< 20 January	22 January >

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 01:51, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Emily Vanderbilt Sloane[edit]

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

Notability not inherited from Vanderbilt connection, she was a philanthropist, but I'm not seeing her as notable outside of membership in notable groups, and coming from a notable family. Propose delete or merge with Vanderbilt family superβεεcat 23:11, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. sst ✈ 01:49, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, notability is not inherited. sst ✈ 01:49, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep of course The references determine her notability, not her status as a philanthropist or a socialite. Think reality TV stars or YouTube stars, if she was a contemporary person. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 02:49, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep primarily because of the NYT sources currently in the article. Yes, notability is not inherited, which invalidates a "keep, she's a member of the vanderbilt family" argument; but nobody is saying that here. Perhaps the media only care about her because of her family heritage, but I don't believe we are in the business of second-guessing coverage in reliable sources, which she has. Vanamonde93 (talk) 07:19, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Most of the major events of her life were the subject of articles in the NYT.Popeye191 (talk) 07:57, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, apparently a major figure in NYC social life in the past, certainly more interesting than random descendants of deposed monarchs. —Kusma (t·c) 10:35, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep based upon existing non-trivial coverage of the subject from reliable sources. Regards, Yamaguchi先生 (talk) 01:01, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Vanderbilt family. Yes, there are a ton of book sources, but if you look closely, it seems every single one refers to "her mother / daughter / sister-in law" rather than her as an actual subject. I'm probably disparaging her by thinking of her as an archetypical lady who lunches, but she doesn't appear to have directly done anything much. The only other thing I can recommend is to tell Hafspajen about the infobox picture, so it can be added to their collection. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 13:35, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable in her own right.♦ Dr. Blofeld 13:57, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable in her own right -- philanthropist, community organizer, published author. --Rosiestep (talk) 15:26, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Not exactly sure what this means "she was a philanthropist, but..." GNG does not require her to have done anything, nor had an occupation, though she actually did contribute to society. Disparaging reference to her donations do not diminish that she made them nor that the press thought they were significant enough to mention them. She was a preservationist, supported education and founded a PTA, was a writer and was involved in social betterment programs at a time when governments did not have social programs. WP guidelines require 3 criteria, mentioned over time, in reliable sources, with significant coverage. Significant coverage = depth, not length. Clearly she passes all 3, as she is still being written about and there are a plethora of RS about her and her works. SusunW (talk) 15:34, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Okay, I've had a thorough look round and mined the sources available in the article and what I could get from a book search, and there's now some content in the article that is specifically about her as a person, so I'm happy to say it passes muster for inclusion. In general, I think we talk a lot about notability, reliable sources, GNG etc .... but what it really should be boil down to is a simple question : "Could anyone write a good article about this subject?" (please note that a "good article" is not a "good article") PS: I do confess that the appearance of Susun and Rosie has reminded me I should do some work for Women in Red before the month is over..... Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 16:44, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable in her own right. --Doug Coldwell (talk) 21:30, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 11:25, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Metrodigi[edit]

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

Apparent lack of notability. An online search reveals little or no substantial coverage. The sources provided are press releases, mentions in passing, and a couple of failed verifications that may relate to a product of theirs, or a book produced using a product of theirs, but notability isn't inherited. —Largo Plazo (talk) 23:05, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - this is the kind of thing where I feel like they created an article on themself a year or so too early or I might have let it slide after a bit of cleanup. Author has been honest about identity which I do respect, but thanks to Largo Plazo for spotting those citations which don't mention that the award is actually for work this company did. Nonetheless, this isn't the worst case I've seen and if Ms. Scioli can dig up more reliable sources on her company I might switch my vote. Blythwood (talk) 23:33, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. sst ✈ 01:50, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. sst ✈ 01:50, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. sst ✈ 01:50, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as questionable from the current article. Delete for now at best, SwisterTwister talk 23:48, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sarahj2107 (talk) 08:29, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Early scholars of Islam[edit]

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

WP:CONTENTFORK of History of Islam and its various subarticles. Merging to elsewhere does not seem necessary, since obvious targets like History of Islam and its subarticles already cover the content. The article is also a WP:SYNTHESIS of the histories of various ~~scholars~~ important Muslims from an undefined "early" period. If we're going to keep this however, where do we draw the line? Which scholars and what part of history can be part of the page? HyperGaruda (talk) 22:10, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. HyperGaruda (talk) 22:10, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Most of the article is pasted from Fiqh, History of Islam, and (bizarrely) Safavid dynasty or a related article, while the rest is WP:OR. Eperoton (talk) 22:45, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

delete per the above. content fork, and large chunks of OR to boot. Vanamonde93 (talk) 07:25, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:31, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete and redirect to Australian Young Labor. czar 06:37, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

South Australian Young Labor[edit]

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

Delete - This article is a stub and fails to comply with Wikipedia:Notability. It does not have significant coverage in reliable third party sources. To the extent that it is notable, any information is already covered in Australian Young Labor which provides appropriate context. It does not need a standalone page, and creating one leads to a needless WP:CONTENTFORK. - Paperclip Maximiser (talk) 21:21, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. sst ✈ 01:51, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. sst ✈ 01:51, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and redirect to Australian Young Labor. Not independently notable. The Drover's Wife (talk) 03:13, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - as per above. Aeonx (talk) 23:19, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Draftify. Strictly speaking, it's a little bit of a stretch to declare that there's actually a consensus to draftify. However, several people (including the nom) said they would go along with that, and seems like a reasonable thing to do per WP:ATD. The concept here is that it's likely that WP:RS will show up in the future; this shouldn't get moved back to main space unless and until they do appear and get added to the article. -- RoySmith (talk) 13:41, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Acid Betty[edit]

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

WP:BLP of a drag queen and performance artist, without the reliable source coverage necessary to pass WP:GNG. The only "source" here is a Q&A-style interview on The Huffington Post — however, that type of source represents the subject talking about themself, and is thus subject to the same problems as any other public relations sourcing. It would be acceptable for some supplementary confirmation of facts after the article had already been sourced over GNG by other coverage, but it cannot count toward GNG if it is the best, or the only, source you can come up with. The article claims notability as "first and only hybrid drag queen in the world" — but if, like me, your first question was "what does 'hybrid drag queen' mean?" or "hybrid of what, exactly?", neither this article nor the interview is actually going to give you a clear answer. It seems to be a self-invented PR angle, rather than a distinction that any independent source actually conferred on Acid Betty for any identifiable reason. So there's no genuinely strong claim of notability here, and no substantive reliable source coverage — and all of that spells delete. Bearcat (talk) 20:41, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. sst ✈ 01:54, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've passed this originally, basing on The Huffington Post article, but I see the argument and agree that without other reliable sources it's delete.Arthistorian1977 (talk) 11:29, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I added some sources. Some are RS, some are iffy, but I didn't like the information being unsourced for a BLP. I agree with Bearcat that the claim of hybrid drag queen is confusing. I've noticed that Acid Betty gets a lot of mentions and seems important in NYC circles. Betty has an interview in the Huff Post and in the Village Voice. Acid Betty also might be a contestant on RuPual's Drag Race for season 8, which will be announced soon. For that reason, because the current sources are weak, I'd suggest Move to draft and if Betty is a contestant, there will be be more RS available. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 18:34, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be comfortable with that alternative as well — while WP:CRYSTAL certainly prevents us from treating Drag Race as a priori evidence of notability in advance of a formal announcement, it does suggest a strong possibility of having to recreate this sooner rather than later. Also, for the record, I did a Google search on "hybrid drag queen" for clarification, and turned up a Yahoo Answers thread in which it was explained that Acid Betty is a "hybrid" drag queen because she deliberately includes masculine gender elements in her drag persona as well. But (a) Yahoo Answers obviously isn't a reliable source, so I'm not suggesting we add that to the article, and (b) anybody who thinks that blurring the gender line is a claim of uniqueness for a drag queen, in and of itself, obviously doesn't know as much about drag as they think they do — that's not even rare, let alone unprecedented. Bearcat (talk) 18:55, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Agree as well, moving to draft may be a good solution here. Arthistorian1977 (talk) 19:51, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:55, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable, lacks indepth source coverage.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:08, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as currently questionably solidly notable for WP:CREATIVE. SwisterTwister talk 06:06, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:06, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I am somewhat familiar with the drag scene in both New York City and Fire Island, and this person is not notable, period. Bearian (talk) 22:06, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. There seems to be consensus that the subject matter is notable. The article may need cleanup to meet our standards, but that isn't a matter for AfD. (non-admin closure) ansh 666 21:01, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Spanish profanity[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

This article is not an article but simply a mostly unsourced collection of prurient and puerile words in Spanish. The article should be deleted under WP:NOT, WP:NOTADICTIONARY and WP:SYNTH (given that there are no sources about "Spanish profanity" in general, but is pieced together of aritcles (mostly dictionary entries) that mention specific swear words). This material is not encyclopedic, but if it needs to be on wiki should be moved to wiktionary. Previous AfDs have failed because it has been considered that it is possible to write an article about the topic - I agree in principle, but such an article would not include any of the current content which is closer to a list article. I dont think an article titled "List of Spanish swear words" would fall under wikipedias mission statement and that is essentially what the article is currently.Google books only two books on "Spanish Profanity" are ripped from this very wikipedia page - in google scholar I found nothing. Hence keep voters should show which literature supports the notion that this topic is notable enough to pass the GNG. The argument here is not that the topic or the words are offensive so dont try to use WP:NOTCENSORED as an argument. Also the problem is not the quality of the article but that it is not possible to write a better article because there are no sources that can be used to build a coherent article on this topic. ·maunus · snunɐɯ· 20:42, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

- It is really sad that four editors can comment here without providing valid policy based arguments, or addressing the deletion rationale.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 18:22, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Do you consider that the article is better or worse than Dutch profanity? Where is the difference? FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 22:24, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OTHERSTUFF is not a valid argument, or one I care to even consider.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 22:50, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't making any argument, per se, and you have misread my comment if you think I was. FYI, it sometimes happens that a group of articles are nominated for deletion together; if you thought that Dutch profanity was as bad as Spanish profanity, you might have well have added it to this nomnination. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 23:20, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. AfD is not cleanup. Please WP:TNT if needed. sst ✈ 01:53, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

None of the arguments presented are about cleanup, but about notability and encyclopedic fit. Please demonstrate notability of topic with literature and present argument for why the topic doesnt violate WP:NOT to argue for keep.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 02:58, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. sst ✈ 01:54, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. sst ✈ 01:54, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep If the topic is notable, then the solution is to improve the article - however difficult that may be. The article does include at least some meaningful text over and above Spanish swearwords ("Spanish profanity varies significantly among Spanish-speaking nations, and even in regions of the same nation. Idiomatic expressions, particularly profanity, are not always directly translatable into other languages") and I do not see what would be accomplished by deleting it. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 03:08, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

So demonstrate that it is notable with some serious sources on the topic. That an article has "at least some meaningful text" does not demonstrate that a topic is notable or encyclopedic. ·maunus · snunɐɯ· 06:16, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You are right that sources need to be provided to show notability. Your deletion rationale was flawed nevertheless, as you asserted that an article could be created about Spanish profanity but that it "would not include any of the current content". Some at least of the current content seems acceptable. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 08:29, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Seems notable enough. Article needs heavy work though, I don't see many infamous ones. --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 13:43, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Care to support that feeling with an argument, and preferably also some sources?·maunus · snunɐɯ· 17:26, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, now it's apparent where all of them are. You deleted them. --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 17:55, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What I deleted was entirely unsourced. The material in there now is sourced, but to dictionaries that are not about the topic of the article and which therefore does not support notability - making the article as it stands now OR and Synth.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 18:20, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Some of what you removed was incredibly general and without even need to be sourced, and sources for that material can be found instantly. Instead of deleting you should have spent a minute per term adding a source for it if you're so determined about the citations... --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 02:16, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 11:26, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Motels in the United States[edit]

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

This article was created first as an undiscussed move and then as a copy/paste content fork by an editor who thought the Motel article contained too much focus on the United States. However, other editors generally disagreed, and basically wanted to retain the content in the Motel article, because the United States has been an integral part of the history of the motel concept. There was a lot of fuss and edit warring and move warring and talk page (and user talk page) discussion, and a 24-hour block of the editor that created the article and a PROD of the article that was then removed by that same editor, who basically stopped editing on Wikipedia at that point. This was all more than six months ago (about 8 months, actually). The existence of this copy/paste article was basically never supported by consensus, and it has been abandoned without improvement ever since it was created. The information in the article is already in the Motel article, and this article is serving no useful purpose and it should either be deleted or redirected to Motel. —BarrelProof (talk) 20:06, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. —BarrelProof (talk) 20:20, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. —BarrelProof (talk) 20:25, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. —BarrelProof (talk) 20:47, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. —BarrelProof (talk) 20:52, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. —BarrelProof (talk) 20:54, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (don't redirect). Clear WP:POVFORK arising from an edit dispute by the party responsible for that dispute through inappropriate long-term edit warring and wholesale disrespect for WP:ENGVAR. Article is unneeded, and its creation was pointy and against consensus. oknazevad (talk) 20:22, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as separate page, but remove the huge duplicate block of country-specific information which was inexplicably pasted back into the main motel article. That article is about motels globally, where the focus on one nation is WP:UNDUE and problematic to the article. This material was split out the better part of a year ago because an anon-IP back in 2012 had repeatedly dumped a progressively-growing quantity of US-specific trivia into the main article from a single source: ISBN 9780801869181, The Motel In America (The Road And American Culture) by Professor John A. Jakle. I have some reservations as to whether we need all this country-specific information at all, certainly we don't need a 70Kb cut-and-paste exercise recycling ISBN 9780801869181 and its book-length trivia about individual US-specific motel chains (a few of which, such as the Alamo Plaza Hotel Courts, have been dead for decades). I have no idea why text in motels in the United States was put back into motel as that is not only duplicative, but does violate WP:UNDUE and WP:TRIVIA as it's excess detail of questionable value. It should be removed from the main article entirely - either to be left just in the country-specific article or to be deleted outright; we don't need the history of every US motel chain, dead or alive, just to explain to the reader what a "motel" is. The over-reliance on "The Motel In America" as a single source, even with slight paraphrasing, is dangerously close to WP:COPYVIO. I'd be willing to allow motels in the United States as a valid stand-alone topic if it is notable and if it isn't merely a copyvio or paraphrased rehash of the "motels in America" book, but this level of single-country detail does not belong in the main, global-level article and should therefore be removed from "motel" - either to the subtopic article (if we need the info) or to the bit bucket. K7L (talk) 20:50, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- FYI to those less familiar with this issue, the comment above is from the editor who created the article (who showed up here with amazing rapidity after having made only one edit since May 2015). —BarrelProof (talk) 20:57, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per Oknazevad – I've been arguing that it was a unnecessary content fork since the article was created. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 01:44, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- A content split is not a fork as the two resulting articles differ in topic. There are two situations where a WP:SPINOFF is appropriate, "(1) Articles where individual sections create an undue weight problem and (2) Large summary style overview meta-articles which are composed of many summary sections". If an individual section of motel sources 53Kb to "The Motel in America" and our entire coverage of motels worldwide is 73Kb (including the country-specific sole-sourced text) then yes, an individual section is creating an undue weight problem. That's an WP:NPOV issue per Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/FAQ#Anglo-American_focus. The issue of motel becoming a long list of individual (mostly US) brands was raised in 2006 and the issue of excessive focus on one country raised since at least 2011 by other users. The massive dump of "The Motel in America" book summary text in 2012 only worsened the problems. The article was therefore tagged as ((split)) in November 2013, following the proper procedure. As no objections were made at that time, the split was duly completed in 2015. Indeed, you asked for a third opinion which did confirm a split as legit in this context. All perfectly valid and consistent with established policy. K7L (talk) 18:05, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, WP:POVFORK as described. Regards, Yamaguchi先生 (talk) 01:03, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ - The article should be kept and renamed "Motels in Canada and the United States". Motels in Canada and the US have unique and similar histories, architecture, and cultural significance, compared with the rest of the world. This is obvious from a read of both articles. Magnolia677 (talk) 16:10, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

And why are two articles needed for that?! A section on this at the original motel article should easily suffice. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 22:48, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Good point. As long as the article establishes a section for motels in Canada and the US, then no need to split the article. Magnolia677 (talk) 23:32, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Motels are a US-born phenomenon so there's no reason the page for them wouldn't mostly concentrate on US. --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 13:47, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Which is exactly the point I've tried to make since the original disagreement. The fact is that motels are probably an 80-90% "North American" phenomenon, and the concept was "created" in the U.S., so it's not surprising that coverage of motels is mostly skewed towards the U.S. and Canada. That's not the fault of Wikipedia or Wikipedia editors... In any case, this article is almost a complete duplicate of the original motel article, and thus should be deleted/merged. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 16:47, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The only duplication is caused by one editor (conveniently, the very same user who's trying to get motels in the United States deleted) pasting the entire content back into the global-level motel article (bloating it from 23Kb to 73Kb in one edit, with a misleading edit summary claiming to be reverting speling issues). That edit needs to be undone.

Motels exist worldwide. We wouldn't write an article on motorways which focuses 70% on the German autobahn system, even though the freeway concept originated there; likewise, we wouldn't create a page on French fries which was 70% commentary on which Belgian chains serve the best fries, or which Belgian roads to travel to find this particular cuisine - which originated there, but exists worldwide.

Among the country-specific trivia which is being edit-warred back into the main global-level article (as already pointed out on Talk:Motel at the time) we find:

A lengthy description of the history of discrimination and Jim Crow segregation as it affected the traveller in the southern US, pre Civil Rights movement. The Negro Motorist Green Book, the bits about "interstate commerce" being at stake, all highly country-specific historical footnotes at best.
The "tourist guest home", an early B&B-style operation in the US during the segregation era. B&B's are not motels.
Excess detail about individual US-specific chains and entities, many defunct. United Motor Courts? The American Hotel and Motel Association? Alamo Plaza Hotel Courts? Of the US franchises listed that are still trading, most have left the motel business and are now midrange hotel or ELS hotel (economy, limited service) chains.
Purely US-domestic political commentary, like the American Magazine "camps of crime" diatribe.
The Route 66 Corridor Preservation Program and nostalgic restoration of a few neon motels on one road in one country which isn't happening anywhere else. Individual ghost towns on U.S. Route 66 (such as Amboy CA) whose fate has more to do with that road being bypassed by Interstate 40 than with motels per se.

At this point, 5/7 of the text is country-specific history and trivia which does nothing to enhance our understanding of motels globally. "40 Winks" in Ohio is a dump, "Alamo Plaza" in Baton Rouge is a dump, all of Aurora Avenue is a dump... but all are greatly relieved that the Maples Motel in some obscure corner of Ohio is still a viable family-owned business. I see no reason to merge this mess into the global-level article. K7L (talk) 20:00, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- This is a well-referenced article on a notable subject. If there are duplicate articles, of course merge them. I am neutral on the geographic scope, but I do not think the term is in common use outside north America. Peterkingiron (talk) 19:23, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Thats the thing, the article is quite duplicative; if all the duplicative material were removed from motel (where it was originally added before being copied into the article in question) then motel would be barely a stub and utterly deficient in properly covering the history. If anything, you're !voting for a merge, and then there's no reason to keep the redirect. oknazevad (talk) 01:11, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not really. Motel exists in Wikipedia in three dozen languages; even after splitting out the country-specific trivia, in English it's still 23Kb long - more than double the coverage in any other WP language (10Kb in Japanese, 5Kb in Portuguese, 1-4Kb in most of the others) and more than extensive enough. To pad the article with things that aren't relevant - from a long list of US-specific "in popular culture" references to the history of US B&B's as "tourist guest houses" in the Jim Crow racial segregation era to the entire history of U.S. Route 66 and the demise of bypassed ghost towns like Amboy, California just to make the page look longer? Not very useful, the added fluff does nothing to enhance our knowledge of the motel concept globally and (at more than double the length of motel in any other language) this is a comprehensive article (and not a stub) even without the WP:UNDUE pile of country-specific trivia. K7L (talk) 04:07, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The above says, "If there are duplicate articles, of course merge them" – the fact is that they are already merged, and the merger is found at Motel. This article is just an excerpt of (an older version of) the Motel article. There is no dispute about notability or sourcing. This is a discussion about a content fork. —BarrelProof (talk) 03:01, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sarahj2107 (talk) 08:22, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew Lowe[edit]

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

Note that first deletion discussion pertained to an unrelated geophysicist, and is thus irrelevant to this discussion. This article is a WP:BLP of a YouTube personality, with no substantive claim of notability for that: no number of subscribers on any social media platform, even an impressive number, confers an automatic inclusion freebie on a personality who is not the subject of sufficient reliable source coverage to pass WP:GNG. But apart from one of his own self-published YouTube videos, the only other source here is an article on Storify — which is not an RS, doesn't support half the content in this article, and only just barely escapes being a blurb in terms of length. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 20:02, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. sst ✈ 01:55, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete: Fails WP:BLP. There is no reason to have an article on a non-notable Youtube personality. Delta13C (talk) 13:59, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment the author has added references. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 16:20, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No, he has not added references since the start of this AFD. --Nat Gertler (talk) 16:25, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The article has had no new references added at all, but is still parked on the same two references I already addressed in the original nomination statement: one of his own YouTube videos, which cannot support notability as it's a primary source, and a blurby article on Storify, which cannot support notability as it's an unreliable source. Bearcat (talk) 16:51, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, sorry, some confusion on my part at WT:AFD, I didn't realise the author was referring to a BLPPROD. I agree these are not suitable references. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 18:16, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, fails WP:BLP policy due to lack of reliable sources, as well as all relevant notability guidelines. Regards, Yamaguchi先生 (talk) 19:28, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete owing to a lack of reliable sources to meet the notability guideline. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 02:54, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Anew Revolution. (non-admin closure) ansh 666 20:59, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

IMERICA[edit]

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

This article does not cite any outside sources. The bands page (origin for this album) also has not established significance or notability and has been nominated as well. Garchy (talk) 19:34, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect - Redirect to Anew Revolution so long as the article exists. --Jax 0677 (talk) 19:37, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. sst ✈ 01:56, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect as per above BlueSalix (talk) 19:24, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Close comment - I originally closed as Redirect last night but after the whole ANI thing today I figured this should also be reverted –Davey2010^Talk 15:26, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- RoySmith (talk) 13:47, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel Toledo[edit]

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

Possible non-notable artist. superβεεcat 19:24, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. sst ✈ 01:57, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As Kennedy Honors is a Notable Source. All Other Sources are debatable.CalabJessika (talk) 09:52, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete He is not notable per inclusion outside of the jazz music group he is a member.The Cross Bearer (talk) 19:52, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as this is not yet solidly notably convincing enough. SwisterTwister talk 05:18, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete, uncontested. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 13:03, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Elisabeth Lewis-Jones[edit]

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

Promotional article of a PR executive. No assertion of notability, doesn't meet WP:GNG or WP:BIO. FuriouslySerene (talk) 19:18, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete but come on, every PR exec needs a Wikipedia article. I'm surprised she did not build it out more. Legacypac (talk) 19:22, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. sst ✈ 01:57, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Questionably notable as mentioned, delete for now at best. SwisterTwister talk 23:03, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. We do not usually merge unsourced content and I have discounted those arguments. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 02:46, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Summit College[edit]

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

School has been defunct since 2007. It has zero references. Please note it is not the same as this school: http://www.summitcollege.ca/about-summit/ S Philbrick (Talk) 19:02, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Human3015^{It will rain} 19:45, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Human3015^{It will rain} 19:45, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Human3015^{It will rain} 19:45, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:05, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Per WP:NTEMP, the fact that it shut down almost 10 years ago isn't a reason for deletion. Delete or Selective merge in Muskoka Bible Centre, in any case it doesn't seem to be much information about this on the web.--Prisencolin (talk) 22:14, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Granted, the fact that it's defunct is not, in and of itself, a reason for deletion — but the fact that it's entirely unsourced and almost entirely unsourceable, and thus fails WP:GNG, is a reason for deletion. On a ProQuest search, in fact, I got just one hit for the phrase "Summit College" — and that hit was referring to something associated with the University of Akron, not to any bible school in Muskoka. And even the Muskoka Bible Centre itself isn't really all that sourceable either; I'm finding about as much coverage of it, on either ProQuest or Google, as I'm finding of the college. So it doesn't pass GNG either and needs to go to AFD too, and accordingly isn't a viable redirect target. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 03:01, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Possible merge to Muskoka Bible Conference as a brief section in that article. I does not sound as if it was ever very notable. Peterkingiron (talk) 19:35, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
delete It was hard to even find it. I did finally find info in a search that turned up on a Harvest Bible Fellowship page that failed to load, but the info I sould see on the search read: " In 1996, Kaj started a one-year wilderness discipleship school called Summit College." So that sounds like the place. Not a college, a program. No notability - and, since I accepted that it was a small, defunct college, I searched. Ah, here: [1] is a page that did load. The name Summit College should go to this votech school [2] , presuming that it is legit.E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:35, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- I can confirm that the votech School is legit. In fact, they are the ones who contacted Wikimedia, concerned that someone searching for their school was arriving at this page. I am not convinced the votech school will meet the notability hurdle, so absent creating an article for them and using dab or hatnotes, I thought it would be worth considering deletion of the existing article. I agree that being defunct is not a sufficient reason for deletion, but as there is almost nothing on the school, the fact that they are defunct means it is highly likely there ever will be. Deletion will at least eliminate the false positives.--S Philbrick (Talk) 19:16, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Userfy. Consensus was to userfy as this is probably WP:TOOSOON. (non-admin closure) Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:54, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Untitled Mammootty Madhupal Film[edit]

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

Promotional article about a rumoured film. See WP:G11, WP:TOOSOON, WP:NFF. Charles Turing (talk) 18:55, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Human3015^{It will rain} 19:46, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Human3015^{It will rain} 19:47, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: The article was brought to AFd and then tagged as a G-11 speedy and deleted. Sorry. I have had it returned so editors can research the topic for themselves. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 01:29, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about an unconfirmed and rumoured project. It does not meet any criteria for film article creation. This is purely promotional.--Charles Turing (talk) 06:54, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Go study WP:NFF (paragraph 3). The topic and its relationship to Mammootty and Madhupal is confirmed as receiving commentary and coverage in reliable sources... enough so that we have options that do not require a flat out deletion. And while a film topic might be discussed under WP:NFF (paragraph 3), it is improper to send something to AFD for discussion and then hour later also tag it with a speedy. Let the discussion proceed. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 10:10, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Meh Seems to have started production at last, Mamooty is pretty big potatoes (aloo) so perhaps some other sources will pick up on this pablo 09:01, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Valid enough of a statement to perhaps merit a temporary redirect/merge to the notable actor or the notable director's articles in a section discussing "planed projects". Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 10:10, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

alts:

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

subject:(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)

WP:INDAFD: "Mammootty's Next" "Madhupal's Next"

Userfy temporarily until filming commences, as this planned-for-a-decade film project is getting a lot of coverage and is finally moving forward: Onlookers Media, Onlookers Media (2), Onlookers Media (3), Cinema Scoop Filmibeat (1) (Malayalam), Cinespider, Filmibeat (2), International Business Times, Indiaglitz, NetTV, and so many others. Currently available coverage will meet WP:NFF as soon as filming begins. Okay for a sourced paragraph in articles of Mammootty and Madhupal. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 10:44, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Also as diligence shows that the film title will be Karnan this article requires re-naming to Karnan (2016 film). Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 11:14, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Userfy. This does seem to be a big name company within its own country. White Arabian Filly (Neigh) 00:05, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The film don't have a producer yet, see the reports. The film meets the criteria only if the filming begins. There are other films that planned decades ago, like DC's Justice League. And the film's title is not "Karnan", its the character name, and the same name is registered for another film starring Prithviraj Sukumaran. It's in that reports mentioned above. The article is about a future project, not yet titled and not started production and don't have a producer, which implise not even the pre-production is started. And it owns a wiki article. WP:ATD doen't matter here, notability and coverage is not enough as there are other criteria for creating "film" articles. Charles Turing (talk) 08:48, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wow Even with its contributor missing it when he authored this, we do have a source stating the film's title. And in the face of the many sources discussing this topic,[3] why are you unable to accept that we can simply userfy as a draft-in-progress OUT OF MAINSPACE until it meets inclusion criteria? Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 19:52, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This is a too early created promotional article. The film is untitled, where did you find the title in this source ? Please state it. Before taking other actions, we should make a conclusion in this. Charles Turing (talk) 07:15, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

How were you unable to read the lead sentence "...director R S Vimal’s magnum opus titled Karnan, with Prithviraj in the lead..." ???? "Promotional" is found in tone, not in our supplying sourcable information, else you could paint ALL of Wikipedia with that brush. And please, removing sourced content form an article to achieve your goal of deletion is not how we do things here. WHAT you nominated is far better sourced than what you left for others to review. That is not how true consensus is reached. Shame on you. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 23:14, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

So you still don't know nothing about this film, you are talking total nonsense. "...director R S Vimal’s magnum opus titled Karnan, with Prithviraj in the lead..." - This sentence is about "another film" titled Karnan, NOT the film we are discussing. Untitled Mammootty Madhupal Film is directed by Madhupal (NOT R.S Vimal) with Mammootty in lead (NOT Prithviraj). There are two upcoming films based on the historical character "Karnan", one is R. S. Vimal-Prithviraj film titled Karnan, which was officially launched last week by its cast and crew in Dubai and it is the costliest film in Malayalam made at a budget of ₹45 crore. After few days, reports came about a Madhupal-Mammootty film which is also based on the character "Karnan", which is not officially confirmed, untitled and which is what we are talking about. And I removed only unreliable sources from the article, anyone can check it. Now who should be shameful. I prefer reaching consensus with atleast someone who knows what he is talking about. Charles Turing (talk) 14:13, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well, You got me digging further, and just a few hours/days ago the film's title was officially confirmed by Filmibeat (and others) to be Dharma Kshetram (2016 film).[4][5][6][7] Now we have a new search term.

Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 05:49, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

lead:(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)

WP:INDAFD: "Dharma Kshetram movie"

Userfy: You should have done this early. It was titled only one day ago. But still don't deserve an article. Anyway, move and userfy it. Charles Turing (talk) 07:46, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Within the AFD process, an editor expressing an opinion should generally not be the one to act upon his own wishes to keep or delete or userfy. That should done by someone uninvolved. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 15:25, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The article's subject is found to lack notability. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 17:39, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Raj K.Modi[edit]

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

I'm doubtful that this individual meets WP:N, but the article creator objected to a prod and added references. superβεεcat 18:51, 21 January 2016 (UTC) Note: Obvious WP:COI with author based on actions/responses/history. - superβεεcat 22:31, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Human3015^{It will rain} 19:48, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Human3015^{It will rain} 19:48, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete likely as there is some coverage but unlikely solid enough for a noticeably better article. SwisterTwister talk 21:26, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete owning a company does not make someone inherently notable. Curro2 (talk) 23:50, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not enough in-depth coverage from independent, reliable sources to show they meet notability criteria. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:33, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Sandstein 11:20, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Seventh-day Adventist historicist interpretations of Bible prophecy[edit]

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

Non-notable religious analysis essay full of unencyclopedic tone and cruft. Generally fails WP:NOT. Regards, James(^talk/_contribs) 01:27, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. sst✈ 04:02, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bible-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:53, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: It is Fringe built upon Fringe that rests on Fringe. None of the sources used are appropriate for an encyclopedia - essentially they are all cult members who believe in fantasy and pseudoscience and worse. If there were appropriate neutral sources out there, it might be salvageable but I doubt that credible authors would have considered these beliefs worthy of study. We can use sources that examine human beliefs in prophesy, but we cannot use religious essays or tracts that actually believe in prophesy, a thing that does not exist, because the content in such sources will not be neutral or credible. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 21:19, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your personal beliefs do not trump that many serious scholars do study this topic, starting with the religion classes at all the schools listed at List of Seventh-day Adventist colleges and universities

Keep: The article is informational only and is just an expansion of part of an already existing Wikipedia article -- Seventh-day Adventist eschatology. If you want to know what an organization actually believes you go to its sources. It doesn't matter if what they believe is right or wrong, all that matters is what they think, not what others think they think. It is not the purpose of Wikipedia to decide if something if right or wrong, only to tell what is. The best way to expose the weakness of a group is to let them speak for themselves. The readers of Wikipedia are smart enough to be able to decide for themselves if something does or does not make sense to them, just as Tiptoe has done. If Tiptoe had not had this article to read he would have been ignorant of what SDAs think, but now, he is not ignorant. --MindyWaters (talk) 00:04, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Undue weight: “Wikipedia should not present a dispute as if a view held by a small minority deserves as much attention overall as the majority view. Views that are held by a tiny minority should not be represented except in articles devoted to those views.” And, “Theories and viewpoints held by a minority should not receive as much attention as the majority view, and views held by a tiny minority should not be represented except in articles devoted to those views.... Minority views can receive attention on pages specifically devoted to them… But on such pages, though a view may be spelled out in great detail, it should not be represented as the truth.”

The Book of Daniel presents a discussion of several views about Daniel and the prophecies according to their due weight. But, this article is about a single minor viewpoint, so the concern of due or undue weight is a mute point. However, there is a hatnote that links to the Book of Daniel and the Book of Revelation where that is of concern. The article is a part in a series on the Seventh-day Adventist church and its beliefs.

Reliable Sources: “Questionable sources should only be used as sources for material on themselves, such as in articles about themselves”… “ “Questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, usually in articles about themselves or their activities, without the self-published source requirement that they be published experts in the field.”

Following this policy, this article uses SDA sources to provide information about an SDA belief. This article does not discuss other viewpoints. Those can be found at Book of Daniel or Book of Revelation.

By its very nature, this article is religious. --MindyWaters (talk) 16:18, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Non-notable? There are approximately 20 million members of the SDA church world wide who hold to the historicist interpretation of the prophecies of Daniel explained in this article. This is equivalent to the population of the Greater New York Metropolitan Area population of about 20 million people. If you consider the population of New York City non-notable, then you can consider SDAs non-notable. --MindyWaters (talk) 05:42, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The article goes far FAR beyond the mere "informational" - it is a religious tract presenting certain beliefs as verifiable truth (as opposed to beliefs being explained in the context of detailing the beliefs of a certain group). The titles of the sources used, such as "The Seventh-day Adventist Bible Commentary"; "The Prophetic Faith of our Fathers"; "God Cares: The Message of Revelation for You and Your Family", as well as their publishers', like "Seventh-day Adventist Publishing Association", indicate that this is not an article composed from neutral and academic third party sources. If there are no neutral sources, there is no place for this article on Wikipedia. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 00:39, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I pray thee tell me, Tiptoethrutheminefield, where in policy or guidelines does it say that sources must be neutral? Is any source truly neutral? If you find one, please let me know. Elizium23 (talk) 02:01, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

By neutral I just meant sources that are at a distance from the subject. We do not use company press releases or advertisements as the basis for articles about commercial companies or products, nor do we use political manifestos or the speeches of politicians as the basis for articles about political parties. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 16:13, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nom and complete sh$tshow at this point. --Malerooster (talk) 03:07, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep (seem informative), even though it looks like mostly WP:OR based on primary religious sources. My very best wishes (talk) 17:10, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

WP:USEFUL. --Regards, James(^talk/_contribs) 20:13, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Honestly, I am not familiar with the subject, so this page does look like nonsense to me. My very best wishes (talk) 23:04, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:53, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The accusation of OR: Please point out where is the OR. The "Survey of prophecy" sections are paraphrases of the applicable original texts with links to the original for comparison. The "literary comparisons" are fully referenced. The "kingdoms identified" sections are fully referenced. All other sections are fully referenced. The "Interpretations of the kingdoms by Biblical expositors..." tables are derived directly from similar tables in Froom. The "Parable sequence of prophetic sequence ..." tables are summaries of what has been presented in each chapter section. So, where is the original research? Also, not all references are SDA. --MindyWaters (talk) 20:13, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is basically an article filled with nothing but theories per bag load of WP:FRINGE. An article page for advertising personal views.— JudeccaXIII (talk) 05:00, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The 'about' hatnote explicitly states that this article is about a minority viewpoint (JudeccaXIII calls it "fringe") that as I noted above is allowed so long as it is not promoted as "The Truth." As I have said above, this article, though detailed, is informational only. Complying with neutrality, I have deliberately avoided and excluded any and all qualitative words and or phrases that state or imply that the SDA view is "The Truth." Any editor or reader who reads into the article promotion of "The Truth" does so based upon their own biases. If I have inadvertently missed something in the article that promotes the SDA view as "The Truth" please tell me where. --MindyWaters (talk) 15:39, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This topic is one of the four areas where Adventist beliefs diverge from mainstream Protestant doctrine. It is a very valid topic therefore. Adventists are not a fringe group. In fact, I can virtually guarantee regardless of where you are sitting today, there is an Adventist church within a short drive because there are only about 34 cities of over a million people on the globe without an Adventist church, and they are all in non-english speaking countries like China, Iran, and Turkey. Legacypac (talk) 21:20, 21 January 2016 (UTC) [8].[reply]

WP:POVFORK. --Regards, James(^talk/_contribs) 20:01, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This article did not fork off from Book of Daniel, it is an expansion of a section in the SDA Eschatology page, which also was not a fork from the Eschatology page (see Talk SDA Eschatology), each of which were developed independently. The about hatnote is there so if someone is interested, they can go read other ideas on eschatology. --MindyWaters (talk) 21:31, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Yes, one can reasonably argue that the page is used for advertising views by Adventists. Yes, this is all a fantasy. However, is it a sufficiently notable fantasy? Judging from the sourcing and info on other pages, yes, it is, and it stands as a separate subject. My very best wishes (talk) 15:18, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I've gotten SDA literature about Daniel prophecy in my mailbox, and this is not selling soap or cigarettes, so any pretense that this topic is "non-notable" (has not received the attention of the world at large over a period of time), or that this topic is "an essay", is nonsense. Nor does the fact that mainstream protestantism considers the SDA to be cult (see Criticism of the Seventh-day Adventist Church) justify removal of a scholarly survey of SDA literature. I think the lede could use work, especially in opening up the concept of historicism, which is a novel concept for the reader. I'm sure the article could use a lot of work, too. Why is the title not limited to Daniel? What can be cut to make the article shorter? Unscintillating (talk) 23:33, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"a scholarly survey of SDA literature"? Where do you get that from? Firstly, it is not about SDA literature, it is about a particular set of SDA beliefs. And what scholarly sources are you saying support the article? All the sources are either in-house SDA literature or produced for believers by believers, i.e. all are primary sources. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 21:24, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Most, but for the earliest, of the authors cited are scholars and professors: C. Mervyin Maxwell, PhD, U.of Chicago; Desmond Ford, PhD, University of Manchester; Gerhard Pfandl, PhD Andrews University; Jacques Doukhan, PhD, U. of Strasbourg, and PhD, Andrews University; William Shea, MD, Loma Linda University and PhD, Andrews University. I was unable to check all the authors. --MindyWaters (talk) 22:30, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Desmond Ford is an outspoken critic and former pastor in the SDA Church. Inclusion of references to him suggests balance. Calling SDAs a cult is itself a fringe POV, as most Protestants reject that label for the Adventist Church.

Keep I could reasonably argue that no religion should be on a Wiki-based encyclopedia that's predominately atheist, but that's not what's being argued here. The fringe on fringe on fringe issue is amusing, 'cause aside from believing in God, the SDA are very science oriented. Well, they've got a number of top rated hospitals! --MurderByDeletionism^"bang!" 07:06, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is a legitimate content fork representing a significant theological point of view. As MindyWaters argued above, undue weight does not apply to the scope of articles. NPOV will require any major criticism of the Seventh-day Adventist view on Bible prophecy to be included in the article, but is not a reason for article deletion. Wikipedia:Original research does not apply here either because it only concerns original research done by Wikipedia; this article merely describes Seventh-day Adventist views already published by other authors. The concept of reliable sources is topic-dependent so sources by Seventh-day Adventist authors in an article about Seventh-day Adventist views should be construed as reliable. The fact that my honorable fellow editors disagree with this religious sect's opinion does not constitute a valid argument based on Wikipedia's policy to delete this article. (Full disclosure: Christian, not Seventh-day Adventist, some interest in theology.) Der yck C. 18:26, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 18:38, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep this topic is one of the most distinctive beliefs in the Seventh-day Adventist Church that distinguish it from other Protestant Churches. The church was founded out of the Millerite movement that was based on some novel interpretations of prophecy, mainly those in Daniel and Revelation, and a full understanding of the Adventist belief system requires reviewing this topic. Adventists are not considered a cult by anyone but their fiercest opponents, who are usually former members with an ax to grind for some reason. With congregations in nearly every country and territory in the world, the second largest education system in the world, one of the largest hospital systems, and many publishing, radio, TV and other operations such as Sanitarium Health and Wellbeing Company, SDAs are not a fringe group but a well established Christian domination. In fact, Adventists are the 6th largest of the Highly International Religious Bodies [9] according to Adherents, and the 3rd largest on the list that is Protestant. No one says anyone has to agree with the explanation of Adventist doctrines, only assess if the explanations here correctly reflect what the church teaches. Legacypac (talk) 21:20, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:BIG, WP:NOTINHERITED. --Regards, James(^talk/_contribs) 20:23, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If there was nothing else, I would say keep (without looking at it). However, How does this differ from Seventh Day Adventist eschatology? If not at all, they should be merged and one redirected to the other. If there is another SDA view than historicist, then we may need both. As I am not a member, I do not know and do not carte much. Peterkingiron (talk) 19:28, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This article is an expansion of just a single section of SDA eschatology, but it is far too large to be merged back into the other page. Its the large size the prompted the initialization of this page. --MindyWaters (talk) 20:44, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have placed a notification of this discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Christianity/Noticeboard, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Skepticism, and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Religion. --Regards, James(^talk/_contribs) 20:20, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and merge any useful (and reliably-sourced) material into Seventh-day Adventist eschatology. Current "article" seems like little more than an essay someone wrote about something interesting they learned in church. Hallward's Ghost ^(Kevin) ^{(My talkpage)} 20:01, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A merge would be too bulky, I believe it passes WP:GNG but more independent sources would help.Atlantic306 (talk) 04:42, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 02:39, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Da Governor[edit]

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

No credible notability - nothing beyond the scope of trivial listings, directories, and promotional websites. Wisdom89 ^♦talk 18:25, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Wisdom89 ^♦talk 18:25, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Wisdom89 ^♦talk 18:25, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 21:58, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as this is not fully and unlikely any better convincing for solid notability. SwisterTwister talk 21:58, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:MUSICBIO. This article was speedied A7 yesterday: it was a hoax pastiche of Samini and Stonebwoy. This time he's gathered some references that actually mention him, but per nomination, nothing from secondary WP:RS. Infobox currently states "Associated acts: Samini, Stonebwoy, Kaakie, Busy Signal, Chronixx, Bob Marley." Born in 1988, and associated with Bob Marley,? How? NeemNarduni2 (talk) 06:16, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment article creator is evidently an employee of Owia Music, record label of article's subject, with a consequent WP:COI. NeemNarduni2 (talk) 11:51, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Needs far More Notable References. These Do not meet GNG.CalabJessika (talk) 09:57, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable musician.The Cross Bearer (talk) 19:59, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy deleted by Ritchie333, CSD A7: No credible indication of importance (individuals, animals, organizations, web content, events. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 22:22, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ClipConverter[edit]

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

Krj373^{*(talk), *(contrib)} 17:55, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Human3015^{It will rain} 19:50, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep. WP:SNOW. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 08:50, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Cannabis dispensary[edit]

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

There has been some discussion about whether this article is suitable for mainspace (see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Draft:Cannabis dispensary page move). I am opening this discussion to see if there is a consensus to delete. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 17:00, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:13, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:13, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:13, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organisms-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:13, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The topic is clearly notable. Jus da fax 17:31, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There are sufficient RS citations to easily pass GNG, though the article does need cleaning up. The structure and flow of the article is a bit muddled and it needs (better) sourcing for, or removal of, several paragraphs. However, per WP:AFDNOTCLEANUP, none of these problems are sufficiently serious to be a valid reason to delete. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 18:39, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Notability for this particular topic is reliably sourced enough, if a bit inexpertly (page author User:potguru is a new user). The article certainly has issues, but not enough to warrant deletion. Per WP:AFD, "If the article can be fixed through normal editing, then it is not a candidate for AfD." There is enough reliably sourced content to work with. Also, I believe the topic is relevant in it's own right, as there is a quickly growing number of dispensaries that are not medical in nature. As such, it wouldn't fit well under Medical cannabis dispensary which redirects to Medical cannabis article. I will concede that there are few regions in the world where non-medical dispensaries are currently legal and the article should be careful to not WP:CRYSTALBALL and that any original or un-sourced content should be removed. Chrisw80 (talk) 18:58, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Clearly notable but, obviously needs much work (which I'm sure it will get). Mlpearc (open channel) 19:24, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep- Passes GNG. Class455fan1 (talk) 20:22, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There isn't a single reliable secondary source about the actual, general subject of cannabis dispensaries used in this article. There are instead, unreliable sources, sources about drug laws in other countries and states, and sources about everything but the actual topic. Virtually half of the article remains unsourced, and where sources are used, they are either unreliable or don't support the material at all. While it is certainly true that the topic of cannabis dispensaries is worthy of an article on Wikipedia, this is not how we write articles. Wikipedia articles are written using reliable secondary sources about the actual subject. Viriditas (talk) 20:37, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. For me, the argument that WP:AFDNOTCLEANUP applies here is the decisive factor. It doesn't matter how an article was started to be written. What matters is whether it can be improved into a keep-able state. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:31, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per Tryptofish. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 22:34, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per Typtofish. Plus the article looks much better already. The power of collaboration at work. --Majora (talk) 22:48, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but needs cleanup and spin-off. Seems more like an article for Cannabis dispensaries in the United States than one on the topic generally. It's the difference between Coffeeshop (Netherlands) and Coffeehouse. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 00:16, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep; subject obviously meets our notability guidelines. Please keep in mind the most important rule at AfD: "if it can be fixed through normal editing, then it is not a candidate". FoCuS contribs; talk to me! 14:26, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but which of the 6 speedy keep criteria does this nomination meet? Or perhaps you meant special extra strong keep which doesn't really mean anything more than keep? Regards — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 14:33, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Specifically: 1 and 3. Do not take me for a fool. Best, FoCuS contribs; talk to me! 17:53, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (plenty of in-depth coverage from reliable sources) but move to Cannabis dispensaries in the United States; didn't realize we already had an article for Coffeeshop (Netherlands) (plus, the two are very different beasts). I considered recommending this be merged with Cannabis in the United States, but that article is already rather large and I think there's enough independent material about dispensaries to merit a standalone article. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 14:52, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep And change to Marijuana Dispensary, which is the best and most correct article title. Calling this "cannabis dispensaries" disrespects the references. Please see marijuana dispensary name discussion here and original nomination for deletion. --Potguru (talk) 16:59, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Marijuana Dispensary seems appropriate. Cannabis dispensaries in the United States is not a viable option given the article discusses other countries, which it should. There are many more examples besides the US and the Netherlands, FYI. FoCuS contribs; talk to me! 17:55, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Article was originally named marijuana dispensary until the same user who recommended the article for deletion changed the article name (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Cannabis_dispensary#Not_ready_for_mainspace) --Potguru (talk) 18:06, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Seems obvious. Article is imperfect but there's a lot of activity on it so it will improve. There are many sources, including a whole host of federal and local discussions about regulation, so I have no doubt that the topic is notable. LaMona (talk) 20:35, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy close and incubate An admin moved the article out of draftspace to AfD it, and has no opinion that it should be deleted. This was an editorial dispute between putting the article in mainspace and leaving it in draftspace, and this AfD is interfering with the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Articles for creation. As per our WP:Deletion policy, "Deletion discussions that are really unresolved content disputes may be closed by an uninvolved editor, and referred to the talk page or other appropriate forum." Also, WP:Deletion policy says, "It is...inappropriate to request deletion because of an editorial dispute." Unscintillating (talk) 21:21, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Just to be clear on this, the admin did have an opinion and !voted accordingly. See above. FoCuS contribs; talk to me! 22:04, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User:FoCuSandLeArN, You say this is "clear", but provide insufficient information for me to verify your comment. I've reviewed your comment in the page history. There are only two diffs, one is the creation of the discussion [10], and the second is a question [11]. You yourself have !voted "Speedy keep" under criteria WP:SK#1, so you agree with me that there is "no argument for deletion". Unscintillating (talk) 23:52, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, I think there appears to be a mixup. The nominator is a different user than the user that got the ball moving, which I was alluding to. In other words, the admin that moved the page is not the admin that nominated the article for deletion. That's a problem with there being two discussions at the same time... FoCuS contribs; talk to me! 23:59, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: The page has been moved to Cannabis dispensaries in the United States. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:08, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Can we get a real RfC as to whether to use the word cannabis or marijuana globally and finally put this edit war to rest? Wikipedia is run on consensus, not pointless "this word is intrinsically better" arguments. --Nathan2055^{talk - contribs} 22:59, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Ament to that. Consensus is key here, and without eveidence of consensus, we have to act as if there were non, and therefore try to establish new consensus. (Is consensus like the boggieman, I've said it one too many times now...) (t) Josve05a (c) 23:09, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment: I agree, it's time to move this forward in the correct direction. It's become too fragmented (not that I've necessarily helped with the fragmentation, my apologies). Chrisw80 (talk) 23:27, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment: There will still be a problem. Even if the community comes to a concensus on the issue of (marijuana vs cannabis) that consensus may not preclude the need to a specific article about marijuana dispensaries as most of the reliable sources seem to prefer that term and there are specific licenses issued by governmental bodies who's names cannot be changed "just because" it might be convenient to do so. An article named cannabis dispensary makes no sense because, simply, there are no such places. In Michigan there are state licenses issued for marihuana dispensaries. --Potguru (talk) 23:32, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment: Chrisw80 (talk · contribs) has posted one over here. Please move all discussion about the title there. --Nathan2055^{talk - contribs} 23:53, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep - No reason for this to be deleted. Mass content disputes are no reason to delete. This snowballed into something huge, and I don't think AfD needs to get ran over with it. --allthefoxes ^(Talk) 23:06, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep although the article needs more scholarly publications over news articles the topic has merit...surprised it was not been created as yet. -- Moxy (talk) 02:52, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Withdrawn by nominator, with no !votes to delete. (non-admin closure) | Uncle Milty | talk | 05:34, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

2000 Princeton Tigers football team[edit]

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

This article and a bunch of similar ones were created by a single user on 20 January. I used PROD with the concern that there wasn't enough sourcing to create an actual article, but it was removed. Now I'm taking it here with the same concern. A Google search turns up two results, both from Fox News. One is a roster, the other a schedule. Not much content. -©2016 Compassionate727^{(Talk)(Contributions)} 16:59, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Princeton is among the top 10 most important historical football programs. Indeed, the first American football game was played by Princeton (see 1869 New Jersey vs. Rutgers football game), and Princeton has won 28 national championships (e.g., 1906, 1911, 1920, 1922, 1933, 1935, 1950). While the team's prominence dropped significantly after the 1950s, the team still gets significant coverage in reliable sources so as to satisfy WP:GNG. I have added a bit to the article, including articles from The New York Times with significant coverage on two of the games. More can be found when time permits, but, of course, there is no deadline on improving such articles. Cbl62 (talk) 15:53, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, as argued above by Cbl62. Jweiss11 (talk) 17:02, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. These season-by-season pages are part of the standard coverage for Ivy League teams (see Category:Harvard Crimson football seasons, Category:Yale Bulldogs football seasons, Category:Brown Bears football seasons, Category:Cornell Big Red football seasons, Category:Dartmouth Big Green football seasons, Category:Penn Quakers football seasons, Category:Columbia Lions football seasons). This is appropriate given the continuing coverage that Ivy football receives in sports media. --Arxiloxos (talk) 17:07, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Generally speaking, D-I-A or D-I-AA single-season articles are easily sourced and therefore kept. p b p 20:52, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Since nobody else has expressed support for my original position, and I've been convinced to abandon mine, I would like to withdraw this request. -©2016 Compassionate727^{(Talk)(Contributions)} 22:04, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Cbl62's sources and improvements to the article. Ejgreen77 (talk) 22:48, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep per WP:SNOW. Consensus is clear that she is notable as an author, regardless of whether or not she is also notable as an academic. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:15, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Alice Goffman[edit]

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

An assistant professor(!) born in 1982 whose main claim to "fame" (within a very small group) is a "Dissertation Award." The standard requirement per Wikipedia:Notability (academics) is "a named chair appointment or distinguished professor appointment at a major institution of higher education and research (or an equivalent position in countries where named chairs are uncommon)", or comparable academic standing. Assistant professors are at the very bottom of the academic hierarchy, in the opposite end compared to the standard requirement per WP:ACADEMIC. This is someone who just started their academic career. If she was suitable for inclusion, she would at the very least be a full professor, not an assistant professor. Tadeusz Nowak (talk) 16:50, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A misunderstanding of policy by User:Tadeusz Nowak. The standard is WP:GNG, WP:ACADEMIC provides guidelines to help evaluate notability, but it entirely routine for assistant and adjunct professors to be notable enough to have pages, if the sourcing is there.E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:14, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Article seems well sourced, while the subject is an assistant professor, she is also a published author and is notable. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 17:04, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A glance at the article's sourcing, which includes a lengthy profile of Goffman in last week's New York Times Magazine establishes that Goffman easily qualifies under WP:GNG. She is notable because she wrote a book that has started a major war within academia; a major intellectual firefight with battlelines drawn: journalists, lawyers, and Law Schools on one side, social scientists and political activists on the other; and a series of minor skirmishes on her Wikipedia page - of which this is the latest - although not the first effort to delete or discredit the page on the part of Nom [12]. The fuss is over what standards should determine what constitutes evidence, over how transparent and verifiable sources should be, and even over the line between fiction and nonfiction, advocacy and scholarship, and the nature of truth. Battles now being fought via anonymous emails, on academic listserves, in print, by online publication and, perhaps inevitably, on Wikipedia. I want to thank Nom for his courtesy in notifying me, since ~~I did not start the article, although~~ I have been active in editing it.E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:08, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Huh - went back to see who did start it, turns out that it was me. It was way back last summer, and I mis-remembered.E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:10, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I did not notify you personally, I used TW which automatically notifies you as the article creator. Good to know that you find the sourcing of an article you've written convincing. Tadeusz Nowak (talk) 17:16, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Mr Nowak, you may not have seen my entry on the Talk page: "It has been suggested that Goffman is not notable as she is an assistant professor and although she has received some prestigious awards and fellowships, it is perhaps debatable whether she satisfies the criteria listed in WP:NACADEMICS. However, she clearly meets WP:GNG: "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list." She clearly meets this guideline as she and her book have been the subject of multiple articles in reliable sources such as the NYTimes and the Chronicle of Higher Education, and WP:NACADEMICS "is a guideline and not a rule, exceptions may well exist. Some academics may not meet any of these criteria, but may still be notable for their academic work." " Thus WP:GNG overrides WP:NACADEMICS NPalgan (talk) 17:19, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Nishidani (talk) 18:49, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: even assistant professors can be notable as authors. This one appears to be. Jonathunder (talk) 20:30, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The sources cited in this article substantiate notability. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 21:52, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Clearly passes GNG. Most of the sources are RS. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 15:15, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Extremely well known, both in and out of academia. 32.218.39.58 (talk) 16:41, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:20, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:20, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:20, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:20, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:21, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy deleted. Speedy deleted by Vanjagenije (G4). (non-admin closure) JMHamo (talk) 00:01, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew Osta[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Almost all links are Social Networks and PR style articles. There are no any verified independant links, but 2 local articles mentioning Andrew Osta as up-and-coming artist. Also, there is no any references for such an "impressive" list of exhibitions. Looks like attempt to self promotion by artist, using too many peacock terminology Arthistorian1977 (talk) 16:42, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Second attempt to create an article, deleted per first discussion. Arthistorian1977 (talk) 16:44, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:55, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep; withdrawn by nominator. Any additional discussion can continue on the article's talk page. utcursch | talk 16:23, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

R v. Elliott[edit]

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

Article about a non-notable and ongoing criminal trial involving a non-notable person accused of a crime against another non-notable person. Per WP:VICTIM: this case does not involve a notable person and is not (yet) historically significant; and per WP:BLPCRIME which states "for subjects who are not public figures, editors must seriously consider not including material in any article suggesting that the person has committed, or is accused of committing, a crime unless a conviction is secured" (emphasis in original). I'll grant that the unusual nature of the alleged crime in this case makes it likely that it will become historically significant, but at the moment because that significance is based purely on conjecture, the article is simply a coat rack to republish the opinions of a noted hostile columnist as though they are facts. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 15:22, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You are calling a living person "hostile" as though THAT is a fact when it is merely an opinion from people who one could just as easily label "hostile". I also don't believe that kind of comment is considered proper under Wikipedia policy. --TheTruthiness (talk) 07:46, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed with Ivanvector's argument here to Delete. As mentioned in earlier criticisms of the page, most of the sourcing comes from one columnist's editorial page.Nothing-Significant-to-Report (talk) 16:35, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Nothing-Significant-to-Report: I've edited the article so there is now exactly one use of Blatchford, and that is to quote Elliot. There is no opinion from Blatchford anywhere in the article, so I expect it should have your full support for keeping. Rhoark (talk) 17:09, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - WP:VICTIM is a red herring, as no one involved is being treated as an independent article topic. I certify that the requirement of WP:BLPCRIME has been met, in that I have "seriously considered" not including the relevant material. The event has sufficient independent notability and coverage that sensitivity about the privacy of the accused is unwarranted.

The case is notable by all prongs of WP:EVENTCRITERIA:

A verdict in either direction will set an important precedent
...of national scope
Coverage is in-depth
...over the span of a year
...from diverse authors and publications

Contrary to aspersions, the article maintains a clean division between opinion and fact. Even were there a problem of this nature, the correct response would be improving the article rather than trying to get it deleted. Rhoark (talk) 16:52, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I concur that the columnist's opinions have been appropriately trimmed or removed. My concern is that while the case has the potential to become notable, we would normally base that on critical analysis of the verdict in reliable sources, and as there is no verdict we can't do that. As it is now, the article really only serves to report the news, and further victimize both the accused and his accusers. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 17:27, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The article makes clear the distinction between fact and opinion. Some of the edits have wrongly removed fact claiming it as opinion. The ramifications this case could have on free speech in the future are very significant and thus it is already an important historical case. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.80.37.0 (talk) 19:01, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I think this case will set a precedent for online harassment or at least be very notable. Maybe protect the article since Im assuming it will be vandlized Fangrim (talk) 02:19, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Ivanvector's argument. It certainly has the potential to be notable, but unless and until it rises to that threshold, I don't think it deserves an article. Slightly contra Rhoark, while I agree that a verdict of guilty would almost certainly be a notable precedent, a verdict of not guilty would likely not set any sort of precedent (not guilty here would not be a total repudiation of the idea of harassment via twitter). Basically, why rush it? As we all know Wikipedia is NOTNEWS. Thanks. Dumuzid (talk) 02:45, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Note that the guidelines cited to justify deletion are for biographical articles. This article is not a biography, but a legal case and parallel trial, as pointed out by Rhoark. As such, the nomination doesn't include an assertion of any violation of the criteria for deletion and I don't see one on my own accord. GraniteSand (talk) 03:33, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is a vital case on the limits of free speech, all the persons involved are notable, with many articles, TED talks, &c. It is very suspicious that on the night before a decision is to be rendered in this case, someone decides it should be deleted. Hiding information does not work, folks. Keep for that reason alone, as a notable example of editorial sabotage. The most effectual Bob Cat (talk) 04:16, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I have reservations because I do think this is an important case. But the individuals are not really notable (TED talk is actually TEDx) and this is a criminal trial at a relatively low level with questionable precedent-setting ability (it's not likely to alter the definition of criminal harassment in Canada). Depending on the result, it could be that a different Supreme Court decision will later become the more important article as there are potential Charter implications, but that's not this trial and there's no real guarantee this will happen. 99.235.212.48 (talk) 05:02, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, at least pending outcome, which should will be by 17:00 EST tomorrow (22:00 UTC 22 January). There has already been a great deal of coverage of this trial, both in local Toronto media, and in editorial press internationally, from both those supporting and opposing a guilty verdict and the effect that it could have on online free speech/harassment. It is likely that it will get much further coverage after tomorrow. Iamcuriousblue (talk) 05:19, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, this is being described in reliable sources as a precedent-setting case and is notable as its the first known harassment case in Canada based entirely on tweets. You have someone banned entirely from the internet for years before being found guilty (and not on any cybercrime/terrorism charges), both Twitter and the police have claimed there was nothing threatening and allegations of corruption. There's plenty notable about this case and there's several reliable sources in the article, if anything is a WP:COATRACK it would seem to be this delete request. --TheTruthiness (talk) 07:46, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, the editor who nominated this article for deletion, Ivanvector, has an undisclosed personal relationship [13] with two of the complainants in this case. 58.7.254.153 (talk) 14:23, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Actual tweet is here: [14]. I don't know who tweeted all the other tweets listed in that imgur: one is a retweet of my tweet, and the others I'm not familiar with. For the record, I have an "undisclosed personal relationship" with all three of the complainants and with the defendant, insomuch as I have interacted with all of them on Twitter. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 15:34, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The verdict has just come through, and multiple reliable sources, both new and old, have stated this case has major implications for free speech in Canada. The notability extends beyond the individuals involved. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 15:35, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep, Elliott's victory today has set legal precedent. Given the amount of coverage given to this case already, there is no reason why this should be deleted aside from a pathetic attempt to perform a cover up. LCrowter (talk) 15:37, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, this case will set precedent for whether what Elliot did constitutes harassment as there are disputes between the two parties. This case has been covered by CBC, The National Post and other international news organizations. It meets notability requirements. The defendant does not need to be notable himself, the case itself is notable. Anaverageguy (talk) 15:49, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Withdraw and keep given broad neutral coverage of the verdict (I actually didn't know it was due today). WP:NOTNEWS, but all sources agree that the verdict is precedent-setting so I expect there to be lasting coverage of it, and there's no point deleting the article just to recreate it later. The other issues I mentioned can be solved with editing, so deletion seems to be off the table. Pinging Nothing-Significant-to-Report Dumuzid 99.235.212.48 (the other delete !voters) to see if you agree with this assessment, then we can close this discussion. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 15:53, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep this is national news, a precedent case, and one of the first of it's kind. It's of historical, cultural and academic importance. Why is this even a discussion? Yet Another Nobody (talk) 16:19, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sarahj2107 (talk) 08:19, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Come Back Please[edit]

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

No evidence of notability. sst ✈ 14:47, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. sst ✈ 14:47, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. sst ✈ 14:47, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

Hindi:(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)

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

WP:INDAFD: "Please Come Back" "Aa Jao Please" "Azad Jain" "Ganraj Jadhav"

Delete for now as apparently TOO SOON. I thnk we might allow a resurrection once we have sources and confirmation of filming. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 11:25, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Secondary sources seem nonexistent. Which might explain why the article was written by the film's director/producer/writer. Kolbasz (talk) 16:08, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 02:32, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Devry Smith Frank LLP[edit]

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

Non-notable law firm created by SPA. Only article that actually covers the firm seems to be this Globe and Mail article: [15] but the firm only gets a couple paragraphs. All other media mentions are lawyers at the firm giving quotes, nothing about the firm itself. I don't think this meets WP:CORP or WP:GNG. FuriouslySerene (talk) 14:37, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

DELETE - this isn't LinkedIn. Dkendr (talk) 15:26, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:42, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:42, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:42, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Unlikely better notable local company. SwisterTwister talk 23:47, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not that big for a major metro area. Bearian (talk) 22:02, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:34, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sean Crighton[edit]

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

Non-notable footballer per WP:NSPORT - has never played in an international team or in a recognised fully professional league. Does not meet the terms of WP:GNG as any coverage is routine and not significant. ℕ ℱ 13:35, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per the nominator. Catfish Jim and the soapdish 15:25, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NFOOTY and WP:GNG. Joseph2302 (talk) 09:42, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Wikisource is mentioned as a possibility. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 02:27, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Justices of the Peace, South Australia 1862[edit]

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

This is a bit of a random mess of a list, unclear and poorly cited. It doesn't seem encyclopedic, I can't see how it could be made encyclopedic without a rewrite and change of context (although maybe it could be punted to Wikisource) and I think it is best deleted. The Drover's Wife (talk) 13:29, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:07, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:08, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:08, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:08, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It was a pretty big move the Government cancelling all JP appointments and starting afresh. Has that happened anywhere else in Australia? That's how I saw it being notable as a list. I don't understand about it being poorly cited: The South Australian Register was at the time the Colony's official Gazette. Doug butler (talk) 15:55, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't even clearly explain that this is what's about (nor is the title appropriate if it's meant to be about that event). The Drover's Wife (talk) 03:09, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep looks fine to me as a list. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 03:01, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- A list of what? The Drover's Wife (talk) 03:09, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – I don't see any evidence that the event in question (viz. the complete replacement of the SA Commission of the Peace in September 1862) passes WP:GNG. I've searched for South Australian newspaper articles from August to October 1862, and while I've found articles which state that the event happened, I've found nothing to explain why it happened or why it was notable. I can't find any articles describing the background leading up to it, other than some isolated resignations of JPs; and there's no commentary or letter-writing in the newspapers after the event to suggest that it was thought of by the general public as anything but routine government affairs. Therefore, the event fails GNG per WP:SIGCOV. It follows that if the event is not notable, then the list is not notable – as a bare list of JPs at a specific point in time certainly does not meet GNG as a stand-alone list. Aspirex (talk) 00:11, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- In the early days of WP, list articles fulfilled the purpose of identifying missing articles on notable subjects, but the typical JP is NN. Peterkingiron (talk) 19:19, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, completely inappropriate as an encyclopaedia article. A transcript of the original document could be good at Wikisource though. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 02:50, 26 January 2016 (UTC).[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The delete arguments are stronger. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 02:21, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Roger La Plante[edit]

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

Non-notable candidate per WP:POLITICIAN, with no significant coverage online from WP:Secondary, WP:Reliable sources, just passing mentions in local press and a profile on a veteran's blog of unknown notability. Prod contested by article's creator with rationale on article talk page. NeemNarduni2 (talk) 13:24, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. NeemNarduni2 (talk) 13:26, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. NeemNarduni2 (talk) 13:26, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose deletion (but open to further discussion and evidence) - Please see article talk page section for reply and discussion. The article is about a notable, non-officer, military whistleblower. Being a political candidate is a minor fact at the end of the article, so WP:Politician does not apply. A possibly valid concern brought up by NeemNarduni2 is that Veterans Today is possibly not an RS journal, but is instead just a blog. The site claims it is an NPOV and edited journal - "Veterans Today (VT) is an online journal... independent, unaligned voice... VT writers and editors..."[16] If it is established to just be a blog, or cannot be established to be reliable, I will then try to quickly dig up the RS offline sources referenced in the cited Veterans Today article (see article talk page). If I can't, then I will remove my opposition to the deletion. MBUSHIstory (talk) 14:02, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Promotional article for a non-notable candidate for office - or per the comment above, for a non-notable person. The article is basically a summary of the guy's campaign platform. The three citations include significant profiles/interviews from two obscure publications (Veterans Today, "a journal for the clandestine community", and the Brazil Times) and a passing mention in a local newspaper, the Victorville Daily Press. My own Google search turns up many other people by the same name (a hockey player, a Florida felon), but the only thing I found about this person is a YouTube campaign video. Good luck to User:MBUSHistory; you have a week to find some significant coverage from reliable sources; but without that the person fails WP:BIO and WP:GNG as well as WP:POLITICIAN. --MelanieN (talk) 14:55, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - the VT source is too problematic as a reliable source. I went to the front page, found an interesting headline in a list of headlines, and quickly found myself being told "As a start in understanding the Challenger disaster hoax it is imperative to grasp the fact that all publicized Apollo missions to the moon and back in the late 1960's until the end of December 1972 (Apollo 17) were a hugely expensive hoax." If this was considered a recognized, respected purveyor of fact, well then, we'd all have this same understanding, right? --Nat Gertler (talk) 17:14, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Every whistleblower in existence is not automatically notable per WP:BIO just because the word "whistleblower" is present in the article — for him to become notable as a whistleblower, there would have to be a lot more coverage of his whistleblowing than has been shown in this version of the article as written. All that's really present is a bit of passing acknowledgement of his whistleblowing in coverage of the candidacy — which is not the kind of coverage of a political candidate's prior background that it takes to make a credible claim that the candidate has preexisting notability for that background. If he wins the seat he's running for, then he'll absolutely qualify for an article at that time, and I'd be willing to reconsider this if much better sourcing could be shown for his whistleblowing background — but as things stand today the only criterion we can measure this against right now is WP:NPOL, which he doesn't meet. Bearcat (talk) 17:18, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I think we have to be careful about deleting articles about candidates for office, especially national office. This person is likely to be be covered further, and in the meantime there is minimal sourcing available. Obviously that should be improved, along with the article. Jus da fax 17:44, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: At this point as best as Ballotpedia can tell, he isn't a formally-declared candidate. Given that this district had thirteen candidates go into the primary in 2012, I don't think we can assume that all will get coverage. --Nat Gertler (talk) 18:22, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 02:09, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

WarLight[edit]

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

PROD contested. Nomination as non-notable video game failing to pass WP:GNG with no multiple, reliable, independent, in-depth sources, such as WP:VG/RS. Of the sources I can locate: [17], but it is not in-depth; [18][19]* - ~~currently not vetted reliable, but~~ looks good ("founded by a former Wall Street Journal culture reporter"). Other hits with non-trivial content do not appear reliable.

Existing source review: Of the 36 references, 28 are to the developer's own website, 5 are to a user-edited wikis, 3 are to store pages. None of these sources satisfy GNG, as they are not independent, reliable and in-depth. The content of the article focuses on gameplay and community, as sourced from developer's perspective, which violates writing about fiction. There is no real-world reception or development information, thus there doesn't appear to be any mergable content. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 13:18, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 13:18, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete: Kill Screen is a reliable source and they wrote two articles about the game.[20][21]. It has a page at Metacritic but there is no review. I doubt we can create any meaningful content based on the two sources. AdrianGamer (talk) 13:48, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- So it is, they changed their base domain name, so it didn't appear in the custom search. *I added the second hit to my nom. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 13:59, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as self-promotional, failing notability, and sources unavailable for improvement. Scr★pIron^IV 13:55, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as currently still questionable despite the mountains of listed links. SwisterTwister talk 06:31, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Special K#Beverages. (non-admin closure) Natg 19 (talk) 18:36, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Kellogg's Special K2O Protein Water[edit]

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

The references provided do not provide sufficient coverage to demonstrate that the GNG is met and I haven't been able to find anything better either. It should be cut down and merged into Special_K#Other_Products. SmartSE (talk) 13:05, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. sst ✈ 13:07, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Special K § Beverages, which will improve the merge target article per WP:PRESERVE. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:24, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge - Dkendr (talk) 15:27, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Bad faith nomination by a sockpuppet of long-term blocked/"de facto banned" BuickCenturyDriver; closing this as such. Note that there is no prejudice against the legitimate !voters here or the original non-admin closer, but this is the best result for the process.

Note that this article should, most likely, be merged, but that can be handled outside of AFD, through the usual merge process at the article talk page. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:27, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Zordon[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG . Vosas23 (talk) 11:59, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. sst ✈ 13:08, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Power Rangers main article's list of characters. Dkendr (talk) 15:28, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per above. 12.220.96.5 (talk) 21:02, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Struck as blocked IPsock of nom, see also closing notice. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:25, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per above. 109.154.30.241 (talk) 13:32, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Obvious erroneous nomination, under speedy keep criteria #3 (non-admin closure) Mrfrobinson (talk) 02:41, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew Ross Sorkin[edit]

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

Fails GNG. Vosas23 (talk) 11:52, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. sst ✈ 13:08, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. sst ✈ 13:08, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. sst ✈ 13:08, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep Absurd nomination with questionable motivation. Sorkin is very possibly the best known financial reporter in the United States. A quick web search, or look at the page, shows the multitude of coverage. FuriouslySerene (talk) 14:43, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as I'm not seeing anything to actually confirm the nominator's base, certainly several listed sources and also information. SwisterTwister talk 21:41, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The sources cited in the article substantiate notability (see, e.g., this and this, both of which are cited in the Wikipedia article). -- Notecardforfree (talk) 21:58, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and request close. According to the contrib history, this is the nominator's first day of editing on Wikipedia, and judging by the above Keep arguments and the high notability of the subject, this nomination appears to be disruptive and vandalism and I would assume this user is here to do anything but contribute positively to the encyclopedia. If there is a professional who saids the subject is non-notable because sources like the Telegraph and Rolling Stone are unreliable, non-independent newspapers and magazines, which I highly doubt it, I will reconsider my argument. edtiorEهեইдအီးËეεઈדוארई電子ಇអ៊ី전자ഇī 22:49, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete, uncontested. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 02:01, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Trevor Coop[edit]

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

Film camera operators are almost never notable. He's not the exception to the rule. Clarityfiend (talk) 01:12, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: It mentions something about being a founding member of a guild. If this can be substantiated and expanded on, that might actually make him somewhat notable. But otherwise, I'd agree: On its own, a long career as a film camera operator doesn't make you notable. We could analogise this to other professions: Being an accountant for several decades doesn't make you notable, but founding a significant accountancy organisation probably does.--Newbiepedian (Hailing Frequencies) 03:15, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:46, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as mentioned, unlikely notable and a better article. SwisterTwister talk 07:52, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:31, 12 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 20:32, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:07, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no real assertion of notability beyond WP:NOTINHERITED, BLP with no reliable independent sources. Article is 8 years overdue for sourcing or deletion. -- Finlay McWalterᚠTalk 11:13, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete, closing in favour of the nominator's stated proposal. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 01:58, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ponnu Pudichirukku[edit]

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

This is another AfD related to Rajeshbieee (believed to be a sock of Gantlet) and was dePRODed with the similar rationale that it should go through AfD rather than a PROD. This was created prior to Gantlet's block so it doesn't qualify for G5.

Like many of the other Rajeshbieee related articles, the sourcing for this is very poor, as it relies on eBay or other similarly unsuitable pages to establish that the film exists.

A look for sourcing via the India search engine brings up nothing usable, nor does Google. As with all India related films that predate the Internet, it's possible that sources exist, but offhand I don't see anything to suggest that it was a particularly notable film. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 07:16, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: non-notable film. Quis separabit? 05:20, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:18, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:18, 12 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 20:32, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:01, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 01:53, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The International Handbook of Space Technology[edit]

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

Article PRODded with reason "No independent sources, no indication of notability. Does not meet WP:NBOOKS". Article dePRODded by creator, who stated on the talk page that this book is notable because it is published by a leading publisher and a Chinese translation is in preparation. The evidence for the latter is a tweet from one of the editors of the book, obviously not a reliable source. And I gingerly suggest that being published by Springer is in itself not enough to make a book notable. There is one reference, but that is behind a paywall and I cannot see it, but even if it is an in-depth review, one is not enough to satisfy WP:NBOOKS. A Google search only renders some links to book sellers and a few library catalog entries, no hits on Highbeam or JSTOR. Randykitty (talk) 09:53, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:01, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:01, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Astronomy-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:01, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Per nom. However, I would reconsider if the article is edited to establish notability per WP:NBOOKS. Astro4686 (talk) 04:03, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Nominator has it described well with no independent sources, etc. I tried accessing the paywalled sourced, but can't do so even with my university account. The book could become notable given time, but WP:CRYSTAL until then. Kingofaces43 (talk) 04:21, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. G11, promotionalism, and there would be essentially nothing left if it were removed. DGG ( talk ) 20:31, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Vijay Batra[edit]

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

Non-notable person, fails WP:BIO, the sources used are poor quality including press releases. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 09:31, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:51, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:51, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:51, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:51, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:51, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Many of the sources are not independent (based on press releases), some do not qualify as reliable sources, the few that can be considered reliable (Hindusian times and the Tribune India) do not provide in depth coverage. The first cites the subject as an example for a profession along with other professionals, and the tribune is a routine mention of an event. It is not enough to satisfy the notability guidelines. Also the article written by a WP:SPA seems promotional in its tone and contents.--Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 15:58, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete at best as it certainly seems questionable even with the currently listed sources. SwisterTwister talk 21:40, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Virtually all of the references are completely unacceptable primary sources which cannot support or confer notability — of the 11 sources here, he's named as the bylined author of eight of them. But a person doesn't get a Wikipedia article by being the author of media coverage of other things; he gets a Wikipedia article by being the subject of media coverage authored by other people. And even the references where he is a subject are blurbs or namechecks, not substantive coverage. And this tilts far enough away from encyclopedic writing tone, and close enough to public relations, that I strongly suspect conflict of interest editing even if I can't prove that outright. Bearcat (talk) 00:26, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Came here from WP:BLP/N. Despite a large quantity of sources, all of them appear to be primary. I could not find additional independent sources that provided significant coverage (though there does appear to be an Indian army captain of the same name with a lot of attention, but they are clearly not the same person). Although I can say with some certainty that a COI was involved here. Winner 42 Talk to me! 11:54, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete, closing in favour of the nominator's stated proposal. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 01:48, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Waarookok[edit]

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

Doesn't even assert notability. I couldn't establish that it meets WP:NFILM or WP:GNG. Boleyn (talk) 18:06, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:27, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:27, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I agree with the above. I couldn't find anything outside of promotional material on Google. Gargleafg (talk) 21:32, 7 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 20:32, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:29, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete, uncontested. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 01:45, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Samuel Bonilla[edit]

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

Subject of the article fails WP:GNG and WP:POLITICIAN. I can't find any evidence of notability. Wikipedia is not a place to publish the biography of every young people with interest in politics. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 15:46, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 15:47, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 15:47, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Colombia-related deletion discussions. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 15:47, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Nothing here passes any of Wikipedia's inclusion standards for people, and the sourcing is almost entirely to WP:PRIMARYSOURCES. Bearcat (talk) 19:31, 8 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 20:26, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:01, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete his greatest claim to notablity is being involved in founding a new party that is not notable. Legacypac (talk) 09:04, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete per WP:G12: unambiguous copyright infringement. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:54, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

House of Knowledge International School[edit]

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

I don't see any reference to support the claim of notability for this institution Arthistorian1977 (talk) 09:00, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:02, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:02, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as copyvio from two pages on the school's website. Tagged for WP:G12. • Gene93k (talk) 10:50, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete, closing in favour of the nominator's stated proposal. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 01:42, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Theresa Ushibema Udie[edit]

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

Subject of the article fails WP:GNG. I can't find any evidence of notability. The sources provided are unreliable and majority of the sources are self-published material. "ecowastribune.com" is not what I will considered a reliable source. It's one of the common website on the internet with no editorial control or oversight. The truth is, Wikipedia is not a place for everybody that owns a non-governmental organization. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 13:11, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 13:13, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 13:13, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 13:13, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: fails GNG. No reliable source cited. —OluwaCurtis »» (talk to me) 23:47, 10 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 20:26, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:52, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Little discussion, but completely unsourced, hence a WP:V fail and mandatory deletion. Sandstein 11:23, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ololade[edit]

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

Subject of the article fails WP:GNG. It was created by someone who bears the name. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 12:40, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 12:41, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 12:41, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now at best as it's unlikely this can become a better solid article. SwisterTwister talk 18:38, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: plenty of Google hits showing this on multiple baby-name etc sites. I've removed the word "lovely"; no longer pov. Hoax tag was inappropriate. Just another given name. I know WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, but there are vast numbers of articles on names and if this were to be deleted then in fairness there should be a huge purge. PamD 06:44, 14 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 20:26, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:38, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: PamD, Wikipedia can't have article on every names that exist. I don't see this becoming a sensible encyclopedic article. What is the origin of the name? Which reliable sources supported the meaning of the name? How many notable people with article here on Wikipedia bears this name? Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 15:31, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete, closing in favour of the nominator's stated proposal. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 01:30, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Aakhri Muqabla[edit]

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

This is another Rajeshbieee/Gantlet related article. It has the same issues with sourcing and it was dePRODed with the rationale to send to AfD.

The article's sourcing is very poor and a look using this doesn't bring up anything promising. Something to take into consideration while looking for sources is that there's a more recent film directed by another person that appears offhand to be unrelated. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 08:46, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Same case with about 5 others. The only source here is eBay, which is obviously not reliable. Dat Guy^Talk_Contribs 10:30, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:19, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:19, 7 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 20:25, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:37, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 01:25, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

PIXY Android Smart Car[edit]

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

Doesn't appear to have met WP:PRODUCT and little to no significant coverage from multiple reliable sources, fails GNG—UY Scuti ^Talk 16:43, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. —UY Scuti ^Talk 16:44, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:02, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – per source searches, does not meet WP:GNG. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:03, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Long-term WP:CONSENSUS is that distinct make-and-models of vehicles are always notable, which - amazingly, given the state of the article - this does in fact appear to be. Buuuut there is no news, no releases, just the company's Facebook page and a Youtube video. Now ordinarly based on the long-term standard I would have said keep, but my inner Admiral Ackbar is crying out that "It's A Hoax!" So, those of our editors with more ears on the ground out India way: is this fire, or just blown smoke? - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 11:20, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 11:20, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:25, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (without prejudice) - Material must be verifiable and there are no sources available to do so. ~Kvng (talk) 15:18, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete, closing in favour of the nominator's stated proposal. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 01:20, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dreamyproject[edit]

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

Fails WP:ORG and WP:GNG is a upcoming company started in 2012 .But currently it is not notable. Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 08:43, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. sst ✈ 09:07, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. sst ✈ 09:07, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. sst ✈ 09:07, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as this obviously says it all since it first started like this with there clearly being no signs of even a minimally better article here. Quite likely not yet notable. SwisterTwister talk 06:58, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:23, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 01:16, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Anna Blauveldt[edit]

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

fails WP:BIO. ambassadors are not inherently notable. she gets a mere 3 gnews hits. LibStar (talk) 06:38, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. sst ✈ 07:58, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. sst ✈ 07:58, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iceland-related deletion discussions. sst ✈ 07:58, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. sst ✈ 07:58, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I don't know if this can be better sourced but given the Iceland financial crash of the period, it's very possible that her role was more important than this article sounds. Blythwood (talk) 08:09, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

well if she had a prominent role it's not appearing in coverage LibStar (talk) 08:22, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete at best as there's nothing to suggest a better independent notable article, searches only found passing mentions at Books, News and browsers. SwisterTwister talk 01:34, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:07, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Diplomats can be notable if there's enough reliable source coverage of their careers as diplomats to get them over WP:GNG, but are not granted an automatic presumption of notability because diplomat if a satisfactory degree of sourcing is not present. But what we've got here for sourcing is one news article that namechecks her existence in the process of failing to be about her; one press release on the website of another country's embassy to Iceland (thus a WP:PRIMARYSOURCE which cannot confer notability, because it's not wholly independent of the subject); one page which completely fails to verify anything at all about her because it's filled entirely with lorem ipsum-style placeholder text; and one entry in a Who's Who directory, which suggests potential notability but doesn't singlehandedly cover it off if it represents the article's only viable source. Notability may be there in principle — but it hasn't been adequately demonstrated here in fact. Plus, since this one was a Canadian diplomat I have access to the necessary resources to do a deeper media search than just Google — but even in ProQuest's "Canadian Newsstand Major Dailies" database her name garners just five namecheck hits: the most substantive one refers to an artist who cannot be properly verified as being the same person, and the second-best is the very same Ottawa Citizen article that's already here. Delete, without prejudice against recreation in the future if she can be sourced properly. Bearcat (talk) 18:57, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy Deleted as G3 (NAC). SwisterTwister talk 07:57, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Northeast_Airlines (2014)[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Northeast Airlines (2014)

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

On reviewing the original article as a Suspected Hoax I corrected information like IATA/ICAO codes which were clearly made up as they were registered to other airlines, in addition to this I researched into the company that allegedly owns the Northeast Airlines group and can only find record of on person (AJ Rossi) who makes all of the press releases via free media providers and is also listed as a known alias and serial scammer^[1] The article is already tagged as a suspected hoax, I would like to start this discussion to ascertain whether this should be treated as a blatant hoax or handled as a proposed deletion. Anzmibu (talk) 07:54, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ http://www.ripoffreport.com/r/Northeast-Airlines-AJ-Rossi/Hoover-Alabama-35216/Northeast-Airlines-AJ-Rossi-Pan-American-Airways-AJ-RossiPan-American-Global-Hold-1277931

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. sst ✈ 08:12, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. sst ✈ 08:12, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. sst ✈ 08:12, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Airliners.net thread from a few days ago. sst ✈ 08:13, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete cant find any evidence it is more than an idea or wishful thinking, no licences or any aircraft. MilborneOne (talk) 12:18, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Wikipedia is not here to help guys who don't use their real names commit fraud. This should be speedied, honestly, as a proven fraud. oknazevad (talk) 13:05, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - With no further evidence of this existing any time soon, delete under a WP:HOAX and WP:CRYSTAL. Adog104 ^{Talk to me} 19:40, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - It is either a hoax, a non-notable failed start-up or WP:CRYSTAL and all are valid reasons to delete the article. - Ahunt (talk) 14:35, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. (WP:NPASR). North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:39, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Chahoonga Main Tujhe[edit]

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

There's a bit of a long story behind this one. This was one of several articles created by Rajeshbieee, who is currently blocked as a sockpuppet of Gantlet. It was created prior to Gantlet's block, so technically this doesn't qualify for G5. This was deprodded by Dwaipayanc with the assertion that it should go to AfD, but no justification for its notability was really given.

I've performed a search using Google and the India WikiProject's search engine, but found little to nothing to assert that this film is notable. The best I can find is stuff like this that says that the film performed poorly, but not really anything else. I'm aware that there might be offline or foreign language sourcing, but what I'm finding isn't very promising and I kind of get the impression that this movie was fairly largely ignored.

Something to take note of is that there does appear to be a similarly named song from the 60s film Dosti, but it's unrelated to this movie as far as I can tell. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 07:11, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:32, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:34, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:34, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:25, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sarahj2107 (talk) 08:11, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Stevenson (game developer)[edit]

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

Not notable. Lacks coverage about him in independent reliable sources. duffbeerforme (talk) 03:03, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep seems pretty notable from the sources. Artw (talk) 05:22, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

How so? duffbeerforme (talk) 02:22, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have added info that I think establishes Notability (I think so), Keeping or deleting is upto you guys. Cheers!! Gamerzthrust (talk) 15:30, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:37, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:37, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:37, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 06:14, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:SIGCOV and the subject was an employee and worked in various companies at and finally raising to senior management and was part of the company's development team.Normally being part of project is only mentioned in the CV and was not even in senior level in 1996 Harpoon Classic ‘97 or even in Syberia now that was designed by Benoît Sokal and devolved by Microïds not sure how the subject can claim credit for this as mentioned in Selected works in the article .Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 01:31, 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 07:09, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Main hits in a video game reliable sources custom Google search are press releases or passing mentions. Article has been refbombed—the refs aren't about him. Not the subject of significant coverage in multiple reliable, independent sources. (?) czar 06:43, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete all. The main argument of those requesting that these articles be retained is that their notability has been established according to WP:FOOTYN. The problem with this argument is that there is nothing on that essay that mentions the notability of specific matches. Therefore, all of those arguments are invalid. - We do have a policy on this, WP:SPORTSEVENT, which is in line with what those requesting these articles be deleted have stated. Specifically these parts of the policy relate to the discussion here:

"Some games or series are inherently notable, including ..."

"The final series ... determining the champion of a top league..."
"A game that is widely considered by independent reliable sources to be notable, outside routine coverage of each game..."

As argued by those on the deletion side, these group matches do not qualify for criterion 1, as they are not final tournaments but are instead sub-tournaments to the final. They also do not qualify under criterion 2, as no evidence has been presented in this discussion to that nature. Therefore, as there have been no policy or consensus backed arguments made in this discussion for the retention of these articles, the articles in question are found to lack the necessary notability for retention (as stand-alone articles) in this encyclopedia. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 18:17, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

2015 SAFF Championship Group A[edit]

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

PROD contested cause "Just because SAFF isn't a major tournament doesn't mean extra articles are unneeded. Passes WP:NOTSTATSBOOK & WP:NFOOTBALL". I disagree that it passes WP:NFOOTBALL. Pages like this are usually reserved for th World Cup or the top continental competition like the AFC Asian Cup or UEFA European Championship. See previous discussion for extra views on this. ArsenalFan700 (talk) 01:43, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I am also nominating the following related pages and the past revisions of the tournament because of the reason above:

2015 SAFF Championship Group B
2015 SAFF Championship knockout stage
2013 SAFF Championship knockout stage
2013 SAFF Championship Group B
2013 SAFF Championship Group A
2011 SAFF Championship Group A
2011 SAFF Championship Group B
2011 SAFF Championship knockout stage
- Keep. It's a standard practice to have such sub-articles for top tournaments. 46.200.26.239 (talk) 02:59, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep The consensus of the previous discussion mentioned was to delete because of WP:NOTSTATSBOOK, not because of WP:NFOOTBALL. Even though the SAFF is a regional, not continental tournament it is still covered by a variety of websites from a variety of countries, making it seem fairly notable. The articles pertaining to the 2015 edition clearly pass WP:NOTSTATSBOOK. I'll be adding more text and sources to the other editions to ensure that they meet that qualifying too. Inter&anthro (talk) 03:23, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The most ironic part of this AFD discussion too is that the argument that football tournaments don't need sub-articles was the exact same argument ArsenalFan700 and others were arguing against here, but all of a suden it seems they have had a sudden change of policy. Inter&anthro (talk) 03:23, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

My view is that pages for the final and maybe even the squads are acceptable at the most for tournaments like this. --ArsenalFan700 (talk) 03:43, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No where in WP:FOOTYN does it say sub-articles are only reserved for the major tournaments. Just because it isn't common doesn't mean its against Wikipedia's guidelines. Inter&anthro (talk) 04:00, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is a major FIFA-recognised tournament in the region (largest in South Asia), and therefore shouldn't fall prey to misinterpretations of the Wikipedia guidelines. It is every much deserving of equivalent sub articles as other similar regional tournaments. Ayoopdog (talk) 04:16, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Just as there is precedent to keep sub-articles for the final matches of a sub-confederation/regional Tier 1 tournament, there is precedent that it, any qualification, and lists of squads be the only sub-articles of the tournament. Please see the articles for the editions of the SAFF Championship prior to 2011 as well as articles for the Caribbean Cup. — Jkudlick ^tc_s 03:56, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah but prior to the 2009 CONCACAF Gold Cup we didn't have group stage sup pages for that tournament then either, and neither did we for the copa america before the 2011 Copa América edition. Simply because we didn't have it in the past is not an excuse for saying we can't have it in the future. Inter&anthro (talk) 19:22, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. — Jkudlick ^tc_s 03:56, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:20, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:20, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:20, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:21, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all - simply not required, this is not a major tournament and no argument has been presented to explain why we need so many sub-pages. Content can and should be adequately covered by the main article. Giant Snowman 18:06, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all - not needed for a "small" tournament. Kante4 (talk) 18:09, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Kante4 the projected attendance of 31,716 for the semi-final and 40,500 for the final are far higher than the average attendance for 12,668 per match in the 2011 AFC Asian Cup, a "big" tournament. There are sources that covered this tournament from the Maldives, India, Nepal, and Bangladesh, so it obviously has significant coverage. Simply because you think that the tournament is small doesn't mean it cannot have sub-articles, per WP:NCAYO what we think how big or small the tournament is doesn't really matter. Cheers. Inter&anthro (talk) 19:18, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Still not a major tournament which should have subarticles. Kante4 (talk) 21:52, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No where in Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Notability does it say sub articles are only limited to continental or "major" tournament either. Inter&anthro (talk) 03:07, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Neither does WP:FOOTYN state that tournament subarticles are ever warranted. Previous consensus is that group articles and knockout-phase articles are not notable enough for tournaments below the confederation level, but that they can be notable at the confederation level and that they are notable for the World Cups. If you wish to change that, AfD is not the proper venue. That would be WT:FOOTY and/or Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football/Notability. — Jkudlick ^tc_s 06:42, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Jkudlick I'm not saying that a separate group stage article has to be created for every tournament, just for the past three editions of the SAFF there has been a greater wealth of information regarding the tournament details and group stage. I also find it ironic that this AFD discussion passed overwhelmingly as a keep vote when these very same editors are calling for the group stage articles to be deleted, even though the latter articles are far more better researched and referenced than the article regarding the final. If this argument was brought to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football/Notability most editors would probably say delete without even looking at the articles because they probably have never heard of the SAFF Championship and only follow major football tournaments (Also because there are more Deletionists than Inclusionists on Wikipedia). Inter&anthro (talk) 16:21, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This article validates Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Notability and should not be deleted. Ashish Lohorung (talk) 05:45, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all - This tournament is not big enough to have group stage articles and article for knockout stage. Main article and an article for finals is enough. Currently the articles are just lists of the matches (with starting XI) which does not need a subarticle, the matches are listed in main article and starting XI is not notable here. Qed237 (talk) 14:51, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Qed237: based on your comment I doubt that you even looked at the articles. Exactly what makes the Final more notable than the subarticles? Especially in the case of the 2015 edition the subarticles are far better researched and sourced than the final article. Not only that but these articles contain some of the most notable and significant matches in these countries' football histories: Afghanistan's win over Nepal in 2013 was only the countries second ever win over Nepal and helped them onto the final were they won their first ever trophy. Nepal's win over India earlier in the tournament was the first time Nepal had beaten India in over two decades. In this year's edition match up featured Nepal scoring their second international goal in over two years. I could go on, but as it's very unlikely that nay of these countries will make it to the FIFA World Cup or AFC Asian Cup these matches are some of the most notable in their respective histories. Inter&anthro (talk) 16:49, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

These articles also clearly pass WP:NOTSTATSBOOK as you claim; in most articles I added a well researched and sourced match report. The line ups and match reports add something that the subarticles can provide a level of detail that the main article is unable to. I am aware that not all of the articles have coresponding match reports but I am in the process of adding them. Inter&anthro (talk) 16:49, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I admit, I did not look at all article but took random samples 2011 SAFF Championship Group A and 2011 SAFF Championship knockout stage which has hardly no prose at all except two rows in the lead. But the fact still is that I dont think those articles are notable. A final in general gets more media coverage in news around the world "team X won tournament Y after beating team Z in the final" and I believe they are more notable then a single group stage article. Qed237 (talk) 16:59, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Inter&anthro: What stops you from including the notable information in the main article? Qed237 (talk) 17:03, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It is far simpler to include the information in subarticles rather than main ones. Why don't we include all the lineups and match details for the FIFA World Cups in the main articles rather than dividing them up into subarticles. I admit that the 2011 edition articles may fail WP:NOTSTATSBOOK as sources for that edition are for some reason harder to find. An yes will the final in the 2015 edition did attract thousands of supporters and media coverage, an almost similar amount came out to cover and support the hosts in the host'ssemi-final win. Inter&anthro (talk) 17:20, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 00:18, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Agree with Ashish Lohorung. — Swastik Chakraborty (User talk) 02:22, 12 January 2016 (UTC) Note: An editor has expressed a concern that SWASTIK 25 (talk • contribs) has been canvassed to this discussion. (diff)[reply]

Delete All The tournament itself lacks notability, and these sub-articles less so inexponentially. _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 14:03, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Human3015^{Let It Go} 15:59, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Afghanistan-related deletion discussions. Human3015^{Let It Go} 15:59, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletion discussions. Human3015^{Let It Go} 15:59, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nepal-related deletion discussions. Human3015^{Let It Go} 15:59, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. Human3015^{Let It Go} 16:00, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Biggest Football tournament of the South Asia which also passes notability criteria. After seeing size of each sub-article it is not good thing to merge them to main article. It will become very long article. So I think idea of sub-articles is nice here.--Human3015^{Let It Go} 16:04, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Administrator note - User Inter&anthro has canvassed other editors specifically to "Please help defend SAFF articles for deletion." [22][23][24][25][26][27][28][29][30][31][32] - Cyphoidbomb (talk) 17:28, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about that, I was trying just to alert other editors to the discussion but looking back I definitely let too much of my opinion and bias get in the way. Not to excuse my behavior but I did end most notices with "express your opinion, not mine" and that only about half of the keep votes came from editors I contacted. Inter&anthro (talk) 17:56, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As per the Cyphoidbomb's recommendation I have stuck out my messages to the editor's talk pages so they know the message was a violation of Wikipedia's policy. Inter&anthro (talk) 18:28, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm satisfied that Inter&anthro has remedied the issue satisfactorily. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 19:41, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - All of the article should be contained in the rules of WikiProject Football/Notability guideline. — Masum Ibn Musa ^Conversation 05:33, 13 January 2016 (UTC) Note: An editor has expressed a concern that Masum Ibn Musa (talk • contribs) has been canvassed to this discussion. [reply]

Comment: Just a general comment. No offense to some of the users who have voted on here and I am not trying to cry out something like "My opinion is right and they are wrong!" but looking through these votes, the Keeps are coming from users who, I am sorry, will keep a bias towards this article as it revolves around South Asian football and editors who edit mainly on just South Asian sports and topics and not on the football on a worldwide scale and who probably don't know about the consensus which has already been established when it comes to tournaments below the World Cup and the top-tier international continental tournaments. This is just a general comment I thought I express and sorry if I offend anyone by it. --ArsenalFan700 (talk) 13:30, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@ArsenalFan700: exactly how does a deletion discussion that is closed because of WP:NOTSTATSBOOK form a consensus on what football articles are and aren't allowed on Wikipedia? The first edit made to this discussion was by an IP address an if you look at their edits here and there isn't much in terms of South Asian football, look at the contribution list of another editor who commented here and once again there is very little in the way of South Asian football. Inter&anthro (talk) 14:46, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 15:02, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 06:15, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all - The main aricle is enough; the level of detail on the subpages is not required for a tournament of this size. JMHamo (talk) 03:01, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all - None of the articles contain any real information (bar brief match summaries that stray dangerously close if not over the line of PoV) that is not contained either in the main article or 2015_SAFF_Championship_squads. As a regional competition within a confederation involving only a small number of teams these matches are not inherently notable on their own and there is no indication of significant, reliable coverage of any individual match beyond routine match reporting and stat sites to indicate any wider GNG in any area. Fenix down (talk) 12:38, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The line-ups and match summary are something definitely not found in the main article, and I don't see the WP:NOPOV violation since all the match reports are sourced. The SAFF is also the most prominent football tournament in the reigon, and has also significantly grown in the past couple editions, definitely not WP:MILL. Inter&anthro (talk) 16:29, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Match reporting is inherently subjective, there is a clear NPOV issue when the article is sourced to only one report, particularly given the tone of the articles. Match reporting, is by definition WP:MILL, search low enough and you will find match reports on even the most minor tournaments. Fenix down (talk) 11:46, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all - Not enough notability for stand-alone articles. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:32, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) ansh 666 21:05, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Be like Bill[edit]

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

New internet meme cites only FaceBook and fails WP:GNG. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 20:56, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: No references to demonstrate notability or even to provide verifiability. ubiquity (talk) 21:14, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 20:56, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Social media memes have to break out into real-world coverage in reliable sources before they become eligible for Wikipedia articles — but no such coverage has been shown here. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 22:34, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Cubbie15fan (talk) 21:54, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Quite obviously not yet a better encyclopedia article. SwisterTwister talk 07:12, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Some break out is happening. The article needs a ton of work if it stays though... http://www.straitstimes.com/singapore/be-like-bill-stand-united-in-defiance-of-jakarta-terror Hypnotist uk (talk) 09:50, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- non-notable meme IrishPete 13:14, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
BBC article --Jatkins ^{(talk - contribs)} 21:42, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Bill is on the BBC Be smart. Be like Bill. Andrew D. (talk) 00:13, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. As much as I don't think a meme like this warrants an article, it does appear to meet GNG, with articles in New York [33], BBC News [34] and the Daily Mirror [35]. —me_and 22:50, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- I've just rewritten the article to make WP:GNG more clear and to remove the egregious puffery; other editors who've suggested deletion above on notability grounds may want to re-review now (@Rhododendrites, Ubiquity, Bearcat, Cubbie15fan, SwisterTwister, and IrishPete). —me_and 23:26, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - @Me and: A noble effort, but WP:N requires coverage over a period of time. These sources come from a span of two days. There's nothing here to indicate anybody will care about this two weeks from now, nevermind years from now. Tons of cute videos, pictures, get a flurry of "viral" attention over the span of a couple days but aren't notable because there's no lasting significance. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 23:35, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    - @Rhododendrites: I can't see anything at WP:N requiring coverage over a period of time. If there were, Wikipedia wouldn't have articles about notable events promptly, because we wouldn't call them notable until there'd been more than at least a few days of reporting about them. As I understand it, cute videos etc don't meet WP:N because they lack significant coverage in reliable sources, not because they lack coverage that's spread out over time. Of course, if I'm missing something at WP:N, please do point it out – I did skim through it again to see if I could see anything about requiring coverage over time, but I just couldn't spot anything. —me_and 00:03, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      - @Me and: It's most succinctly stated at the top (in a nutshell): "Wikipedia articles cover notable topics—those that have gained sufficiently significant attention by the world at large and over a period of time" (emphasis mine, of course). But it runs throughout various notability-related guidelines. E.g. further down the same page is notability is not temporary, which says among other things "brief bursts of news coverage may not be sufficient signs of notability". WP:NTEMP means that if notability were determined at one point in time, subsequent events do not undue that notability (e.g. if a politician is determined to be notable before an election, then loses that election, he/she is still notable). It also means that if a subject needs to have lasting importance, and that typically can't be assessed based on coverage over a short span of time. That said, all guidelines have a lot of gray area that requires editor judgment. In general, it's a bad idea to create an article too quickly, but for some topics coverage is so abundant and/or precedent for such coverage is so clear that it's pretty safe from deletion. Major natural disasters, for example. WikiNews started because Wikipedia is not supposed to be news, but news turned out to be a thing Wikipedia's pretty good at. The letter of the policies could be argued against such articles in many cases, but practically speaking, it doesn't make sense to delete if all the evidence shows that coverage will continue. With a meme, there is no such precedent and rarely such an indication. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 00:58, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 06:00, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per sources provided by User:me_and, as well as numerous other in depth reliable sources, including: [36], [37], [38], [39]. More than enough to meet WP:GNG. Per WP:NTEMP: "once a topic has been the subject of "significant coverage" in accordance with the general notability guideline, it does not need to have ongoing coverage." FuriouslySerene (talk) 15:13, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- @FuriouslySerene: Yes, "in accordance with the general notability guideline". WP:N requires lasting significance and coverage over a period of time, hence since it is not notable, there's no argument for you to argue against along the lines of notability not being temporary. And if you continued quoting from that section you would arrive at "Wikipedia is a lagging indicator of notability. [...] As such, brief bursts of news coverage may not be sufficient signs of notability...". We don't have articles about every meme that gets some attention over the span of a few days. Wikipedia is WP:NOT KnowYourMeme. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 04:30, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - As your quote says, "may not be." As in, maybe yes or maybe not. In my view, multiple international references from highly reliable sources is more than enough to create a quality article. I think it's fair to say this already has better references than a large percentage of Wikipedia pages. FuriouslySerene (talk) 15:52, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As silly as this meme is, it's easy to find a raft of articles about it in publications spanning the globe, from Malaysia (The Malay Mail) to New Zealand (the New Zealand Herald) to New York (New York Magazine, which I added to the references) and many more in languages I don't read. I'll also note in passing, as someone with a fair amount of major media experience, that it's no small thing to gather almost 1.5 million Facebook followers (I'd argue that is a form of notability in itself). True, those followers will likely melt away long before this winter's snows. But as a thought experiment, imagine a reader years hence encountering a reference to this meme in an article, TV show or book. That reader may want to find out what it was all about. --Jmatazzoni (talk) 00:20, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Though I was originally swayed to favor Bill by the large amount of coverage available (see my entry above), I've changed my mind after looking into Notability more thoroughly. In particular, the guidance re. Notability (events) seems apt. Specifically, WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE, which states that “Notable events usually receive coverage beyond a relatively short news cycle.” And WP:BREAKING, which advises “Writing about breaking news may be recentism, and Wikipedia is not a crystal ball.” All of the articles on Be Like Bill were written in a burst of a few days starting in the last week or so. The directives just cited, along with the rest of the discussion in WP:N(E), point towards a standard of notability that has to do with having a persistent impact. By that standard, one should say at a minimum that it's too soon to tell whether Bill will continue as a cultural entity. Is there an option to "hold" the decision for a period? Jmatazzoni (talk) 18:29, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- @Jmatazzoni: There's not really a precedent to stall closing, but it's important to note that a deletion isn't necessarily binding. In this case it would be a determination that we have not yet seen lasting coverage and it's unclear whether we will. As soon as that lasting coverage can be asserted, it could be recreated. At that time you could even ask an admin to put a copy of the deleted version (which is never actually deleted -- just removed from public view) in a sandbox for you to work on. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 18:56, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- @Jmatazzoni: The option to "hold" the decision would be to vote to keep now, then re-nominate for deletion after a few weeks or months. There's plenty of precedent for doing exactly that. Alternatively, as Rhododendrites says, we could delete now and recreate later, but I'd argue that's more effort for effectively the same final result, with the disadvantage of not having a useful article in the interim. —me_and 11:44, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: significant coverage in reliable sources means the subject passes WP:GNG: [40][41][42] St Anselm (talk) 11:01, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment to other voters: as this AfD has been going on for nearly 2 weeks, there's been more and more coverage of the topic in major media sources around the world, including: Time, Boston, Boston Globe, Huffington Post, Yahoo News, Washington Post, Mashable, Daily Mail, Le Monde. It's a dumb meme but it's clearly notable according to reliable sources. FuriouslySerene (talk) 15:00, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I detest the thing, but there are plenty of sources for worldwide relevance '''tAD''' (talk) 15:12, 26 January 2016(UTC)
Comment - In the time since I nominated this, the subject has gone from meme that saw a couple days of popularity to being everywhere. After looking at the state of sources today, I have to say I'm leaning keep myself and certainly would not nominate if I just now came across the article. As there are other delete !votes I cannot withdraw, but I'll register my sense that the coverage will continue. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 16:11, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per all the reliable sources listed above. Like the meme or not, the coverage of it in global press means this now meets WP:GNG. _└^UkPaolo/_talk^┐ 19:15, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep appears to have hit the notable threshhold for memes: plenty of sources. Sadads (talk) 04:39, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 01:05, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comedy Nights Bachao Episode List[edit]

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

Already the article has its own section on Comedy Nights Bachao page. As for now, its not needed. SuperHero ● 👊 ● ★ 05:59, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. SuperHero ● 👊 ● ★ 06:02, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. SuperHero ● 👊 ● ★ 06:02, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. SuperHero ● 👊 ● ★ 06:02, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non-notable standalone list. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 07:07, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as the show is notable and not the episodes as per Dharmadhyaksha. Lakun.patra (talk) 13:34, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete, closing in favour of the nominator's stated proposal. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 01:02, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Crucible (band)[edit]

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

Completely unsourced article about a band whose only claim of notability is charting on iTunes — which is deprecated by Wikipedia:Record charts as a single-vendor chart that cannot fulfill the charting criterion in WP:NMUSIC in and of itself. But no other substantive claim of notability is present here — and further, no NMUSIC criterion can ever be passed just by asserting that it's passed, but must be verified as having been passed via reliable source coverage. Also conflict of interest, as the article was created by an editor whose username corresponds to the name of one of the band members. Delete, without prejudice against recreation in the future if and when the notability and sourceability ever reach includability. Bearcat (talk) 03:35, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. sst ✈ 05:07, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. sst ✈ 05:07, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 05:36, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no indication of notability and appears to be promotional with a dusting of WP:COI.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Karst (talk • contribs) 07:49, 21 January 2016‎

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, closing in favour of the nominator's stated proposal. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:56, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Johnny Orlando[edit]

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

WP:BLP, dangerously close to tipping over into outright advertorial, of an actor, singer and YouTuber with not a shred of reliable source coverage to confer any notability for any of it — the referencing here is parked entirely on primary and unreliable sources. Also a conflict of interest, as the article was created by a user named "DarianOrlando8", a name also contained several times in the article as a collaborator (and likely relative) of the article subject. As always, a Wikipedia article is not something that a person is automatically entitled to have just because you can lean on primary source verification that they exist. Regardless of whether you're claiming notability as a musician, as an actor or as a YouTuber, reliable source coverage is always required — no number of singles or albums gives a no-sourcing-required freebie to a musician, no number of roles gives a no-sourcing-required freebie to an actor, and no number of followers on any social media platform gives a no-sourcing-required freebie to a social media personality. Delete, without prejudice against recreation in the future if and when his notability and sourceability improve. Bearcat (talk) 03:00, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 03:28, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. sst ✈ 05:07, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. He's got some coverage at CBC.ca, such as [43] and [44], but they're not very compelling (top ten lists, links to YouTube videos, etc). I think it's probably too soon for an article yet. Give it a few more months, and he'll probably be there. I'm willing to reconsider if someone can find better sources. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 23:17, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 05:36, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:51, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Christian Stepien[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Note: the prior deletion discussion does pertain to the same person — but this version contains a new claim of notability not present in the original article, so it is not eligible for immediate speedy as a recreation of deleted content. That said, what we have here is still a WP:BLP1E, supported almost entirely by primary sources and an IMDb profile (which is not a reliable source), of a person whose notability consists of having had one of his photographs named to one newspaper's unencyclopedic "best photographs of 2010" listicle — and the source for that claim is not an article about him, but just a glancing namecheck of his existence in the caption to the photograph. This is not enough to get him over our notability standards for photographers, and the sourcing does not pass WP:GNG. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 01:03, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. sst ✈ 05:11, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. sst ✈ 05:11, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:BIO. As nom says article is reliant on primary sources including his own website . Imdb is not an entirely reliable source. LibStar (talk) 14:59, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 05:25, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete': Fails WP:ARTIST and WP:BLP. Delta13C (talk) 13:57, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sarahj2107 (talk) 08:09, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Miss America 2017[edit]

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

Crystal ball The Banner talk 00:21, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:42, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:42, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:42, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This event is being held; we have a venue and date, that's all we need for now. Nate • (chatter) 03:05, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:CRYSTAL, this is the type of event that is worthy of an article. Alansohn (talk) 23:14, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as WP:TOOSOON and recreate from scratch when information becomes available in sources (updated input, as time timestamped below the relisting line.) ~~Comment~~ Nate: please provide a proper reference for the planned venue and date. Absent this, how certain are we, that all of this is actually planned? I didn't come up with anything too firm from the web site for the Miss America pageant at [45]. I see some hazy stuff in several places about Sept 11th. Where is a proper reference? Through experience, we can say that unsourced articles predicting the future can end up tickling a very funky monkey. FeatherPluma (talk) 20:45, 15 January 2016 (UTC) Closer, please note that although we have an article on e.g. Super Bowl LIV (in 2020, no less !!) it has 5 references, covering the elements in the article. Here we have nothing. FeatherPluma (talk) 02:16, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Going by common sense and their scheduling over the last few years it will be held in the second or third week September 2016 (I've removed the specifics about the 11th for now). If something comes out well-sourced about it being held at the Corn Palace in mid-December as unlikely as that would be...well, we have to go with that. But this is one of those simple 'connect the dots' dates and Boardwalk Hall is its traditional home, and even if we don't have the exact date, we know who's at least giving up the crown for the winner of Miss America 2017, and the general timeframe of when and where. Nate • (chatter) 05:59, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 05:24, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(carried down from above the time extension, with new recommedation for Delete) In brief: WP:TOOSOON; also, the Keep comments are refuted, per policy. In detail: This is the wrong way to do article content. There are no available references, attested to by the retraction of the content that was specifically challenged. We do NOT have a venue and date (see discussion about about Keep assertion.) The article relies entirely on what can be characterized charitably / nicely as "good faith, common sense content derived by deduction by extrapolation from the past few years". I recommend that Wikipedia cannot put its imprimatur of "verifiabilty as a pillar of content" on this. We do not have a valid WP:CRYSTAL reason to keep; that policy reads, "Individual scheduled or expected future events should be included only if the event is notable..." (emphasis added). It goes on to give lots of examples of how a future event can have notability now. This content doesn't meet any of the benchmarks mentioned. Granted, the event will be notable, when it meets these parameters. We have a few sentences and an infobox full of nothing but this deductive speculation / WP:OR. The problems persist. How do we know, for example, that the 2016 broadcasters will be the same as 2015? They've changed before. Whatever network is going to be involved is indeed probably booked by now, but we have no sources at all. And the Return of the Virgin Islands in the infobox... is just another "common sense reasonable extrapolation"? Wikipedia should await public announcement of these points, rather than basically inventing things. Retention at this time would run counter to usual application of policy. When information becomes available, restarting the article is going to be simpler than modification of what we have at present. FeatherPluma (talk) 21:31, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete until more verifiable information comes out, especially a reliably sourced date. Otherwise, we mostly have extrapolation from past events. • Gene93k (talk) 22:06, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Gene93k - There's not much info on dates etc and plus it has a whole year yet so can easily be created in December when more sources. –Davey2010^Talk 00:46, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete, uncontested. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:46, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

List of Miss Universe Thailand editions[edit]

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

Effectively a content fork as the information is already available in the year articles The Banner talk 00:12, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Thailand-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:55, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:55, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:55, 14 January 2016 (UTC)""[reply]

Delete if this can be all sourced, belongs in Miss Universe Thailand Legacypac (talk) 22:56, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 05:23, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as fails EVENT & GNG/. –Davey2010^Talk 00:47, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete, uncontested. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:42, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

List of Miss Universe Thailand hosts and invited artists[edit]

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

Effectively unsourced fancruft The Banner talk 00:10, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Thailand-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:52, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:52, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:52, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 05:22, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as fails EVENT & GNG/. –Davey2010^Talk 00:47, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Miss Universe Denmark. czar 06:33, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Miss Universe Denmark 2015[edit]

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

Local year version of pageant. Effectively unsourced. Seems to fail WP:GNG due to lach of sources conform WP:RS The Banner talk 00:06, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Denmark-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:32, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:32, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:32, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Miss Universe Denmark. --Reinoutr (talk) 14:03, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 05:22, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The event had enough media coverage to warrant and article, in my opinion. --Danmuz (talk) 13:58, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as fails EVENT & GNG/. –Davey2010^Talk 00:47, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:36, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Miss Universe Denmark 2016[edit]

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

Crystal ball The Banner talk 00:03, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Denmark-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:49, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:49, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:CRYSTAL. Unsourced information about a future event, for which even the exact date is not yet known or mentioned... --Reinoutr (talk) 14:05, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. clpo13_(talk) 00:17, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 05:21, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Agree with nomination. The article may be re-created after the event has taken place. --Danmuz (talk) 13:55, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as fails EVENT & GNG/. –Davey2010^Talk 00:47, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:32, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Miss Universe Denmark 2017[edit]

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

Crystal ball The Banner talk 00:02, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Denmark-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:48, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:48, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:CRYSTAL. Unsourced information about a future event, for which even the exact date is not yet known or mentioned... --Reinoutr (talk) 14:05, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. clpo13_(talk) 00:17, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 05:21, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Agree with nomination. The article may be re-created after the event has taken place. --Danmuz (talk) 13:56, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as fails EVENT & GNG/. –Davey2010^Talk 00:48, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete, uncontested. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:33, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

MyTownRocks.TV[edit]

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

Solely promotional article with references from IMDb which don't assert the notability of the article. CatcherStorm ^talk 05:05, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. sst ✈ 05:34, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. sst ✈ 05:34, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. sst ✈ 05:34, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Questionably notable and improvable considering the current sources listed. SwisterTwister talk 05:59, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
While there are claims being made here (national distribution on Ovation) that suggest the potential for sufficient notability per WP:NMEDIA, there's no reliable sourcing present to support them. But no Wikipedia notability criterion is ever passed just by asserting that it's passed — RSes have to be present to verify the accuracy of the claim to passage. Delete, without prejudice against recreation in the future if it can be sourced properly. Bearcat (talk) 22:39, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 05:11, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Two "keeps", one of which only argues that the topic is popular, which is not a valid argument in terms of inclusion policy, and the other is qualified as weak. That's not enough to save this article. Sandstein 11:25, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Aardwolf (video game)[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Aardwolf (game)

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

Article topic lacks significant coverage from reliable, independent sources. (?) Its only source of consequence in a video game reliable sources custom Google search. is the Engadget article (formerly Massively). (Nothing in searches of print databases either.) The other sources in the article were patently unreliable blogs or interviews (which, when used as self-published sources, are not considered in notability discussions). As with all subcultures, as "popular" as Aardwolf might have been at any point in time, there just isn't enough coverage to write a dedicated article on the topic right now. I would be fine with a redirect to List of MUDs, using that Engadget source as justification, but deletion is an option too. What's not an option is stacking an article with unreliable refs when a redirect to a list will suffice. If someone finds more (non-English and offline) sources, please ((ping)) me. czar 05:11, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. czar 05:14, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as failing WP:GNG with no multiple reliable independent in-depth sources, such as WP:VG/RS or at-the-time magazines. I can only locate the already-used Engadget article. The other source in the article is primary and unsuitable for WP:GNG on its own. Of the previous sources [46], I cannot even locate the game's mention in 3 of them, 3 reviews (one short) do not appear to be reliable sources (no author credentials, no apparent site editorial structure), and 2 are 404 with no IA copy. In the end, there does not appear to be enough material to cover the subject sufficiently to warrant an article, despite its niche popularity of the time. I would say redirect seems suitable, but there doesn't appear to be a target (List of MUDs only includes notable games). — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 13:35, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I see that Czar has removed several (opinion piece) references from the article. Aardwolf is (I believe) the most popular MUD in existence. It regularly comes top on the popularity polls (although those polls don't constitute reliable sources). Professional video game journalists don't get paid to review MUDs any more, which is why it is so hard to find sources that meet Wikipedia's exacting standards.

I find it hard to believe that Wikipedia would be better for the absence of an article about the most popular current MUD. If you really think that the sourcing is inadequate, please consider WP:IAR to keep this article in Wikipedia.

Disclosure: I play Aardwolf and I wrote the article. Axl ¤ [Talk] 13:55, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Don't redirect - A redirect to a list where the topic is not mentionned is never appropriate, and this game won't stay on the list because "having an article" is part of the inclusion criteria. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 16:35, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. The subject has a couple of passing mentions findable via Google Books (in Internet Simplified and Internet and Society: Social Theory and the Information Age) that would permit some modest sourced statements to be added to the article, and I'm willing to round them up to vaguely equivalent to significant treatment in a second independent RS. Please don't redirect to List of MUDs, that's just making a mess. —chaos5023 (talk) 23:32, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"Passing mentions" are exactly what we don't use to confer notability (general notability guideline)—it has to be sustained, substantive. Those two sources speak more to a mention in the MUD article than to a need for a dedicated article czar 06:41, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Even if Aardwolf is in fact currently the most popular MUD, WP:ITSPOPULAR is not an argument. Because of lack of WP:RS, it fails WP:N. The one source, Engadget, is part of the "Rise and Shiny" series, in which they look at "indie or unusual games", that doesn't sound like Aardwolf received a lot of attention. --Soetermans. T / C 11:59, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Does the article creator @Axl: want to work on the article in his/her draftspace? Userfy is also an option. AdrianGamer (talk) 16:13, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have been struggling for a few years to find satisfactory sources for the article. I don't expect that I would be able to expand it further in the near future with Wikipedia's referencing standards. Axl ¤ [Talk] 17:26, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now at best as it seems questionable for notability, perhaps solidly independently notable. SwisterTwister talk 06:30, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sarahj2107 (talk) 08:00, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

High School Drama![edit]

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

References are non-reliable or come from game itself. Page seems to be essentially promotion for the game. No assertion of notability at all. FuriouslySerene (talk) 23:00, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete promotional advertisement. Curro2 (talk) 16:57, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:10, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Promotion. Matt294069 is coming 02:03, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Week Keep' per these sources. Looks like an advertisement, but the citations, which some of them including the magazine review and the award site do look reliable to me, and a google search that was able to pick up a couple of reliable sources mainly reviewing this game show that this problem could easily be fixed without deletion. 和DITOR E tails 02:48, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Wired article is solid but the other doesn't seem like a reliable source to me. I didn't find anything else when I searched so I still don't think this is notable. FuriouslySerene (talk) 04:34, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 03:57, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. sst ✈ 05:17, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Game Trade Mag and Wired article is good, Game Trade Mag sounds good, but together not sufficient for significant coverage. (Don't see an editorial policy at RPGnet.) If there was a third review, I'd reconsider. czar 06:25, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete, uncontested. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:29, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sascha Dhillon[edit]

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

I'm neutral on whether the page should be deleted. Wanted to get feedback from other users because it has been requested the page be removed. See the post here Meatsgains (talk) 03:14, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. sst ✈ 05:24, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. sst ✈ 05:24, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, interesting because I was actually considering deleting at first but the Primetime Emmy for Editing seems convincing enough and also the currently listed sources. I'll wait for others to comment before I solidly say something. SwisterTwister talk 07:11, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nomination for a Primetime Emmy is does not cross the bar for NARTIST. The sources do not cover him in significant detail for him to pass GNG. Even if enough were found to minimally pass notability that only allows rather than requires an article and the subject is not a public figure. Jbh ^Talk 14:36, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Apart from Olympics he has mainly been assistant editor which fails WP:GNG Atlantic306 (talk) 14:06, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:23, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

IFRAA[edit]

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

DAB page with no actual articles. One has been deleted the other although there’s an article link it is not mentioned in the article so also does not belong. If there were other entries then could just delete these two but that would leave none. Neither is a plausible redirect target leaving only delete. JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 02:50, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. sst ✈ 05:25, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Open-and-shut case: Noyster (talk), 09:36, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Noyster, JohnBlackburne. The 1st entry should have been deleted per mos:dabrl, which I have now done. The 2nd entry does meet MOS:DABMENTION and MOS:DABRL, it just needed the blue link changed on the line, which I did after clicking on what links here. I'm not sure if additional entries were looked for? Interfaith Forum on Religion, Art & Architecture (IFRAA) is mentioned on several WP articles. It's never going to be the most looked-up dab, but do its two entries meet guidelines? Yes. Is it's see also valid? Yes. If occasionally a reader types in 'IFRAA' into WP, we should show them what we have, and we do have something, however little. Deletion goes against guidelines and brings no benefit. Boleyn (talk) 18:32, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Those both seem to be referring to the same thing, the Interfaith Forum on Religion, Art & Architecture, these people: faithandform.com. And we should not have multiple entries per entity. Otherwise why stop at two, why not list all the articles mentioning it? As that is not how disambiguation pages work. You need at least two topics, ideally more.

As it is keeping the dab page has no benefit, and may actually be detrimental. Nothing should be linking to this dab page, so the only way anyone can find it is via a web search. But if someone searches the web for IFRAA they would be much better served by following links directly to the articles mentioning it, or links to other than WP if we actually have no page for the IFRAA and so no actual content on them.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 09:18, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment JohnBlackburne, what makes you think the International Federation for Religious Art and Architecture and the Interfaith Forum on Religion, Art & Architecture are the same? I could find very little on the International Federation - do you think that's a typing error in the articles? If they are, then of course there's no need for a dab, but if they are separate then there is. Boleyn (talk) 10:45, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The website referenced in the Lotus Temple article refers only to "Interfaith Forum". The only internet hits for "International Federation..." are in relation to that one award for the one building; it is presumably a mistake for "Interfaith Forum" that has propagated over a few websites. In short we have one topic only: delete-squared: Noyster (talk), 10:58, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Quite right, the link in Lotis Temple to International Federation is a typo. Striking my last comment and changing to delete. Boleyn (talk) 11:17, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:18, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ghost of Your Ex-Boyfriend Productions[edit]

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

Created by an IP back in 2005, this is either a hoax or a very obscure production company. Adam9007 (talk) 02:07, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 02:38, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: It's not a hoax, but it is fairly obscure and I'm not entirely convinced of its notability. As the article content states, it was a joint production company formed by John Safran and Richard Lowenstein. As far as I know the company produced just two TV series: John Safran's Music Jamboree and John Safran vs. God in 2003. Forming an ephemeral production company for the production of one or two films or series is quite common, and while the production itself might be notable, the company would not be in many cases. --Canley (talk) 03:59, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. sst ✈ 05:25, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Redirect to John Safran vs. God, as there's nothing to suggest better independent notability. SwisterTwister talk 07:21, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I can't see this being kept, but if a redirect is to be considered, John Safran may be the best choice considering it was used for 2 of his shows. Doctorhawkes (talk) 10:43, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I incorporated a short sentence to make note of this in John Safran vs God article, but clearly not notable on it's own. Aeonx (talk) 23:25, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Not notable on it's own. BoxOfChickens (talk · contribs · CSD/ProD log) 01:16, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Not a hoax as showsn by this, but there is no coverage about this production company at all. - Whpq (talk) 15:32, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete--Ymblanter (talk) 08:45, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

StubMail[edit]

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

Notability tag placed in 2008; still no evidence of notability. Delete per WP:GNG. Esquivalience ^t 01:00, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. sst ✈ 05:25, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. sst ✈ 05:25, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as there's simply nothing to suggest even minimally better, and it's likely there's no available solid improvement. SwisterTwister talk 07:15, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: My searches are not locating evidence that this product attained notability. It is also covered adequately and in context on the Meng Weng Wong page. AllyD (talk) 07:46, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete--Ymblanter (talk) 08:41, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Retrograde Inversion[edit]

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

Non-notable college band - zero sources, and I couldn't find anything about them anywhere. Does not meet any test of notability; I don't think it's even close. Rockypedia (talk) 00:23, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. sst ✈ 05:25, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. sst ✈ 05:25, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as this was actually mentioned as "AfD bait" when it first started and it certainly seems like that now, nothing to suggest even minimally better notability. SwisterTwister talk 06:27, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Speedy even. - superβεεcat 10:29, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I couldn't find any evidence that WP:NMUSIC is met. — sparklism ^hey! 13:41, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete--Ymblanter (talk) 08:39, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Contrast Security[edit]

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

Disputed prod of a company with zero evidence of WP:CORP notability; cited sources are all either press releases or passing mentions. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 00:11, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete definitely fails WP:NCORP. Can't find any coverage in reliable secondary sources. Almost eligible for CSDA7. Vanamonde93 (talk) 05:03, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. sst ✈ 05:26, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. sst ✈ 05:26, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. sst ✈ 05:26, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Seemingly likely no further coverage to suggest a better article. SwisterTwister talk 07:22, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:CORP. Only cites that mention the company at all are firstly a trade newsletter that has republished what is obviously the company's own press release, and secondly a patent office record. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 21:31, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No indication of notoriety. Curro2 (talk) 01:09, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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