (album)[edit]

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

While the concept of a 16-year-old making a record like this does sound interesting, the album lacks notability in independent sources. All sputnikmusic reviews of this album are user reviews, and most reviews I found using google searches are basically unreliable blog and wordpress posts. I can't say this record meets WP:NALBUMS. edtiorEهեইдအီးËეεઈדוארई電子ಇអ៊ី전자ഇī 21:18, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete given the lack of independent, reliable coverage. Curro2 (talk) 01:32, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable artist. http://noisey.vice.com/blog/xxyyxx-says-hes-head-of-the--illuminati http://www.clashmusic.com/features/otw-516-xxyyxx --2A02:1812:C08:E700:9D89:F7E1:C243:62FC (talk) 19:45, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- JadestarXL said it best below. Notable artist doesn't always equal notable album. edtiorEهեইдအီးËეεઈדוארई電子ಇអ៊ី전자ഇī 04:59, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The album itself is not notable enough to have a page of its own, even if the artist is notable. JadestarXL (talk) 01:27, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanjagenije (talk) 00:52, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete at best as none of this is convincing for a serpatate article. SwisterTwister talk 22:44, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:25, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yasuhiro Kawakami[edit]

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

Japanese composer with a handful of game credits, but I don't think those credits establish notability. It's a well formatted article but I really can't find anything on this guy. The only noteworthy claim is that he was on the "most collaborated soundtrack" by Square, which if you think about it, is kind of a spurious superlative. JP Wikipedia isn't a help either. Axem Titanium (talk) 00:37, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Composer working on notable games doesn't make composer notable. Most sources are first-party, GameSpot is technical info. --Soetermans. T / C 21:54, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - yeah, it's a credits list; the prose is pretty much the credit list again, but with some citations that only prove that he worked on said games. There's nothing in there about Kawakami himself, beyond that he worked at company X doing games Y-Z. Most collaborated soundtrack by Square isn't saying much, since the successor company Square Enix has had games with twice as many composers only a few years later. --Pres N 21:58, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- Let's all say it together now, "Notability is not Inherited". The work itself is notable, but he is not. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 05:23, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete perhaps abd draft & userfy instead as this article is still questionable for an article. SwisterTwister talk 22:45, 8 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.