< 17 June 19 June >
Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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. MBisanz talk 02:02, 26 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hossein Goudarzi[edit]

Hossein Goudarzi (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 person. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 23:56, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 21:47, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 21:47, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 21:47, 20 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 merge to Commander Keen#Dopefish. I see a rough consensus that no independent article is warranted and the content should be merged somewhere, and less agreement on the merge target. If needed, the target can be further discussed on the talk page. T. Canens (talk) 22:30, 26 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dopefish[edit]

Dopefish (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 topic lacks significant coverage from reliable, independent sources. (?) It only had passing mentions as an industry meme in a video game reliable sources custom Google search and Google Books search. A brief mention at (and redirect to) Commander Keen#Legacy should suffice, based on what we have. czar 02:06, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. czar 02:06, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'm open to a Merge if it helps with building a consensus, since there are passing mentions here and there. Sergecross73 msg me 15:24, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • What do we even merge though? The entire article isn't encyclopedic. We've got some extremely pointless unsourced commentary by the creator (""I just drew this stupid little fish"), and a massive WP:TRIVIA list of every minor cameo the character is. Where's the sources covering it in detail? Where's the reception? Where's the meaningful creation content? This looks like something slapped together on an inactive wikia or geocities page, not an encyclopedia entry. Sergecross73 msg me 13:15, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Satellizer el Bridget (Talk) 13:43, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Enduring, but minor—a running gag with no in-depth coverage in any of the sources cited. The article is better suited for TV Tropes as currently compiled. (Also, re: your strong BEFORE suspicions, why don't you look at the article's history first?) czar 17:54, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
"But it would be better covered in X" where X is usually Wikia, but TV Tropes works, is NOT a reason for deletion. There is plenty of overlap between Wikipedia and those other websites when a topic meets inclusion criteria for both, like this one does. Jclemens (talk) 20:23, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'd agree with your argument if it was an explanation as to why a merge stance would be warranted, but I just don't see how we're going to write an article about the subject with all these passing mentions. Sergecross73 msg me 13:14, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It's pretty easy, actually. What we have is a decent start from which to improve. Jclemens (talk) 20:23, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You consider a short, largely unsourced "overview" section and a massive unsourced list of every cameo its ever had, as a "decent start"? I would have called it one big violation of WP:V and WP:TRIVIA... Sergecross73 msg me 12:55, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Deryck C. 10:16, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
In the spirit of consensus, I am fine with either of the merge targets above. It is important to preserve this bit of game developer culture, but any of these merge targets are good. --Mark viking (talk) 20:23, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Music1201 talk 22:54, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Being relisted a second time is fine, especially if comments keep coming in (which they have.) A third relist is unlikely though, next time we'll likely have someone make a call on this. Sergecross73 msg me 15:24, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Really? I'm fine with the merge rationales, but you saying "NO evidence of notability, no third party sources" suggests you haven't actually bothered reading the discussion above. Satellizer el Bridget (Talk) 11:39, 24 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. T. Canens (talk) 22:33, 26 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Works Records System[edit]

Works Records System (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)

Contested PROD. This appears to be software which was developed by ICI for its own internal use. The article gives no indication that it was ever distributed outside of ICI. Software which a company develops for its own internal needs usually isn't notable, and usually isn't described in reliable sources-of course, there are exceptions to this general rule, but I cannot find any reliable sources for this article despite searching, so there is no evidence this software counts as one of those exceptions.

While a Google search will find some hits for this, it appears they are mostly dependent on this Wikipedia article (e.g. this blog post by Dan Bricklin criticising Wikipedia's topic on this content), the usual Wikipedia mirrors and reprints, or e.g. [2] which was created by Ken Dakin who (according to this very article) was one of the developers of this software. None of the sources found by Google appear to be independent reliable sources.

The only source the article gives is a document in the posession of The Computer History Museum in California. Now, no doubt this document exists and describes this software (the document itself is not online, but you can find in it in their catalog). However, this is clearly just an internal manual written within ICI. Many or most companies which develop software for their own use will write manuals. Those manuals are not independent reliable sources, they are essentially self-published sources, or to be more precise unpublished sources. Even if someone donates one of them to a museum collection, that does not magically turn it into an independent reliable source.

Although the edit history doesn't conclusively prove it (since it was created by an IP), I strongly suspect this article was created by Ken Dakin, who it appears has chosen to use Wikipedia to document the achievements of his career. We have recently deleted two articles which he created for a similar purpose; see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/IBM OLIVER (CICS interactive test/debug) and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/SIMON (Batch Interactive test/debug). In the dicussion about those articles, it was suggested by some that there may be old offline (paper) reliable sources describing the software which cannot be found through Internet based searches, such as magazines from the 1970s which have not been digitised. That justification for keeping the article was not accepted. However, in any event, I don't think that justification applies here, because it is unlikely that this software was ever discussed in reliable sources at the time, since even today most software internally developed by a company for its own use is never discussed in RS, and there is no reason to believe that norm was not true in the 1970s as well. SJK (talk) 11:36, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. SJK (talk) 11:38, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The Works records system, which went "live" in 1974 represented the first known use of: an interactive online spreadsheet, a three-dimensional spreadsheet and a shared public spreadsheet
If true, and reported in independant sources, this is a clear establishment of notability, regardless of whether or not it was originally and only ever used internally within a private company. (Note that this notability establishment should also be moved to the lead)
The Ken Dakin link is one such source. But also, the computer history museum record is another corroboration. Yes, from the catalog, all we can see online is that they have a copy of the manual, but we have to ask WHY they have a copy of the manual. It seems pretty clear that they are keeping the manual because of the notability claim above... being the first interactive 3D shared public spreadsheet. So this is not a case of having hypothetical contemporary sources, this is a case of a curated exclusive museum making an editorial choice about the significance of this topic. As such, we should keep it. Fieari (talk) 23:45, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Fieari: You are making the assumption that being accepted by the Computer History Museum (CHM) is an indicator of notability, but we simply don't know whether that is true. While obviously the museum won't accept everything, we don't know how detailed an examination they make into an artifact before deciding to accept it, nor how well their own criteria line up with Wikipedia's criteria of notability. Looking at their published acceptance criteria, the main criteria for rejecting documents appears to be that they already possess them (such as in mass-produced journals or magazines, and also certain extremely common items of vendor documentation such as IBM mainframe reference cards). They explicitly mention they "are particularly interested in prototypes, personal papers... homemade items...". Given they are "particularly interested" in these items, we can reasonably infer that they won't be selective in accepting them; but since "personal papers" and "homemade items" are unlikely (except in exceptional cases) to be notable for Wikipedia's purposes, this is a sign that their own acceptance policy doesn't align well with Wikipedia's notability policy, and hence acceptance in their collection isn't a good indicator of notability for Wikipedia's purposes. We can't infer that, just because they accepted this document from Ken Dakin, they have evaluated and agree with his claims of its historical importance–they may have simply gone "computer-related internal corporate document from the 1970s, we don't have it, hence accept"–indeed, I think the later is the case. I get the impression from CHM's criteria that they'll accept just about anything that is computer-related, old enough, and they don't already have, and perform only a very cursory investigation of the historical significance of artifacts before agreeing to accept them–so acceptance by them tells us little or nothing about notability for Wikipedia's purposes. This is especially the case for documents, which unlike actual computers take up very little space.
The contents of museum collections are WP:PRIMARY sources. For WP:GNG, we want secondary sources. It is up to historians and others to go through museum collections and determine what is significant and what is not, and their results are published in reliable secondary sources. Wikipedia shouldn't directly rely on Museum collections as a source because doing so is a form of WP:OR.
Regarding the "claimed notability" sentence, you say "If true, and reported in independant sources, this is a clear establishment of notability"–but it isn't reported in independent reliable sources, which is the problem.
WP:GNG requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". The Ken Dakin link is not "independent of the subject" since he was one of the key developers of this software. It's also questionable whether it is a "reliable source" because it wasn't published in an established publication, a peer-reviewed journal, or a book by a mainstream publisher–it's a page on a museum's website. While a page on a museum website might in some cases be a reliable source, in this case we have no information on what process of review the museum took before posting that brief reminiscence by Ken Dakin. That page appears to be orphaned–I can't find a link to it from the page navigation structure of their website, and nor can I locate it through their search engine. SJK (talk) 00:50, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Music1201 talk 22:54, 18 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. MBisanz talk 02:02, 26 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Moldova men's national ice hockey team[edit]

Moldova men's national ice hockey team (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)

They were an IIHF associate member, but it does not have a national team nor played in any international competition. The country did not registered at least one player. – AaronWikia (talk) 17:12, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:11, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:11, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:11, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Moldova-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:11, 18 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. MBisanz talk 02:02, 26 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dave Morris (manager)[edit]

Dave Morris (manager) (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)

Advertorially toned WP:BLP of a talent manager and record producer, which is referenced entirely to glancing namechecks of his existence in articles about other people and shows no evidence that he's the subject of any reliable source coverage in his own right. As well, this is a dead cert WP:COI, since the creator's username is the name of the article topic's management company. As always, Wikipedia is not a free public relations platform on which anybody is entitled to write an article about themselves just because they exist -- it's an encyclopedia, on which reliable source coverage that verifies passage of a notability criterion must be shown for an article to become earned. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 21:12, 18 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. MBisanz talk 02:02, 26 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Phil Cook (music producer)[edit]

Phil Cook (music producer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:BLP of a songwriter and record producer with no strong claim to passing WP:NMUSIC. The referencing here is parked entirely on primary sources, with not even one piece of reliable source coverage in media shown at all. As always, a musician is not automatically entitled to a Wikipedia article just because he exists; he must be the subject of media coverage which verifies that he passes a notability criterion. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 20:57, 18 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. MBisanz talk 02:03, 26 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Asrary school riyadh[edit]

Asrary school riyadh (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

A practically non-existent blurb about an individual school Kaobear (talk) 20:18, 18 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. MBisanz talk 02:03, 26 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Know Thyself[edit]

Know Thyself (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No evidence that it passes WP:NBOOKS. Article about the book's author is currently tagged with a BLPPROD. PROD contested by article's creator. I have given them time to add additional WP:RS to the article but it looks as if none are forthcoming. shoy (reactions) 13:11, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel kenneth (talk) 18:29, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:31, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spirituality-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:31, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Adding a more targeted source search, since the title is very common. Jclemens (talk) 21:19, 18 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) Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 03:11, 26 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Blancco Technology Group plc[edit]

Blancco Technology Group plc (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 page is marketing, was created by a single-purpose account, and is on a non-notable subject. ChiveFungi (talk) 15:58, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:00, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 02:03, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 09:38, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 09:38, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 09:38, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 14:13, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: there is a huge possibility of improvement but the article is a mess Daniel kenneth (talk) 18:07, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel kenneth (talk) 18:07, 18 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. MBisanz talk 02:03, 26 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Special trig limits[edit]

Special trig limits (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 wp:GNG, no relevant context. Almost all statements in lead are unsourced. Opening statement is incomplete or even wrong, as these limits can be easily calculated with Hopital's rule DVdm (talk) 18:00, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

On a side note, the method used to find lim (1-cos x)/(sin x) requires (1) an non-trivial separation as a product of two terms (it only works because at least one of the two terms has a nonzero defined limit) and (2) former knowledge of two non-trivial limits, sin x / x and sin x / (1 - cos x). Not exactly impressive. TigraanClick here to contact me 11:16, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Pretty much, except it would be a bad teacher. There is no valuable content as far as I can see. TigraanClick here to contact me 10:27, 22 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. MBisanz talk 02:03, 26 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Webbed Feet UK[edit]

Webbed Feet UK (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article about a web design company, which makes no strong claim to passing WP:CORP. The sourcing here is entirely to primary sources (a business directory, a list of members of its local chamber of commerce and one of its own websites), with the exception of a single local newspaper article which namechecks its existence while failing to be about it. This is not the type of sourcing it takes to get a company into Wikipedia. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 17:11, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

We have several local newspaper articles about our company but they are not available online, we have the clippings here but don't know how to use them in regards to referencing. 81.149.15.65 (talk) 09:01, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • There is nothing against such articles being listed (either here or on the article Talk page), though obviously they are more awkward for others to verify. However please note WP:AUD. AllyD (talk) 09:50, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • The "breakfast club talk" article doesn't assist at all, because it's not coverage of the company — it's just a blurb announcing that the company founder is giving a speech about something. It takes more than simply being able to verify that a thing exists — we need coverage in which the company is the subject of substantive reporting, which isn't the same thing as simply being mentioned in articles about other things. I also need to advise you to familiarize yourself with our conflict of interest rules — being a direct representative of the company does not mean you can't edit the article at all, I assure you, but it does mean you need to take extra caution to ensure that you're not crossing over the line into misusing Wikipedia as a public relations platform rather than a neutral encyclopedia. Bearcat (talk) 15:10, 25 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. MBisanz talk 02:03, 26 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Barihi Adetunji[edit]

Barihi Adetunji (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

subject fails WP:BIO, WP:GNG —Oluwa2Chainz »» (talk to me) 16:58, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —Oluwa2Chainz »» (talk to me) 16:59, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. —Oluwa2Chainz »» (talk to me) 16:59, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. —Oluwa2Chainz »» (talk to me) 16:59, 18 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. MBisanz talk 02:03, 26 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Adhitya Iyer[edit]

Adhitya Iyer (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)

With lack of significant coverage in reliable sources, the person doesn't seem to have done/achieved much that could be worth writing about. Fails WP:GNG and WP:AUTHOR. Yash! 15:43, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk) 19:25, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk) 19:25, 21 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. MBisanz talk 02:03, 26 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

List of Funimation voice actors[edit]

List of Funimation voice actors (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 a rather arbitary topic to base a list off of, with a completely arbitrary set of rules for what qualifies someone as a "Funimation voice actor." Have seen no evidence that such people are ever referred to in the press and wider world as "Funimation voice actors." Brustopher (talk) 15:14, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. clpo13(talk) 15:51, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:50, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:50, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. --Calathan (talk) 20:18, 19 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 Roman Catholic Diocese of Mogadiscio. postdlf (talk) 16:32, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

List of Roman Catholic dioceses in Somalia[edit]

List of Roman Catholic dioceses in Somalia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

A list of one item is not a list. This was deprodded with no rationale other than "potentially controversial", although I seriously doubt this will be anything but a SNOW delete. Assuming it is, I'll mass-nominate the other one-diocese lists that were deprodded. ~ RobTalk 14:50, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy close WP:NPASR  No argument for deletion.  No WP:BEFORE preparation.  STEM skills would help, too.  Unscintillating (talk) 15:12, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'm confused with, well, everything you just said. How does WP:NPASR, which relates to discussions that have received no comments after seven days, have any bearing on this discussion? WP:BEFORE has been done for this nomination; no other dioceses exist to expand the list. And "a list that links to one article isn't useful" is certainly a valid deletion rationale. Consider potential lists such as List of teams called the Green Bay Packers and List of presidents with the last name Obama and consider whether we really want to set the precedent for creating an article which has the sole purpose of listing a set of one. How does that benefit our readers? And a vague personal attack on my STEM skills is perhaps not the most accurate way to attack someone who holds a degree in pure mathematics and is studying in a math-heavy PhD program. ~ RobTalk 15:18, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
If you've ever heard of an "empty list", then it follows that a list has zero or more elements.  [3] provides a reference.  The last time I was involved in such a discussion, at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of airlines of Greenland, I found 1.3 Million GHits on the term "empty list".  The next link is to WP:ITSNOTUSEFUL, which is identified as an argument to avoid at deletion discussions.  "It is not useful" is not a policy-based argument for deletion, unless you invoke WP:IAR.  Sorry about the confusion with the link WP:NPASR, but NPASR means "No Prejudice Against Speedy Renomination".  The point remains that a speedy close or speedy keep remains in order.  Unscintillating (talk) 20:06, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
And to answer your question, "do we want list articles with one entry", I posted in the Greenland-airline AfD that I'm fine with list articles that have zero entries.  The result of that AfD was "keep".  Unscintillating (talk) 20:06, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
WP:ITSNOTUSEFUL says that saying "It's not useful" is an argument to avoid when you don't give a reason why it's not useful. I have given such a reason. An empty set is a set, but that doesn't mean we need to have empty sets on Wikipedia, given that they serve no encyclopedic purpose. The other AfD you linked was a rather poor reading of consensus, given that all arguments for inclusion were simply claims that other stuff exists, and such arguments are extremely weak. Further, it's from 2011, and consensus can change. When all is said and done, this is an encyclopedia. If no editors can articulate a single reason why an article benefits our readers, even a niche group of readers, then it should not be kept. Also, please note that WP:SAL, a guideline, states that lists are "series of items formatted into a list". Note the plural on items. Also, if this were newly created, it would be eligible for speedy deletion as WP:A10, since a list of one with nothing outside of a link to the one article duplicates the information of that article. ~ RobTalk 20:45, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Empty sets are not empty lists.  You've not established any technical reason to begin a discussion of empty sets.  If you know the difference, then the argument that "empty sets serve no encyclopedic purpose" is indistinguishable from a red herring.  Unscintillating (talk) 11:27, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:59, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:59, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Somalia-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:59, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:59, 18 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 merge to List of Greyhawk deities. MBisanz talk 02:04, 26 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Olidammara[edit]

Olidammara (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 does not establish notability, only relying on primary sources. TTN (talk) 14:13, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 14:13, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • If someone wants to do it, I'll hold off on AfDs. If you can get a consensus I can refer to in the edit summaries, I'll do it myself. It's just that nobody ever actually follows through with doing it. TTN (talk) 01:05, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • You know, TTN, if you exercised due care and appropriate editing with the mergers, I'd be quite impressed, as I don't recall seeing such work from you before. I won't revert them. Jclemens (talk) 16:06, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • For what it's worth, I've been merging a fair few of these over the last few weeks (take a look at the history of goblinoid deities, gnome deities, halfling deities, dwarf deities, drow deities and elf deities). Nobody has raised any objections (or, indeed engaged with me) at all. Josh Milburn (talk) 07:26, 20 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. MBisanz talk 02:04, 26 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

PageCarton[edit]

PageCarton (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 placed a WP:PROD on a previous instance of this article, with a rationale of "No evidence that this newly-released software has attained notability." The article is sourced only to a primary site and Github, and my searches are identifying nothing better, so I am bringing this to AfD on the same rationale as the previous Prod. AllyD (talk) 13:55, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 13:59, 18 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 clear consensus to delete here. Of the two people arguing to keep, one is the article's creator, and the other provided no policy-based arguments or sources. And, while Peter Rehse didn't provide a bolded, one-word statement, his analysis speaks to deletion.

@Australianblackbelt:, if you like, I'll be happy to undelete this and move it back into your user space (or, even better, into draft space). Just drop me a note at User talk:RoySmith. -- RoySmith (talk) 17:18, 26 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Terry Lim[edit]

Terry Lim (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 artist lacking non-trivial support. reddogsix (talk) 13:42, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Kudos on the hyperbole - but the sources don't demonstrate long-term, international recognition.Peter Rehse (talk) 17:20, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:56, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:56, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:56, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Lim is also an actor, known for Macbeth (2006) as the Chinese Businessman, It's Him... Terry Lim! as himself (2011) and Metal Warrior (2011) as The Secret Weapon. http://www.imdb.com/name/nm2397814/ (Australianblackbelt (talk) 12:00, 20 June 2016 (UTC))[reply]
  • Minor roles, such as "Chinese businessman" do not help anyone pass notability. Niteshift36 (talk) 17:12, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's him... Terry Lim, is a documentary about him played by himself directed by a notable Australian director this the point of focus in my comment not that minor role u mentioned (Australianblackbelt (talk) 08:46, 21 June 2016 (UTC))[reply]
You can ask that the article is userfyed - and work on it there if the decision is to delete.Peter Rehse (talk) 12:23, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Peter Rehse What's going on here??? This article was nominated for deletion on the same day it was created... Can you read Spanish reddogsix?? The Latin Australian Times is a National newspaper in Spanish, I had a lot of help from Dragonfly6-7 writing this article (Australianblackbelt (talk) 12:37, 22 June 2016 (UTC))[reply]
Of course, why would you even ask? BTW - the first two references will have to removed since they refer to items that per Wikipedia violate copyright laws. If you wish to use these articles, you will need to refer to the original location of the article created by the copyright owner. reddogsix (talk) 13:52, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you kindly for the heads up reddogsix, The references are of a hard copy newspaper not online, forgive my ignorance but how would they be used in this case? (Australianblackbelt (talk) 11:37, 24 June 2016 (UTC))[reply]
My pleasure, you would have to remove the reference to the current page and if the pages are not available online you can change the reference to the print version of the article. reddogsix (talk) 15:15, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the tip reddogsix it is now done set as print edition (Australianblackbelt (talk) 06:46, 25 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 delete. Obvious spam by COI editor, nothing to discuss Jimfbleak - talk to me? 12:09, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Westleigh Gardens[edit]

Westleigh Gardens (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)

Spam, advertising Lukasz - Discussion 11:00, 18 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 Merged to Anthony Bailey (campaigner). UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 12:52, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Princess Marie-Therese of Hohenberg[edit]

Princess Marie-Therese of Hohenberg (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 a single one of the criteria for WP notability under WP:N. Only 'independent' source of information (not connected with her husband) is a gossip interview in a local newspaper. No evidence of any achievements or activities. 'Distinctions' are awards also given to her husband, according to the sources given, which offer no reason why she was 'awarded' them. None of these awards appear notable to the standards of WP:NCNOB and most have no WP articles relating to them. In other words, pure WP:PROMOTION.--Smerus (talk) 10:52, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As Smerus states, does not meet any notability guidelines. In my opinion this page was created as part of a sockpuppet farm controlled by or closely connected to her husband. CaribbeanTruth (talk) 16:07, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Selective merge to Anthony Bailey (campaigner), where she and their son are currently only mentioned in the infobox. A brief mention of her Habsburg connections and perhaps of the son would probably be enough (I would be inclined to something like, "His wife, Marie-Therese, is a great-granddaughter of Archduke Franz Ferdinand of Austria. They have one son, Maximilian." These two facts would not be undue in her husband's article and, while somewhat inadequately sourced at the moment, look as if they could probably be reliably sourced from passing remarks in news stories.) PWilkinson (talk) 18:53, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I would agree this could be an appropriate solution, and will carry it out subject to any other comments.--Smerus (talk) 20:50, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have now carried out merge as suggested above. Can someone now close this please?--Smerus (talk) 09:23, 21 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. WP:SNOW. postdlf (talk) 19:31, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

List of Arsenal F.C. individual awards[edit]

List of Arsenal F.C. individual awards (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)

Procedural nomination; I've just declined a WP:PROD on this on the grounds that whatever decision is made regarding the viability of this list is likely to set a significant precedent for the coverage of other sports teams, so deserves a full discussion. Procedural nomination, so I abstain.  ‑ Iridescent 10:35, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Similar nomination for Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Leicester City F.C. individual awards by JMHamo.
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 10:51, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 10:51, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Kosack (talk) 11:06, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
And also delete List of Leicester City F.C. individual awards. 77.130.194.95 (talk) 11:07, 18 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. MBisanz talk 02:05, 26 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

David Gaither (artist)[edit]

David Gaither (artist) (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)

Apparently non-notable artist, does what artists do (paint pictures, show work etc) but does not meet WP:ARTIST. One show at the Tubman Museum does not confer notability. Appears to have started out as an autobiography. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 09:40, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 10:52, 18 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. MBisanz talk 02:05, 26 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Meisam Tabatabaei[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Meisam Tabatabaei (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:NBIO and WP:NACADEMICS: The government award he received was only awarded twice (2010 and 2015) and is not a well-known and significant award or honor by any means (WP:ANYBIO). The person is an editor-in-chief of Biofuel Research Journal but this certainly is not any major, well-established academic journal as required by NACADEMICS - see deletion discussion. No other claims to notability or significance are there in the article.

Additionally, worth noting that the article has already been deleted once as a result of AfD, with a few "keep" !votes added then by a number of single-purpose accounts. The current creator, User:Meisam tab, was recently investigated for COI [4] where he claimed not to be Meisam Tabatabaei, and requested user rename. All this gives an impression of attempts to game the system. — kashmiri TALK 09:18, 18 June 2016 (UTC) — kashmiri TALK 09:18, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 10:53, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 10:53, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 10:54, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 10:55, 18 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 merge to Doctor Strange. The only exclusive keep argument did not cite any policy-based reasons (plus one other argument which simply cited the first one). -- RoySmith (talk) 14:06, 26 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Book of the Vishanti[edit]

Book of the Vishanti (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This is a minor facet of Doctor Strange that does not have sources to establish independent notability. It does not require coverage outside of the parent article. TTN (talk) 00:09, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 00:10, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • That argument has nothing to do with satisfying the notability guideline. That's your own personal interpretation of some vague scale of notability. That's an attitude more suited to Wikia where this kind of information is freely welcome. It's certainly not impossible for a topic like this to establish notability, but sources need to be put forth to actually show that. As it stands, this deserves all of two sentences in the main article. TTN (talk) 00:36, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:42, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  B E C K Y S A Y L E S  09:14, 18 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. MBisanz talk 02:05, 26 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Saket Suman[edit]

Saket Suman (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 WP:GNG, no coverage in sources other than his own published articles. Possible WP:COI, repeatedly recreated. The Masked Man of Mega Might (talk) 09:13, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • I second that "salt" proposal. However, are you sure his/her strategy to sway this AfD (with socks) isn't working? :>) --- Steve Quinn (talk) 03:05, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have undone that. Better to let the AfD run its course. I'm sure this will be recreated soon after it gets deleted and this way we can then speedy it as G4. If we G7 it now, we cannot really salt it either. --Randykitty (talk) 13:49, 18 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. MBisanz talk 02:06, 26 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas J. Walton[edit]

Thomas J. Walton (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 in RC after an IP added blatant attack content (some of which stood for days). I did not see coverage indicating this gentleman would pass WP:NACTOR or WP:DIRECTOR, or WP:GNG for that matter. He had many uncredited roles or bit parts in major studio films, and is apparently making independent films, but I could not find reviews or coverage aside from the article here linked in the article. Please correct me on this if I am wrong and this is enough coverage. MisterRandomized (talk) 07:44, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 11:26, 18 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--Ymblanter (talk) 08:28, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Energy Rock Radio[edit]

Energy Rock Radio (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)

Internet radio station which lacks coverage in reliable sources. Other than a single press release, Google News has no hits, while a regular Google search results mostly in profiles in unreliable websites (i.e. Facebook). Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 02:08, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 02:09, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 02:09, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 02:09, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 02:09, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 05:32, 18 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 Anti-consumerism. MBisanz talk 02:06, 26 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Enoughism[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Enoughism (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 term does not appear to extend beyond the ideas of anti-consumerism and simple living. A mention of this neologism in anti-consumerism would be sufficient, where it could be better explained in the context of the bigger concept of anti-consumerism. The article was deleted in the last AFD on the grounds of notability in 2011, and I can find no evidence online from WP:RS that this neologism has become any more notable. OnionRing (talk) 05:26, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. OnionRing (talk) 05:28, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. OnionRing (talk) 05:28, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. OnionRing (talk) 05:28, 18 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. No argument advanced that the subject meets our notability criteria. Note: I'll be happy to provide copies of the deleted material to folks who'd like to move this information to Wikia. Cheers, --joe deckertalk 13:33, 26 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

List of guest characters in Charmed[edit]

List of guest characters in Charmed (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)

While I appreciate all of the work put into creating these articles, they fail WP:PLOT, WP:WAF and WP:FICT. They only use primary sources and I do not believe there is not secondary, reliable sources to support articles on guest stars from specific seasons of a show. Aoba47 (talk) 05:01, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

List of guest characters in Charmed (season 1) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of guest characters in Charmed (season 2) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of guest characters in Charmed (season 3) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of guest characters in Charmed (season 4) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of guest characters in Charmed (season 5) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Aoba47 (talk) 05:09, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Aoba47 (talk) 05:10, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Aoba47 (talk) 05:10, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you for your comment. I agree with you; this is much more appropriate for a Wikia than on here. Aoba47 (talk) 20:10, 19 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. MBisanz talk 02:07, 26 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Order of Elijah[edit]

The Order of Elijah (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)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 10:50, 18 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 were some assertions here that sources existed, but none were actually presented. Saying, there are regional news sources (...) that, as a quick search of articles on their website and on Google News will reveal is not as strong an argument (by a long shot) as actually presenting some specific sources, and explaining why they meet WP:RS and WP:N. If somebody can write a properly sourced article on this topic, I don't see any reason they couldn't write a new version (which would really just be a round-about way of implementing NickW557's idea of WP:TNT). But, the sources have to be there, in the article, and sources outside of local coverage would be stronger than just from the Fresno Bee. -- RoySmith (talk) 13:30, 26 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Fresno County Sheriff's Office[edit]

Fresno County Sheriff's Office (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

A sheriff's office isn't automatically notable, and this one certainly is isn't (typo!). It used to look like this, when it basically explained what a sheriff's office was; now, recent edits have turned it into what probably looks like a copy of the office's website, including ranks and fallen officers (but not pay scales...). There are no citations from secondary sources, though they could probably be found for the dead officers, but what this needs is reliable sources discussing the office itself--and not this kind of stuff. In-depth discussion please. Drmies (talk) 01:56, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:11, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:11, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Unscintillating (talk) 16:38, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ahem. Unscintillating--WP:Speedy keep? Fo shizzle? Why, pray tell? Vandalism? Am I banned? Yes, the Bee is a reliable source. I sure hope no one finds it surprising that the term "Sheriff's Office" pops up in a Google search of their articles. Does it have anything interesting to say about this office, anything that makes it notable? Do you have any evidence at all that this office is noteworthy? Fish bait? Odor? Please cite evidence of notability or of vandalism (or whatever you wish to claim). Drmies (talk) 12:58, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • You didn't cite anything relevant. You need to cite secondary sources (I'll do it in bold, secondary sources) that prove the subject is notable. You can wikilawyer and cite policy ad nauseam, which you are clearly fond of, but you can't prove that this topic is notable. Drmies (talk) 12:54, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I generally agree that content issues aren't a reason for deletion, but I'd point out that WP:TNT is a thing. Sure, it's not policy or even a guideline, but it's an accepted practice to delete content that isn't salvageable and start fresh. Is this at that level? Maybe. Article history shows that this article has never been based on reliable sources. Hence my !vote above to make it a stub one way or another (via deletion/recreation or blanking). I'd oppose a speedy closure of this, though. There's enough to entertain a discussion. --Nick⁠—⁠Contact/Contribs 03:58, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I looked at the talk page of the article before I made my !vote, and there is no indication of problems with the article there such as you are now finding.  WP:BEFORE advocates trying to resolve problems on the talk page of the article before trying to get the article deleted at AfD.  Unscintillating (talk) 17:52, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • No reliable sources?  Since when is a government website not reliable about itself?  Unscintillating (talk) 17:52, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Since always, Unscintillating--unless you believe everything that every government says about itself. Since police departments aren't inherently notable, you need secondary sources to prove the topic passes GNG. User:NickW557, do not be led astray by this user's verbosity: it's all hot air. They have as yet produced nothing to suggest the subject is notable. Drmies (talk) 12:54, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support for WP:Deletion policy doesn't mean ending content discussion.  Rather it specifically says, as I've quoted above, that the discussion should be referred to the talk page or an appropriate forum.  As quoted above, WP:DP also explicitly mentions WP:RFC as a possible forum for resolving content disputes.  Unscintillating (talk) 17:52, 19 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. MBisanz talk 02:08, 26 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Waman Kumbhar[edit]

Waman Kumbhar (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)

Declined prod. Subject appears to fail relevant guidelines for inclusion due to a lack of significant coverage from reliable publications. Best efforts were made WP:BEFORE this nomination to locate said sources through online archives and search engines, but were not successful. That said, there may be coverage in another language that are failing to appear otherwise. Please do not hesitate to contact me should evidence of such reporting be located during the course of this discussion. Regards, Yamaguchi先生 (talk) 19:21, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 19:31, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spirituality-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:39, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The obvious place to start is the books used as references in the article Sai Baba of Shirdi. DGG ( talk ) 20:35, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MelanieN (talk) 01:37, 18 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. Michig (talk) 07:08, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Scott Drapeau[edit]

Scott Drapeau (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 NCOLLATH and GNG. John from Idegon (talk) 00:46, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Drapeau was the America East Conference Men's Basketball Player of the Year, a major award. Also, this source is apparently no longer online, but it was when the article was created and was an entire article on Drapeau in a regional newspaper. It is reference #2 on the article. Jrcla2 (talk) 04:59, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 10:49, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 10:49, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - actually does meet WP:NCOLLATH awards criteria. Conference POY are major awards and listed on Template:Men's college basketball award navbox. I do think the article needs more sources. Rikster2 (talk) 13:34, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment new ref added. Jrcla2 (talk) 16:15, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - per WP:NCOLLATH. Rlendog (talk) 15:46, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Meets WP:NCOLLATH per Jrcla2 and Rikster2. A men's basketball conference POY award is a major award. Ejgreen77 (talk) 22:25, 24 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. Michig (talk) 07:06, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dina (musician)[edit]

Dina (musician) (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)

Delete: as non-notable musician. Puerile and juvenile fancruft. Quis separabit? 00:29, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:13, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:13, 18 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.
More