The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Obvious consensus supporting keeping the article. (non-admin closure). Anarchyte (work | talk) 10:56, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

2016–17 Football League Trophy[edit]

2016–17 Football League Trophy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Article about an upcoming sports competition. Fails WP:GNG and WP:TOOSOON. The article is mostly a copy paste of the previous season. - MrX 23:19, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Sorry, new to this, but the last football season has finished, this tournament will take place. Re the copy paste - if you go back over previous tournaments, they all follow the same format. This is merely a continuation of this. Deleting now only means someone else will have to recreate it in the coming weeks Juanjo3333 (talk) 18:51, 2 June 2016 (UTC).[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 17:49, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 17:49, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 17:49, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - tournament will obviously take place and be notable when it does, and the draw for the first round will take place in just 9 weeks. Pointless bureaucracy to delete it now only to re-create in two months' time -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:40, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:41, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Obviously notable and a schedule is already available, therefore not really a case for WP:TOOSOON. Calistemon (talk) 09:47, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - CLearly notable long running national competition, no realistic possibility of it not occurring, no valid reason for TOOSOON. Fenix down (talk) 17:34, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - CRYSTAL does not apply - "Individual scheduled or expected future events should be included only if the event is notable and almost certain to take place" GiantSnowman 14:13, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep also as I nearly closed myself, can be kept as a happening event. SwisterTwister talk 06:02, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MelanieN (talk) 23:47, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

List of current NASCAR races[edit]

List of current NASCAR races (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Article is redundant and only a few other articles link to it. The races are covered in-depth on each series article, and there is no need to combine them into one article. – Nascar1996 ^{(talk • cont)} 16:06, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages for the same reason: – Nascar1996 ^{(talk • cont)} 16:13, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

List of 2007 NASCAR races (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

List of 2008 NASCAR races (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

List of 2009 NASCAR races (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

List of 2010 NASCAR races (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

• Keep or Merge Do Not Delete Changing to Keep, Merge, and Redirect to the appropriate pages mentioned in my rationale Can you link the redundant pages to these articles. I see we may need to merge the appropriate pages. If the pages are redundant then we merge them and turn the page into a Disambig linking to the big 3 and whatever other NASCAR series are covered on Wikipedia for those seasons.Sawblade5 ^{(talk to me | my wiki life)} 16:34, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Then wouldn't it be a duplicate of 2010 in NASCAR to link 2010 NASCAR Sprint Cup Series, 2010 NASCAR Nationwide Series, 2010 NASCAR Camping World Truck Series, etc. to the article? – Nascar1996 ^{(talk • cont)} 17:01, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Merge Propoasls of the Pages in Jeopardy of being deleted Since you now show me the pages that are redundant to. I propose we make the following merges and changes. For the List of current NASCAR races page The information is outdated for 2014 if there's anything that could be merged put them in one of the following pages 2014 NASCAR Sprint Cup Series, 2014 NASCAR Nationwide Series, and 2014 NASCAR Camping World Truck Series and redirect the page to the actual current season 2016 in NASCAR. For the List of 2007 NASCAR races page Merge the appropriate parts to 2007 NASCAR Nextel Cup Series, 2007 NASCAR Busch Series, and 2007 NASCAR Craftsman Truck Series and redirect the page to 2007 in NASCAR. For the List of 2008 NASCAR races page Merge the appropriate parts to 2008 Sprint Cup Series, 2008 NASCAR Nationwide Series, and 2008 NASCAR Craftsman Truck Series and redirect the page to 2008 in NASCAR. For the List of 2009 NASCAR races page page Merge the appropriate parts to 2009 Sprint Cup Series, 2009 NASCAR Nationwide Series, and 2009 NASCAR Camping World Truck Series and redirect the page to 2009 in NASCAR. and For the List of 2010 NASCAR races page Merge the appropriate parts to 2010 NASCAR Sprint Cup Series, 2010 NASCAR Nationwide Series, and 2010 NASCAR Camping World Truck Series and redirect the page to 2010 in NASCAR. There's no needing to delete the Edit History for any of these articles and those are still likely search terms per the WP:R guideline and the licensing of the Wikipedia edits of those pages. I can't change the pages up for discussion here into redirects yet as the AFD template breaks the Redirect so I have to wait until this is closed to perform these edits and merges. Sawblade5 ^{(talk to me | my wiki life)} 04:32, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • I fail to see a reason to redirect the articles since few articles link to any of these (other than the 2010 article), and traffic statistics show that articles are not very popular (Page views comparison). The idea of merging is useless because XXXX NASCAR Camping World Truck Series, XXXX NASCAR Nationwide Series, and XXXX Sprint Cup Series already has everything covered in more detail. XXXX in NASCAR is meant to be a disambiguation article that can direct readers to any of the national series or touring series. Furthermore, I do not see the significance of edit history. Even if the article is deleted, an administrator could retrieve the edit history if it is needed. – Nascar1996 ^{(talk • cont)} 01:44, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:56, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:56, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:56, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete and Redirect as there's basically nothing since 2014, nothing at all to suggest this has actual current information. SwisterTwister talk 18:45, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• • Comment why do you want the edit history delted from those pages. The information used on those pages has been merged or will be merged when this finally closes and deletion of the edit history would violate Wikipedia's Licensing. So please reconsider the deletion. Also the stuff on the other pages are sourced with the exception of Current NASCAR Races list which is out of date and I want to redirect without losing the edit history. Sawblade5 ^{(talk to me | my wiki life)} 01:16, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Redundant to the main articles. Drmies (talk) 02:05, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 17:49, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. General consensus to keep. (non-admin closure) SSTflyer 10:53, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Vincent Simmons[edit]

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

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

Fails WP:BASIC; almost no coverage in any reliable sources, except websites advocating his innocence. Fails WP:ANYBIO; has not made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record. Fails WP:PERP. Magnolia677 (talk) 00:18, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - The fact that Vincent Simmons was one of six prisoners focused on in a documentary that is notable in its own right does suggest notability. I would have suggested that it be merged with the documentary page, except that as the subject of a documentary, readers may wish to find additional information about the prisoner not included in the documentary, or details of events that happened after the documentary was finished. I will say that the page, as currently written, has TERRIBLE prose and is written with potential POV problems, but these are not causes for deletion. Cleanup is a better place for this. Fieari (talk) 03:44, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 21:05, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 21:05, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 21:05, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

• Redirect to The Farm: Angola, USA. The documentary aired in 1999 and generated both coverage as a documentary and substantive revisiting of crime by newspapers in Louisiana. There was a second round of revisiting of the crime by newspapers on the 10-year anniversary of the documentary in 2009. These were in-depth articles in multiple Louisiana newspapers, all easily available in news archive searches (I used Proquest.) This topic could probably support an article, but it probably makes sense to condense and fold it into the The Farm: Angola, USA.E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:59, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - has been the focus of a tv-docu and has received plenty of media coverage. also per WP:GNG.--BabbaQ (talk) 17:32, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please add some links to this plentiful media coverage? Magnolia677 (talk) 02:19, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep GNG seems adequate, if not terribly good.  InsertCleverPhraseHere  00:02, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect as he could have had his own article, but it seems best tied to the film itself, so redirect there as best connected. SwisterTwister talk 21:28, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, weakly. Terrible article, but a quick Google News search suggests this person is in fact independently notable. (Nominator, "has not made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record" is a bit off the mark.) Someone please improve the article. Drmies (talk) 02:10, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Making a "widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record" is one of the two criteria of WP:ANYBIO, and Simmons hasn't. Magnolia677 (talk) 02:49, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, but "A person who fails to meet these additional criteria may still be notable under Wikipedia:Notability." Drmies (talk) 17:41, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Which was why I added two more criteria. Magnolia677 (talk) 23:06, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) SSTflyer 10:53, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Onyx Moonshine[edit]

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

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

Non notable locally-distributed product with almost entirely local references (except for ref 6, which is Bloomberg) . The paid contributor notice on the article talk page said that the company making the whisky paid for the article to be written, so at least the intent was promotional. DGG ( talk ) 03:45, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - "The official spirit of the 2012 grammy awards" is a sufficient notability claim for me. I do see that there were possible advertising concerns at first, but it appears that other editors have stepped in and corrected the matter. Fieari (talk) 03:53, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as apparently a somewhat newly started alcoholic item, the information and sources are only expected and nothing else outstanding. Delete at best for now until better is available. SwisterTwister talk 03:55, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Note that additional sources have been presented below in this discussion. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:35, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 03:55, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Connecticut-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 03:55, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - The company was written about in April Time Magazine [1], NBC [2], as well as other publications in relation to a marketing event where a bottle of liquor was to be launched into space via a weather balloon. Previously, in 2012, there was a full length article in the New York Times [3] about the company. This reference was previously included in the article. I wrote the original article and was a paid contributor Fbell74 (talk) 06:45, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. DGG makes an important point with "the intent was promotional": this was created by a paid editor in order to publicise the company and/or product. It is thus an advertisement, and Wikipedia does not allow advertisements, of any kind, anywhere. That I've subsequently hacked at it to make it look a little more like an encyclopaedic article doesn't change that. Paid editing of articles is very strongly discouraged; in practice, about the only form of discouragement we have is to undo or delete those unwelcome edits. Delete this, without prejudice to re-creation of a real Wikipedia article by a non-involved editor if the stuff turns out to be notable (which, personally, I doubt it will). Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 08:53, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Of note is that the article is presently written in an entirely neutral point of view, with no promotionalism present. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:34, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. The intent may have initially been promotional (and, formatting wise, not very well done, no offense to Fbell74), but the revision as of this message seems acceptable enough and serves to adequately describe a somewhat popular (and therefore notable) beverage in a neutral manner. There are articles with a far more obscure nature than a bottle of booze used by the Grammys. TangoFett (talk) 09:03, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Passing mentions of promotional activities, and a minor write-up in the NYT--no, that's not notability by our standards. Drmies (talk) 01:18, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Check out WP:NEXIST; notability is based on the existence of suitable sources, not on the state of sourcing in an article. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:31, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete. Primarily local coverage, plus the one NYT article mentioned by Drmies. In 2015, one of the founders wrote a book about the experience. Still insufficient reliable sources to support WP:GNG or WP:ORG. It's just a bit WP:TOOSOON. Geoff | ^{Who, me?} 20:58, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep striking my former delete !vote in light of the recent changes and additional sources located. I now see the article as meeting WP:GNG. Geoff | ^{Who, me?} 16:27, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• comment - I might vote weak keep, but I can't access the CT Public Radio site, I'm not sure how much depth the content provides. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 16:19, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like the link was broken or incorrect. I've amended this now ([4]) Fbell74 (talk) 06:23, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

• Keep – The topic passes WP:GNG. The article does not have a promotional tone at this time. Also of note is that brand topics do not need to have received coverage in regional, statewide or national news sources, although this topic has indeed received such coverage (e.g. Time, Connecticut Public Radio), because WP:AUD only pertains to companies, per being on the Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies) page. Information on the page about products is located at WP:PRODUCT. Source examples include, but are not limited to those listed below. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:49, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - this Carrie Nation disciple thinks the topic meets GNG, per times (not a trivial mention) and the CPR. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 23:48, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - with recent changes, now passes WP:GNG. VMS Mosaic (talk) 02:24, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:53, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. MelanieN (talk) 23:51, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Royal Club (brand)[edit]

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

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

seems to fail WP:GNG, also can't find any secondary sources for this Prisencolin (talk) 03:47, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: In the Dutch Wikipedia this is just a redirect to the (reference-free) Vrumona article, where this brand gets a passing mention. Neither there nor in searches am I seeing anything amounting to substantial coverage that would amount to notability. AllyD (talk) 07:33, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  The quality of Dutch Wikipedia articles should not matter in the deletion process here. – Editør (talk) 07:23, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 15:08, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 15:08, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - this is one of the biggest selling mixer brands in Holland (exact figures are hard to source online but the few I've found indicate a third-place overall market share in the Netherlands soft drinks sector?), and a staple product of any online shop selling Dutch goods. There aren't many good-quality secondary sources but the brand is featured quite a bit on Dutch food and drink blogs [5]. Not sure if anyone can find better sources to verify, but this is a big Dutch brand and definitely notable. ✤ Fosse 8 ✤ 14:33, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete at best for now as I have found no particularly better sources and this is likely going to have archived and non-English sources, so Draft or restore if needed later, but there's nothing suggesting of obvious improvements at this time. SwisterTwister talk 21:34, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. This is indeed a well-known brand, and I spent a few minutes finding and adding a few sources. The brand has been around for decades, and the lack of sourcing is a bit dismaying. Still, I think I found enough to at least indicate that this is a notable brand. I still remember the slogans from the radio ads, for instance. The Banner, do you have anything for us? Drmies (talk) 03:05, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment – If not independently notable, this could be merged to List of soft drinks by country § Netherlands. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:03, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Well known brand, I have added an incident with reliable third party source. The Banner talk 10:28, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Mix met Royal Club, geen gewone club! Drmies (talk) 16:45, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• A few points: [1.] Notability, verifiability, etc, are not an issue here so deleting should be off the table. [2.] It would have been better if the parent Vrumona had an en.wiki article before Royal Club, or if, at the very least, Vrumona and Royal Club would be mentioned in the Heineken articles. [3] I looked into renaming Royal Club into Vrumona but the information here really is about the Royal Club brand. Bottomline: it is what it is and it is notable so keep. gidonb (talk) 03:52, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:52, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Consensus against delete, but towards a merge in the future (non-admin closure) —  crh ₂₃  (Talk) 16:20, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Now: The Hits of Autumn 2011[edit]

Now: The Hits of Autumn 2011 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Fails WP:NALBUM. Binksternet (talk) 05:06, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete [6] Allmusic shows no notability. Fails WP:NALBUM as nom stated CerealKillerYum (talk) 06:43, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:16, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:16, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Peaked at No. 4 on ARIA Compilations chart – was in top 10 for nine weeks. Passes WP:NALBUM#2.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 12:10, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Needs sources - chart indicates plausible notability, but we have literally nothing in the way of third-party sources. Did any third parties actually talk about the record at all? - David Gerard (talk) 12:42, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep was a charting record - justifies notability. Dan arndt (talk) 02:34, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Now That's What I Call Music! discography#Australia. Charting in and of itself does not make an album notable, independent coverage in multiple reliable sources does. This and very few of the individual NOW releases receive this type of coverage. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 16:06, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yeah, this is the sort of thing where mere charting doesn't necessarily convey individual article notability (because it is extremely unlikely there will ever be good third-party sources like there would for a single-artist hit single or album) and it should be redirected - David Gerard (talk) 16:51, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, but not because I think the album is individually notable. There are 34 Australian Now! albums that have their own articles and there is little purpose in knocking that number down to 33. Or, to say it in a more policy-oriented fashion, there appears to be a community consensus that these articles should exist. But if these 34 articles were bundled into a single nomination, I'd opt for deleting them all in favor of a single list article. NewYorkActuary (talk) 02:37, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • All of them can simply be redirected. Note that no new articles have been created since these 2011 versions in the Australian series because they were never any more than a track list and perhaps a chart position, but never any indication that they received any coverage in other sources. Part of the issue was that attempts to redirect these older versions were reverted by IPs not due to any consensus to keep them. I had successfully redirected many of the other NOW articles that were created similarly for releases in France, Germany, and Hungary. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 19:11, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Definitely something to redirect to an article for the series. Is there any RS coverage talking about any of them? - David Gerard (talk) 19:54, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That sounds reasonable, Starcheer. But saying that something can be redirected is not quite the same as saying that they will be. Are you proposing to treat this nomination as a test case for every album in the series, so that if the result here is "redirect" then that's what you'll do with all of them? If so, you'll get no objection from me. But before throwing in my support, I'd like to hear what the nominator and the other participants think about it.

By the way, that redirect target is awfully unwieldy. There are close to 600(!) in-article external links, in addition to some forty actual references. How about splitting out each series into a separate article, starting with Australia. I'm thinking of something with the title Now (series of Australian compilation albums). The information in that list article could appear in the form of a table, which would allow convenient placement of charting information, catalog numbers, year of release, etc. NewYorkActuary (talk) 21:46, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, no reason not to break it up by country - David Gerard (talk) 22:08, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Most of the references for other countries series just use Amazon or other online retailer as a "source". Not sure if releases in Hungary, for example, are even worth noting if no further info can be found in more reliable sources. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 19:48, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: NewYorkActuary, David Gerard – there already exists a list article similar to that you describe, Now That's What I Call Music! discography, except it includes every Now! album released around the world, rather than a separate article for each country's albums. I think a country-specific list article as you suggest would be enough, with release date, chart placing and sales figures where known. I have a lot of sympathy with Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars' argument here, it seems ridiculous to have approaching 100 articles for the UK series that consist of little more than a track listing. If there are references it's usually to the chart placing on the UK Compilations Chart, but this is near pointless as virtually every edition reaches number one – I read somewhere in Music Week that the three annual Now! compilations now account for more than 80% of all compilations sold every year in the UK, which is quite likely since the arrival of MP3s and Spotify have rendered the compilation album obsolete since around 2008 – the Now! albums survive because (a) they contain new material, and (b) I think there's still something of a cachet in having a "complete" Now! collection. Richard3120 (talk) 03:32, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 University of Malta. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 23:01, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Malta Medical Students' Association[edit]

Malta Medical Students' Association (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

not notable, just a student organization. ThePlatypusofDoom (Talk) 19:49, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:21, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:21, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:21, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:21, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Merge to University of Malta. – Meets WP:ORGDEPTH. Source examples include, but are not limited to those listed below. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:27, 12 May 2016 (UTC) (Addendum: I have no prejudice against the article being merged to University of Malta). North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:17, 12 May 2016 (UTC) (Addendum: changed !vote to merge here. Technically qualifies for an article, but a merge would also be functional, particularly since the merge target presently has no mention of the topic.) North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:39, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Delete... the refs above seem to show it has a presence demonstrated by multiple independent sources. However a few of the refs read like press relesses written by the MMSA, and overall there is no genuine reporting on what the MMSA itself is. the refs centre around the MMSA's objection to another medical school, which is one event. HappyValleyEditor (talk) 21:18, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment – @HappyValleyEditor: I'm not finding any evidence that these are press releases. For example, open the news articles I posted, perform a google search using the headlines, and notice how there are few results other than the publications that published them. Also, there are no results for the Malta Medical Students' Association as having been involved in these articles whatsoever. Some websites may have the news articles copied onto them (likely without permission), but this does not deem a reliable source as unreliable per actions the news sources have no control over. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:12, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

North America, it was the quote "In conclusion, the MMSA would like to thank Mr Fearne and all those involved in this negotiation process and looks forward to future collaborations with the Maltese government and the relevant authorities in addressing the issue at hand." at the end of this reference.HappyValleyEditor (talk) 23:16, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm, missed that. However, this is only in one of the sources, and I still don't see any evidence that these are press releases otherwise. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:33, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• delete god Malta is like the town i grew up in, but a country. "Mrs. Whipple Wins Pecan Pie Bake off". If we used my small town newspaper for GNG purposes my dog would be notable for having chewed up all the gardens in the neighborhood every year. You can't write a WP article based on those articles, Northamerica. WTF is all I have to say. Jytdog (talk) 22:52, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Times of Malta is "the oldest daily newspaper still in circulation in Malta"; certainly not a "small town newspaper". It's unclear why you would think it is as such. The other sources also do not appear to be small town newspapers. Of note is that I have changed my !vote above a merge. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:37, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What an absolutely ridiculous and condescending comment, Jytdog. AusLondonder (talk) 22:55, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Commenting on the sources brought by NorthAmerica. Read them and read other articles in those papers. Hyperlocal, like a small town newspaper. Jytdog (talk) 23:12, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge - not big enough for its own start article, but certainly well-sourced enough for inclusion in the main article. Bearian (talk) 23:07, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to/with University of Malta. Quis separabit? 19:53, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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  17:19, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Queen's Award for Enterprise: International Trade (Export) (2016)[edit]

The Queen's Award for Enterprise: International Trade (Export) (2016) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Pure listcruft. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 21:39, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as nothing suggesting it's independent notability. SwisterTwister talk 22:18, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 22:18, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 22:18, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - not notable on it's own. Tom29739 ^[talk] 21:34, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• This is part of a series of articles in Category:Queen's Award for Enterprise: International Trade (Export). Many were created by an editor who was an administrator at the time; this was created by a less experienced editor but is that a reason to delete? Peter James (talk) 22:19, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Yes, this is listcruft, inappropriate for an encyclopedia. So are the other 15 companion articles to this one, but WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. If someone wants to suggest them all in a group deletion, I suspect it would succeed. --MelanieN (talk) 23:57, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Fire of Zamani. (non-admin closure) SSTflyer 10:51, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Gimme Dat (Ice Prince song)[edit]

Gimme Dat (Ice Prince song) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

I created this article when I wasn't familiar with WP:NSONG. The song fails WP:NSONG and has not gained significant coverage in reliable source. This song needs to be redirected to its parent article  Versace1608  ^{Wanna Talk?} 16:50, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy keep. Song is probably borderline notable, given the cited coverage. Article has many incoming links, so outright deletion would be disruptive. In any event, "this song needs to be redrected" is not a valid reason for deletion, and nom is free to redirect themselves. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by administrators since 2006. (talk) 17:07, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as although this is something I may've accepted, I would also still find it questionable for its own solid article. SwisterTwister talk 01:12, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 00:26, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Fire of Zamani (the album on which this song appears). NewYorkActuary (talk) 00:27, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 00:31, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Fire of Zamani.  InsertCleverPhraseHere  00:34, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Fire of Zamani. (non-admin closure) SSTflyer 10:51, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

More (Ice Prince song)[edit]

More (Ice Prince song) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

I created this article when I wasn't familiar with WP:NSONG. The song fails WP:NSONG and has not gained significant coverage in reliable source. This song needs to be redirected to its parent article  Versace1608  ^{Wanna Talk?} 16:50, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy keep. Song is probably borderline notable, given the cited coverage. Article has many incoming links, so outright deletion would be disruptive. In any event, "this song needs to be redrected" is not a valid reason for deletion, and nom is free to redirect themselves. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by administrators since 2006. (talk) 17:07, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete simply at best, nothing convincing of its own article independence, best connected to the article but there's nothing convincing to keep. SwisterTwister talk 01:11, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 00:28, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 00:28, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge and redirect to Fire of Zamani (the album on which this song appears). NewYorkActuary (talk) 00:30, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Fire of Zamani.  InsertCleverPhraseHere  00:35, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Redirect would have been an option but apparently there is no natural target for it. MelanieN (talk) 00:12, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Let's Get This Party Started (song)[edit]

Let's Get This Party Started (song) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

I created this article when I wasn't familiar with WP:NSONG. The song fails WP:NSONG and has not gained significant coverage in reliable source. This song needs to be redirected to its parent article  Versace1608  ^{Wanna Talk?} 16:49, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Darreg (talk) 19:54, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Darreg (talk) 19:58, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Darreg (talk) 19:58, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy keep. Song is probably borderline notable, given the cited coverage. Article has scores of incoming links, so outright deletion would be disruptive, and because it is a collaboration among several notable performers there is no natural redirect target. In any event, "this song needs to be redrected" is not a valid reason for deletion. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by administrators since 2006. (talk) 17:03, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Hullaballoo Wolfowitz: You say speedy keep and then say borderline notable. Borderline notable is not the same as notable. What criteria of WP:NSONG does this song meet?  Versace1608  ^{Wanna Talk?} 17:08, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Coverage suggests song may meet GNG. Note that at least one other editor has independently converted similar speedy nominations by you to redirects. This is just wasting editors' time; the appropriate outcome is evident. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by administrators since 2006. (talk) 17:11, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You keep using words like "probable" and "may". The song is either notable or not notable. There is no middle ground here.  Versace1608  ^{Wanna Talk?} 17:15, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That may or may not be so, but you're assertin and repeating it isn't conclusive. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by administrators since 2006. (talk) 17:19, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think the issue here is a conceptual one. Versace's understanding of WP:NSONG is that if the only significant coverage(s) to a song is in reviews then it shouldn't have its own article. But Hullaballoo Wolfowitz's is of the opinion that for a song to have so many reviews from reliable sources+it's artists being very notable then it probably already passed WP:GNG. For my sake, I hope I was able to break it down well. I am not as experienced as both of you in terms of the guidelines for inclusion of songs on Wikipedia, so I will just pass on this one.Darreg (talk) 19:51, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Darreg: This particular article will get deleted. The articles for most of the songs from Drake's Views album will be redirected to their parent article despite them charting. The problem with Drake's songs and this one is that none of them have been discussed in significant detail. Contrary to what you just said, reviews are the driving force that determines a song's notability. If this song has received reviews in reliable sources, it will meet the requirements of WP:NSONG.  Versace1608  ^{Wanna Talk?} 20:14, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete instead as there's enough to likely keep an article, but nothing particularly outstanding to actually suggests its own currently acceptable article. SwisterTwister talk 00:52, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. A source already in the article identifies this as an important record in Nigeria. As Hullaballoo points out, there is no natural single redirect target for this collaboration. Whatever the recent general trend around here may be as to more redirecting of singles, in this case the best result is to keep it. --Arxiloxos (talk) 03:31, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. the song has no evidence of notability Samat lib (talk) 21:35, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Meets WP:G7. The article is borderline notable, the author requests deletion, and the author is the only editor who has added substantial content to the article. SSTflyer 10:48, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 D'Kings Men. (non-admin closure) SSTflyer 10:43, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

For Example (Kay Switch song)[edit]

For Example (Kay Switch song) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

I created this article when I wasn't familiar with WP:NSONG. The song fails WP:NSONG and has not gained significant coverage in reliable source. This song needs to be redirected to its parent article  Versace1608  ^{Wanna Talk?} 16:49, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy keep. Song is probably borderline notable, given the cited coverage. Article has many incoming links, so outright deletion would be disruptive. In any event, "this song needs to be redrected" is not a valid reason for deletion, and nom is free to redirect themselves. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by administrators since 2006. (talk) 17:08, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as I may've kept but it's still questionable for its own independent article at best. SwisterTwister talk 01:13, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 00:33, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 00:33, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 00:33, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge and redirect to D'Kings Men (the album on which this song appears). NewYorkActuary (talk) 00:34, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to D'Kings Men.  InsertCleverPhraseHere  00:36, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 D'Kings Men. (non-admin closure) SSTflyer 10:43, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sister Caro[edit]

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

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

I created this article when I wasn't familiar with WP:NSONG. The song fails WP:NSONG and has not gained significant coverage in reliable source. This song needs to be redirected to its parent article  Versace1608  ^{Wanna Talk?} 16:48, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy keep. Song is probably borderline notable, given the cited coverage. Article has many incoming links, so outright deletion would be disruptive. In any event, "this song needs to be redrected" is not a valid reason for deletion, and nom is free to redirect themselves. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by administrators since 2006. (talk) 17:09, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as nothing actually currently convincing to suggest its own article. SwisterTwister talk 00:54, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 00:35, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 00:35, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 00:35, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge and redirect to D'Kings Men, the album on which this song appears. NewYorkActuary (talk) 00:36, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge and redirect to D'Kings Men, or delete in the alternative if that is not feasible or appropriate. Quis separabit? 20:02, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Consensus is that the subject does not meet WP:ACADEMIC but does meet WP:GNG. MelanieN (talk) 00:16, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Henry Lin[edit]

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

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

Non-notable astronomy undergraduate based on the WP:ACADEMIC criteria. His award is distinctly different than the type WP:PROF#C2 would count as notable. As yet WP:Too soon for WP:Prof. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Astrojimmy (talk • contribs) 01:49, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2016 May 16. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 02:19, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as other winners of the Intel award, which do not mention other achievements have pages, e.g., co-winner Eesha_Khare and Ionuț_Budișteanu
• Keep as has had significant coverage in reliable sources such as the Boston Globe article, smithsonian, time magazine (all in the article) and therefore passes WP:GNG which overrides WP:ACADEMIC. Atlantic306 (talk) 02:47, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not sure the Time or NYT article argues in the direction you suggest. Quote from Knutson and pentultimate paragraph suggest that the idea of the paper should be credited to Loeb. Time article focuses on Loeb and only mentions Lin in passing. NYT article briefly mentions this work while discussing plans for other telescopes, this work is not the focus of that article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Astrojimmy (talk • contribs) 02:54, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Off to a good start, but does not yet meet WP:Prof; WP:Too soon. Not enough in-depth independent sources for GNG. Xxanthippe (talk) 03:19, 16 May 2016 (UTC).[reply]
• Delete WP:TOOSOON. Does not have the coverage for GNG, and does not have the publications/influential work for WP:PROF. Might have, fairly soon; can be recreated then. Vanamonde93 (talk) 05:24, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as nothing particular at all for solid independent notability, sourced....but not notable. SwisterTwister talk 18:47, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Even if article does not meet WP:PROF criteria, it probably meets the WP:GNG criteria. There appears to be significant reliable coverage not included in the article: e.g., a second article from the Boston Globe that prominently features lin Boston Globe. Gizmodo has also features him twice Gizmodo 1 Gizmodo 2. As for Astrojimmy's concern an arXiv search lists him as 1st author for 6 publications including all the ones that have gotten media attention, suggesting that the academia gods give him the credit — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.103.224.4 (talk) 01:57, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Agreed with SwisterTwister, not notable. A few papers, but not enough to stand out and very few non-self-citations in a very highly cited field. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.134.204.61 (talk) 18:12, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 00:51, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 00:51, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Astronomy-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 00:51, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete Not notable by either GNG or PROF standards. The standard for notability from the "academia gods" is much higher than a few papers. Poster above with the Harvard IP address should check out WP:Prof. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.134.204.61 (talk) 18:12, 26 May 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.216.61.188 (talk) [reply]

• • Struck second delete vote from same IP Atlantic306 (talk) 20:02, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sorry, was trying to comment and add to discussion since it was relisted! Didn't realize that would count as a second vote :( — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.150.203.227 (talk) 08:30, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment the nominator and IP 67.134.204.61 are both single purpose accounts, all of their edits except one have been on this AFD and the prod of the article.There is enough significant coverage such as the Boston Globe and Time and NYT for WP:GNG to be passed. Atlantic306 (talk) 20:12, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - fails WP:ACADEMIC at the moment. Blythwood (talk) 20:50, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:50, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:50, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep. He doesn't pass WP:PROF, and the 30-under-30 coverage of him specifically is very weak, but we have nontrivial stories about multiple pieces of research he did (alien pollution and panspermia, to name two) that have made a splash in the popular media. I think that may be enough to pass WP:GNG and to be safe from WP:BIO1E. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:14, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, if they win awards that are known and the sources say so then what else do you need? VegasCasinoKid (talk) 01:40, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep – The subject may not meet WP:ACADEMIC, but that is irrelevant because the subject does meet WP:BASIC at this time. Some sources are below. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:33, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MelanieN (talk) 00:18, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Study Sparkz[edit]

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

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

I came across this via a speedy deletion for A7, however the Washington Post article is just enough to where it would potentially pass the low bar of speedy criteria. In any case, a search showed that the WP article is pretty much the only coverage this company has received since its founding in 2007. (It also doesn't help that the article is borderline promotional.)

This could probably be speedied, but at least this way the AfD would prevent future recreation before the company gains more coverage. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:53, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:24, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:24, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington, D.C.-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:24, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Added another link to the page in order to increase the known significance. I'd disagree that the article is promotional since the material on the page is fact.

Wiseowl1111 (talk) 16:55, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• @Wiseowl1111: You linked to a press release, which is seen as a WP:PRIMARY source, since those are written by the company or someone they paid to write the release. As far as the promotional tones go, the article is only borderline. However I also need to point out that something can be factual but still be promotional. In this case what makes it promotional is that you list out every single place that the service is offered and you also list every single topic that they offer tutoring in. When writing an article it's usually better to summarize a business's offerings and locations rather than list every single location and offering, as that makes it look like a directory or business listing - neither of which is what a Wikipedia article should be. However at the same time this wasn't so over the top that I'd delete on that basis alone and the main reason for deletion is notability. I also have to ask: what is your relation to the company? If you are someone who works for the company then you'll need to disclose this somewhere per WP:COI. I've left more information on your talk page. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:15, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and I would've still pursued A7 and G11 but at least we have abilities for G4 now if it's restarted, nothing at all convincing for solid independent notability regardless of an apparent Washington Post article. SwisterTwister talk 20:47, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• delete Fails WP:N. No extensive coverage. CerealKillerYum (talk) 18:29, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete -- non-notable business seeking free advertising. Quis separabit? 20:00, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Whether the name is used by one artist or two, consensus is that neither is notable. MelanieN (talk) 00:23, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

WRENN[edit]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes. However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: ((subst:spa|username)); suspected canvassed users: ((subst:canvassed|username)); accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: ((subst:csm|username)) or ((subst:csp|username)).

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

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

As it stands, this looks like a WP:TOOSOON case that's pretty clear-cut. I'm sympathetic to indie type artists trying to break through, but the only notable thing done by this musician so far appears to be a collaboration with an American DJ, appearing on a certain EP. That's about it. A bit of searching generates tangential commentary from blogs and the like, nothing appearing to pass WP:GNG standards. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 08:54, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Agree with CoffeeWithMarkets. Per WP:BAND, an artist needs to have at least one song (as a lead artist) in any of the national charts. The only article that talks extensively about the singer is the Fader one which is fine. However, one source is not adequate to satisfy WP:GNG, as mentioned above. Also, for a direct example - Olvia O'Brien, who collaborated with the said DJ (Gnash), and with same credentials as this singer, does not have a Wikipedia page. Association with a notable person does not evince notability. It is too soon for the singer to have a Wikipedia page. Maybe after she releases here EP and more establishments talk about her, then we can think about it. Check Moxie Raia for reference. Hence, delete. Best, Nairspecht Converse 09:15, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - While I agree with CoffeeWithMarkets that this is a pretty clear cut case of WP:TOOSOON, upon further investigation I found that there is another musical artist going by the same name. Even more so, it appears this other artist changed their name to "Wrenn" after the song "Fragile ft. Wrenn" was released. Normally I would vote a page like this for delation, yet seeing that there is public confusion as to who the artist on "Fragile" is, I vote to keep. It serves it's purpose, which is to clear up any confusion about the authenticity of this musician. : V.Putnam (talk) 02:53, 20 May 2016 (UTC)— V.Putnam (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

While I understand your concerns, that would still leave us with a page that's fundamentally flawed due to the massive lack of sourcing about Wrenn, the "Fragile"-related performer, and would seem to have very little reliable information. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 16:25, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 23:57, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 23:57, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - This is a case I have not seen many times. Despite the fact CoffeeWithMarkets has stated what I believe to be a clear case of WP:TOOSOON, I have to agree with V.Putnam. Seeing as there is another individual going by the same name, and seemingly attempting to take credit of the creation of multiple works belonging to this musician, it is in best interest to keep this article up strictly for the clarification for the community. For this reason, keep. That being said, I do not believe any more information about the artist should be added until more notable works come into play. Cheers, VikramRaphii (talk) 20:59, 22 May 2016 (UTC)— VikramRaphii (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

• How does that prove notability. Also, your account is new so I don't understand why you said "This is a case I have not seen many times". --Lemongirl942 (talk) 00:40, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - does not meet WP:MUSIC or WP:GNG at this point. --bonadea contributions talk 21:20, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as by far containing nothing for the needed independent notability. SwisterTwister talk 07:42, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - I find the arguments made by V.Putnam convincing. This looks like a useful place to invoke WP:IAR. A strict reading of our rules would state that we have to delete this article... and yet, our encyclopedia would become demonstrably weaker and less useful without this article-- not simply for lacking the information contained within the article, but in another article that is definitely worthy of inclusion. I call for us to acknowledge that this does not meet our notability standards, and yet we need to keep it anyway for necessary disambiguation. That is, unless someone has a better idea on how to clearly disambiguate? Fieari (talk) 06:14, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm sorry, I didn't under stand the logic given by V.Putnam. I would at least like to see proof that another musician with the same name is attempting to take credit. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 08:31, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - I have not written for Wikipedia before, and truthfully am not familiar with what the policies are, but I am familiar with this artist and the other musician who has tried to take credit for her work since the feature with Gnash. The other individual was a woman who went by the stage name "WrenPop", until "Fragile ft. Wrenn" was released. "WrenPop" then changed her name to "Wrenn" on all social platforms. A simple search of the name "WRENN" will prove this. The "Wrenn" that was featured on "Fragile" then stylized her name to "WRENN" so it wouldn't be as difficult to tell the difference, yet the following day "WrenPop" changed the stylization of her name to "WRENN" as well. As of two days ago, "WrenPop" also changed her profile photo on Spotify and Twitter to an image of the "WRENN" who was featured on "Fragile". I know this must be incredibly confusing, and I don't know how to go about this, but from someone who has seen, and been personally confused, by this blatant copying; I too believe this article should stay, at least until the other individual stops copying the "WRENN" for which this page is about. 76.91.50.9 (talk) 22:27, 28 May 2016 (UTC) — 76.91.50.9 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Are there any reliable sources discussing this? The information presented here amounts to original research which can't be included in the article, and it would not be appropriate to save the article in order to somehow strengthen the artist's claims to the name - that is not what Wikipedia is for, as Lemongirl points out below. --bonadea contributions talk 17:01, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep per V.Putnam and Fieari above - a strange case where the subject currently seems to fall short of WP:NMUSIC in terms of having their own article, and yet the confusion between the two WRENNs over "Fragile" seems in itself notable. Perhaps the Fragile article could include a section on the controversy, whereupon this one could be deleted as WP:TOOSOON ? ✤ Fosse 8 ✤ 10:43, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Sorry to say this, but Wikipedia is not a place to solve disputes. None of the artists named "WRENN" are notable. The dispute over the names is not notable either - it has not been reported in any secondary sources and Wikipedia shouldn't do it either. (Please note that Wikipedia is not supposed to be used as an advocacy forum). The dispute over the names should be fought on an alternate platforms - not on Wikipedia. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 03:54, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Note to closing admin: 3 SPAs have come and !voted keep. This is a clear case where contrary to policy, Wikipedia is being used for the promotion of a non-notable artist. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 03:57, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. The article has been improved during discussion, causing the nominator to lean towards keep. Another of the delete !voters could accept a keep, leaving only one firm delete !vote, so consensus appears to be keep. MelanieN (talk) 00:29, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Pyrates Royale[edit]

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

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

Existing references are trivial mentions. No indication that the group meets WP:BAND nor WP:GNG - Barek (talk • contribs) - 19:56, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: The original editor has added several additional sources. The majority of these are again trivial mentions just listing the band name in passing on a list of acts, or list of their songs (no actual coverage), list of winner of a non-notable award, etc. One of the sources gives some coverage to one of the members, but notability isn't inherited. There are two sources of possible worth. Capital Gazette has an article; but it reads as a press release advertising an event so I don't believe it would help in meeting the threshold. The second by Rambles provides okay coverage, but WP:BAND specifically requires subject of multiple, non-trivial, published works (emphasis added), so I don't believe this is enough as yet. As a result, I believe the article is at best still a weak delete. I would say "not yet", but the band aparently disbanded earlier this year (except for potential reunion gigs) so additional coverage is likely to be minimal if existant at all. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 23:16, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I would argue that GazetteNet and Traditions, a radio program covering folk music would make multiple sources. But I would also argue that the multiple "trivial" references indicate that this group was a well-known and therefore notable part of the folk music community, at least in the Maryland and Washington, D.C. area. Some of those references are ads for businesses hoping to capitalize on the group's popularity. Another is for a weekly, pirate-themed radio show that credits the group as inspiring the interest that led to the eventual premise of the program. There were also other reviews from rambles.net, regarding other albums.

Cybotik (talk) 03:38, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please follow the link that has been provided to WP:BAND. If you disagree with the notability guideline as currently written, the place to try to get it changed is on the talk page for that guideline at WT:BAND (or at one of the related WikiProject pages listed on that talk page), not in this deletion discussion.

Most of the added refs are trivial mentions that serve no purpose in meeting that guideline, nor in directly supporting text in the article, so should just be removed to eliminate the clutter. However, as I said, the Rambles article appears to provide okay coverage, and now the addition of the GazetteNet article would also be good coverage - so meeting the guideline of "multiple, non-trivial, published works" appears it now may be met.

This AfD should be allowed to run its course; but given those two sources, I believe it has a good chance of being closed as a keep or at least a weak keep. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 16:12, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Delete. I was able an interview in the Baltimore Sun with the group's violinist ([7]), and I found an article in CMJ which has a passing mention of them ([8]). The Cecil News has a mention of them in an article as well ([9]). There's some stuff out there but it is really, really trivial. I'd have to say weak delete on the face of it, but I could see where someone would vote keep instead. Nomader (talk) 20:18, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. This is my article. While the subject of this article may be light on media coverage, this entire genre of music and the performers of this genre will always suffer that fate. It is my opinion that Wikipedia should be a comprehensive font of information, rather than simply a listing of what's popular. Especially when regarding any form of art, the criteria for determining notability should not be based on the number of critics who chose to write about it. I have no connection to this group, nor have I ever even met them. But I have noticed that Wikipedia has little information on forms and styles of music that do not receive a lot of attention. If anyone should go looking for these forms of music, Wikipedia fails them. This particular group had thirty years of musical success. They have fans all over the country. Surely, press coverage is not the only measure of notability. Cybotik (talk) 20:50, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as there's particularly nothing convincing especially from the sources and my searches have found nothing better. SwisterTwister talk 07:20, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 20:52, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 20:52, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MelanieN (talk) 00:30, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mookie Barker[edit]

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

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

Non-notable actor. Has only minor roles. Natg 19 (talk) 17:04, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Natg 19 (talk) 17:04, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Natg 19 (talk) 17:04, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Natg 19 (talk) 17:04, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as quite noticeably suggestive of nothing at all regarding solid independent notability. SwisterTwister talk 04:35, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete actor with minor roles.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:01, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. As a hoax.  Sandstein  21:25, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Namik (dessert)[edit]

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

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

This article was initially tagged by Eldarion for speedy deletion as a hoax, but was declined due to the large number of contributions in the edit history. As stated in User talk:Passengerpigeon#Info, @Eldarion: said that this dessert was a hoax made up by a Turkish internet troll community and propagated across several websites with the intention of getting Android to name their latest operating system after it. Perhaps other editors will now be able to evaluate whether this dessert is real or not. Passengerpigeon (talk) 22:59, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment The image in the article is likely a copyvio as it appears multiple times in a google image search, usually described as Sütlü irmik tatlısı, a milk semolina dessert, e.g. here and here.--Malcolmxl5 (talk) 23:54, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Adding this (dated 25 May): Since 5 days ago there was no sweet thing named NAMIK, but we are Turkish and we produced a new dessert and named it NAMIK. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:09, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - There are references in the article and rich Google search results in Turkish, Youtube videos, popular recipe sites (like Nefisyemektarifleri.com) and blogs etc... I think the article should stay but I don't ethically vote to keep, because I'm one of the contributors. I don't know the Android related things but if they are notable, we also can write them in the article. --Logom (talk) 23:57, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:53, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:53, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• delete as an admitted hoax. Mangoe (talk) 20:50, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. It's difficult to believe that we actually need to debate this. Consider this quote from the article's History section -- The dessert's history goes as far as Suleiman the Magnificent. One of his praise words mention about Namik was the following: "Pearlicious!" (Sweet as a pearl). That wasn't added by a vandal; it was in there from its creation. Of course this thing is a hoax. NewYorkActuary (talk) 21:33, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per NewyorkActuary --Eldarion (talk) 12:19, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as I've still been watching this and there's still been nothing confirmably better to suggest a better article, thus delete until someone can make better available. SwisterTwister talk 06:14, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. There's unanimous consensus that this isn't appropriate as a stand-alone article, and those proposing a merge elsewhere seem unable to suggest an appropriate location for this content to be moved; since there seems to be broad agreement even among those supporting a merge that this would only warrant a line elsewhere, there seems no need to keep this article in the meantime. If anyone can identify an appropriate target to which this can be merged, I have no problem undeleting this so the history can be merged, but I feel it's unlikely. The only realistic merge target anyone has suggested appears to be Schrödinger's cat in popular culture (merging to the other suggestion, rape culture, would give hugely undue weight to this relatively obscure concept), but the Schrödinger's cat in popular culture article is an appallingly bad article which almost certainly wouldn't survive a deletion discussion itself. ‑ Iridescent 13:02, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Schrödinger's Rapist[edit]

Schrödinger's Rapist (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Frivolous joke of an article with sub-standard sources. Imagine an article called "Schrödinger's Cougar." How long would that have lasted? Anyone? Let's see: "Schrödinger's Cougar is a term meant to describe the experience of being a man in a culture in which rape is common. It posits that all women, to men, are Schrödinger's Cougar, because the man can't know for sure whether a woman may intend to smile at him with the intent to eventually trap him in her hungry vagina, until she does."

This article is shite. May common sense prevail. Draco^E 21:59, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Draco goes, as usual, a little too deep for me, but I have the nagging feeling that that's probably because she's smarter than I am. Still, delete--this is a formerly minorly hip term whose notability has gone, if it was ever there. A couple of hits in a couple of trendy publications don't make for notability by our admittedly high encyclopedic standards. Drmies (talk) 00:05, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, per WP:NEO: Neologisms that have little or no usage in reliable sources are commonly deleted, as these articles are often created in an attempt to use Wikipedia to increase usage of the term. – wbm1058 (talk) 15:48, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • If someone wants to copy (merge) the content to rape culture, I'm open-minded about that. Apologies to anyone offended by my quote-box; it's not intended to be a personal attack. wbm1058 (talk) 15:00, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: "Schrödinger’s Deletionist is a term..." - No, I won't continue - we already have two too many heavy-handed parodies of the nominated article in this discussion, and a nomination in which only about three words are devoted to giving a valid deletion reason (parodiability is not a deletion reason) and of which over half is in blatant breach of WP:NPA. Turning to the article itself, the subject is a meme which I have seen quite a few times - but I accept that the article does not have quite the quality of sources we require for notability and I have not identified better ones on a quick search. But that is no reason for gratuitously irrelevant attacks on the article and its creator. PWilkinson (talk) 20:56, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Rewrite Merge (keep) and generalise into as per AtHomeIn神戸 below. I suggest there should be a generalised article along the lines of Claytons#In popular culture. Aoziwe (talk) 13:43, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Aoziwe, I'm not sure how you can make this article about the term "Schrödinger's Rapist" more generalized. Are you suggesting it be merged into Schrödinger's cat in popular culture? AtHomeIn神戸 (talk) 02:05, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose so. Yes. Just as a claytons is what you are having when you are not having it, I can quite easily see myself and others seeing a schrodingers when it could be one thing or the opposite until you test it out. Aoziwe (talk) 13:27, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:43, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:43, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:43, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: If it's a notable topic, it's a notable topic; if it's not, it's not. The identity or behavior (outside editing) of editors who contributed to the article should play no part in a deletion discussion. Nor, for that matter, should one's personal point of view about the phrase. Cnilep (talk) 03:51, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per wbm1058. There is not enough evidence of common usage to justify an article. AtHomeIn神戸 (talk) 02:05, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete This is a term promoted on one blog with no evidence of it being widely used.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:44, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak delete. Firstly, I want to make it clear that I believe that many of the deletion rationale's given in this thread are totally invalid. The fact that an article on the phrase "Schrodinger's cougar" is irrelevant, as that is a made-up phrase that as far as my google-fu can tell has never been used in the history of the internet; thus, it would be deletable under WP:V, WP:N, and WP:HOAX. On the other hand, the existence of the concept of Schrodinger's rapist is trivially verifiable. Nor is the identity of the creator of the article relevant to whether the article should be deleted. Nor is the article being "shite": AfD is not Cleanup. However, the article is about the term "Schrodinger's rapist", and as far as I can tell, the term is not notable. Any discussion of the term seems to come from blogs which don't meet our standards for reliable sources, though the term is mentioned by some reliable sources. If the article could be turned into a discussion of the Schrodinger's rapist phenomenon (i.e. that women are expected to take responsibility for not being raped, but have no way of knowing whether or not someone is a rapist, and so have to treat all men as potential rapists), and if evidence that this is notable is found (possible, though I'm not sure of the best way of searching for it) then this might be keepable (or, at least, mergable into rape culture). So long as this continues to be an article about the term, however, I think it is deletable. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 09:09, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as my searches have found nothing noticeably better and the article is still questionable overall. SwisterTwister talk 06:17, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• My initial reaction was to !vote Keep per WP:POINT, given the almost entirely irrelevant nomination rationale, including a personal attack on the article creator that has nothing to do with the article. Seriously? Unless the creator is a paid editor, sock puppet, or otherwise blocked for reasons relevant to the creation of the article, that shouldn't be part of it (not that I'm under the impression that DE intended to do anything but take a shot). Actually looking at the subject, however, it doesn't look like it merits a stand-alone article, but given the context of the sources available and the meaning of the term, there's enough for a Merge to Rape culture. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 13:29, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yuck. Is there an exception to WP:NPA if the target is a former executive director? — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 13:35, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete To be kept, a neologism needs not merely to be "used in" periodicals, there need to be serious, in-depth discussions in RS not merely of of etymology and of the meaning of the term, the reasons for its generation, what it symbolizes, its impact on the culture, and so forth.E.M.Gregory (talk) 13:42, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to Rape culture. Not independently notable, but a widely cited exploration of the latter topic.--Carwil (talk) 14:09, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as complete tosh. _Muffled ^Pocketed 14:28, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per all the above. BMK (talk) 14:40, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to rape culture, where I think it merits a sentence, nothing more. I suspect this may be a case where Google shows different users very different results: I get several pages of blog hits, many lengthy, but nothing to offset the reliable sources problem. It doesn't merit an article but it's a valid search term and should be easy to fit into rape culture. Yngvadottir (talk) 15:28, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, sorry, I don´t see anything "saveable" here, Huldra (talk) 20:49, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge I cannot find sufficient coverage in reliable sources to establish that this phrase is notable. Blogs, yes, as Yngvadottir has already pointed out, but reliable sources? Not that I can find. This appears to have been, as wbm1058 says, a neologism, but one that never acquired usage widespread enough to garner much coverage in the sort of outlets we look to in order to establish notability. I was originally going to !vote "delete", but re-reading the merge rationales above, I find them persuasive. David in DC (talk) 20:59, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and merge to rape culture. As Ynhvadottir points out above, the term does get some hits on Google, though most of them aren't reliable sources. A sentence or two on the rape culture page should suffice, per the other merge !votes above. JudgeRM 23:08, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• delete' - I don't understand the calls to "merge" - you are going to just stick a one-liner somewhere in an already existing article whether it fits or not? (it doesn't fit nicely - it would just be something stuck in somewhere) oy. Jytdog (talk) 03:21, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with this point about it not fitting. The concept of women being scared is briefly addressed at the beginning of the second paragraph of the "Effects" section, although the article seems to limit the fear to previous victims and not women in general. Tacking on a sentence along the lines of "A few bloggers call this fear the 'Schrödinger's Rapist' phenomenon, but the term has not gained widespread use." would look very out of place. AtHomeIn神戸 (talk) 04:22, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge Bayesian probability or Schrödinger's cat in popular culture. I'm honestly surprised that the article on Bayesian probability lacks a section on stereotypes and racial profiling (since a lot of sociological literature discuses the relation in-depth), but if it existed the concept of Schrodinger's rapist would fit perfectly. However, as no section exists, I'd recommend Schrödinger's cat in popular culture instead. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 06:11, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Guff. fish&karate 08:27, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete (1st choice) or merge to rape culture (2nd choice) - As per Yngvadottir, Jytdog, and David in DC. This is a neologism without much usage or substantial coverage. However, I would grudgingly support a merge, although - as noted above - little would be merge-able, and it might not even fit in well with the rest of the article. GAB^gab 12:43, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Clear consensus for deletion. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:48, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sparkk tv[edit]

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

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

This is some sort of vanity article that should have been wiped out via COI months ago. It has no sources outside itself, and thus no assertion of notability or encyclopedic value. It's probably speediable under A7, but I'm never sure of the vagaries of CSD. MSJapan (talk) 21:55, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• This article is about an actual company, a online TV Network that launched a few years ago. The sources are legitimate and other online TV Networks like Indieflix exist here on Wikipedia, which is also a webseries Network online. Sparkk TV is no different than any other company. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.187.77.178 (talk) 00:17, 2 June 2016 (UTC) — 70.187.77.178 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
• Well. A7 isn't all that vague, and there is a certain claim of importance made, so it would probably be turned down by most admins. It is a very poorly sourced article, and I don't see much of a claim of importance. Besides--and the IP editor misses the point--there is no secondary sourcing that proves this is notable via WP:GNG, or instance. Thus, yeah it's much different from many other companies, who are notable and have been written about and pass WP:GNG and WP:CORP. I see only a minor web outfit and some promotional verbiage, thus delete. Drmies (talk) 00:21, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Look at the categories that have all other online TV Network companies that are probably just as small under Wikipedia categories for Internet Television & Video On Demand Services. That's not right to judge companies based on prestige. This entry belongs in both categories. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.56.28.134 (talk) 00:38, 2 June 2016 (UTC) — 172.56.28.134 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • It's not "prestige"--it's coverage in reliable sources. Drmies (talk) 01:59, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• keep Why not create a new section for online media or video on demand and include smaller companies like Sparkk tv, Indieflix & other smaller companies found in the Internet Television & Video On demand categories. There are so many companies listed and they should all be included. If more information is needed about the companies, then please tell what is needed so it can be added. Online TV is a new genre and not everyone is a Netflix or Hulu. But it doesn't mean you don't generate the web traffic or aren't popular. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vbctv (talk • contribs) — Vbctv (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • Only thing that matters is whether the subject is covered in reliable sources. Drmies (talk) 01:59, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Unable to find any substantial coverage in independent sources so WP:CORP and WP:NWEB are not met. SmartSE (talk) 09:04, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, does not meet relevant notability policy. Citobun (talk) 14:53, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Lack of significant coverage by reliable third party sources. Niteshift36 (talk) 19:15, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• I have articles that could serve as refrences and show cause to keep the article. ^{[1][2][3][4][5][6][7]} — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.187.77.178 (talk) 23:47, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• To serve as references, they need to be reliable sources. Niteshift36 (talk) 23:56, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Except I think the IP has no idea what that means, so let's break it down. Hwdmediashare is a blog. Blogs are not reliable sources. Any site talking about a TV show is not going to be sufficient coverage for the network it's on, so that's basically everything else except for the last two sources. Killthecablebill is nothing but an indiscriminate list of providers, so that's no good, and russellnauman is paid PR, so that's no good. As another aside, I went through the article, and discovered that the refs given as citations don't support what they're tied to, so I stripped them out. MSJapan (talk) 17:48, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. A site that's over a decade old and still has no significant coverage in major reliable sources simply is not encyclopedicly notable enough. Softlavender (talk) 08:44, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:41, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:41, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:41, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:41, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:41, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:41, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as searches clearly found nothing better at all, nothing at all convincing. SwisterTwister talk 05:41, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 15:44, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Schaefer[edit]

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

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

Does not appear to meet GNG: WP:BASIC plus WP:BLP. Lack of reliable sources to confirm notability and bio details. Delta13C (talk) 21:48, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:40, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:40, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:40, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:40, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. This social media marketeer has not made enough impact for notability. Xxanthippe (talk) 03:00, 6 June 2016 (UTC).[reply]
• Delete Wikipedia is not meant to be a promotion site for people seeking to jumpstart promotional careers.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:40, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as searches found nothing better and there's nothing else convincing from the information. SwisterTwister talk 06:19, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. The above says it all. VegasCasinoKid (talk) 01:38, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Fails GNG. Person not notable and the article appears to be an advertisement. Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 07:19, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Mojo Hand (talk) 13:20, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jonathan Wright (physician)[edit]

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

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

Does not meet GNG: severe paucity of reliable sources covering the doctor. Delta13C (talk) 21:44, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:38, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:38, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:38, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:38, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete non-notable physician.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:55, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as by far nothing actually convincing even considering the events which overall conclude there's nothing for applicable notability here. Notifying DGG for his subject analysis. SwisterTwister talk 06:18, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. postdlf (talk) 01:34, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

List of most discussed YouTube videos[edit]

List of most discussed YouTube videos (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

The article lacks the notability required to create a separate page, unlike List of most liked YouTube videos and List of most disliked YouTube videos Yoshiman6464 (talk) 21:13, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Arbitrary measurement. Drmies (talk) 23:15, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong delete. The number of YouTube comments is an inane yardstick. Clarityfiend (talk) 03:14, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak delete. Though I do think that occasionally it is vaguely interesting and/or notable what videos prompt the most comments/discussion, the vast majority of the time it's completely meaningless (particularly due to spam comments), and so I do agree with the consensus that a list of the top 30 is too arbitrary and non-notable to have an article on. Thegreatluigi (talk) 16:06, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Debating, posting objectionable comments and being spammed at does not make a video any means special. Donnie Park (talk) 07:18, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:36, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:36, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. I thought "discussed" meant in the general sense, like in media or by academics. But no, it is a total of YouTube comments, which can also by as much as "lol" or "dis sux". Moreover, it is unsourced, making it WP:SYNTH on our part to look at "most comments" and listing them here. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 12:55, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• SNOW Delete as there's still nothing here to actually suggest how it can be its own article. SwisterTwister talk 06:20, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was deleted by Jimfbleak. (non-admin closure) shoy (reactions) 13:10, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

SAB International[edit]

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

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

Almost enentirely promotional , and no indication of notability. DGG ( talk ) 20:29, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MelanieN (talk) 00:33, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

2016 in Lithuanian football[edit]

2016 in Lithuanian football (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Only a navbox Magioladitis (talk) 20:13, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:23, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:23, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:23, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lithuania-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:23, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete in current form – After having checked the histories of both this "article" and the template of the same name, this is a case of creating a template in a wrong namespace. The proper action thus would have been a move or a simple WP:PROD. So unless the content of this "article" is changed to something similar to 2015–16 in English football, there is no reason to keep the page for now. – Soccer-holic^{I hear voices in my head...} 21:18, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - topic can be notable, but there is not enough content to justify an article at this time. GiantSnowman 14:12, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as by far nothing here at all, no context. SwisterTwister talk 06:20, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 20:50, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Shaolin-Do[edit]

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

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

Non-notable martial art. The only sources that directly talk about this art are primary - the rest are essentially piggy backing. The art itself is not particularly widespread and (according to forums) is more notorious than notable. Search is difficult since this is not the more famous Shaolin. Peter Rehse (talk) 18:13, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 18:13, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete There is no significant coverage in independent sources and nothing to show it meets any criteria at WP:MANOTE. Papaursa (talk) 18:19, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as there's still nothing here at all for any applicable notability, there are sources but still nothing actually suggesting solid independent notability as a school. SwisterTwister talk 06:24, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete No real claim of notability and no significant independent coverage. Also fails WP:MANOTE. Existing is not the same as notable.Mdtemp (talk) 16:25, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:SNOW. Let's get this over with, folks. Bearian (talk) 16:49, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. WP:SK#1, no attempt to advance a policy-based rationale for deletion. (non-admin closure) Satellizer el Bridget ^(Talk) 11:27, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

World 1-1[edit]

World 1-1 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

How is this level special?? Did its creator want to create individual articles for all 32 levels of Super Mario Bros?? Georgia guy (talk) 17:57, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:29, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I don't think there's any intent to create an article for each level of SMB, but there is clear sourcing that shows how studied the design of World 1-1 was and its legacy for video games. At worst, this could be merged to Super Mario Bros.. --MASEM (t) 18:33, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - The first level of the first game of a long-running video game series often sees plenty of coverage from third party sources. See Green Hill Zone as well. I'd probably support deletion of your average, run of the mill level, but these first off ones get special attention it seems. Sergecross73 msg me 19:01, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep One of the most known video game levels from the game that saved the industry. Easily passes GNG in my opinion Seasider91 (talk) 19:57, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as creator. This level is basically legendary at this point. It has left a lasting impression on the video game industry as a whole, which the article clearly communicates. ~Mable (chat) 20:05, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Snow Keep It's not only one of the most iconic levels in gaming, but the sources provided already are enough to be notable. GamerPro64 22:13, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Keep One of the most well known levels, very notable. ThePlatypusofDoom (Talk) 23:45, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - A well-known level. With sufficient coverage from third party sources, I think World 1-1 should be suited as a stand-alone article. -- Hounder4 00:36, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Keep - This has sufficient information to justify a separate article. Yoshiman6464 (talk) 02:56, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 15:42, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

John Agbo[edit]

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

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

Speedy deletion per WP:G4 was declined. The underlying notability concerns remain the same. He has still not played in a fully pro league or received significant coverage, meaning the article still fails WP:NSPORT and WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik (talk) 17:49, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 17:50, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:14, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:14, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Belgium-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:14, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete the only additional claim for notability is that the subject played in the OFC Champions League. As he wasn't playing for a fully professional club I don't believe this passes WP:NFOOTY. I don't see much evidence that the subject passes WP:GNG either. Hut 8.5 22:00, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Fails WP:NFOOTY and WP:GNG. Simione001 (talk) 22:20, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Fails NFOOTY as has not played senior international football nor played in a fully professional league. No indication that subject has garnered significant reliable coverage for any other achievements to satisfy GNG. Fenix down (talk) 08:36, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - no improvement on previously deleted article Spiderone 16:29, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and SALT - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. GiantSnowman 14:12, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• SNOW Delete as there's simply nothing actually suggesting solid independent notability. SwisterTwister talk 06:25, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 15:39, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sharinna Allan[edit]

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

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

Notability, no credible sources, don't think it pass WP:NACTOR WP:NMODEL Fitindia (talk) 16:46, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as fails NMODEL, NACTOR & GNG. –Davey2010^Talk 17:00, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:18, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Puerto Rico-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:16, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:16, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete This article is hillarious in how non-notable she is. She was the lead in a production at Barry University. She appeared in a "Got Mile" add with her family. She has appeared in ads for TiVo and Huggies. She may have made appearances in two television episodes. Wikipedia is not a mass directory of everyone who has ever been shown anywhere in television, nor a directory of university theater role holders, so this is a very clear delete.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:53, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as nothing at all insinuating any actual independent notability. SwisterTwister talk 07:52, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) SanAnMan (talk) 13:11, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Norton Rose Fulbright[edit]

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

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

I prodded it with the following rationale: "The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline and the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (companies) requirement. " It was deprodded by User:Necrothesp with the following rationale "that's a pretty big law firm". Being "pretty large" is not a criteria for notability, and I don't see anything like required coverage to help it pass it (a few passing mentions, of course, but no in-depth coverage of the firm significance, etc.). As I discussed in my Signpost Op-Ed, this is a good example of Yellow-Pages like company spam. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 15:28, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. That's a pretty delayed reaction. I deprodded it in February 2015! But I maintain my position that it's pure common sense that a law firm that employs nearly 4,000 lawyers in fifty offices in every continent is worthy of an article. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:39, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 15:39, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per fail of WP:GNG and WP:CORP, specifically WP:ORGSIG: "No company or organization is considered inherently notable...If the individual organization has received no or very little notice from independent sources, then it is not notable simply because other individual organizations of its type are commonly notable or merely because it exists." The lack of independent sources on this fail the criteria. - SanAnMan (talk) 16:04, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep changing vote due to sources being proven. Article can still use a solid rewrite to include said sources. - SanAnMan (talk) 20:14, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]