< 10 May	12 May >

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. Substantially uncontested. Sandstein 18:11, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Tempo (Magic: The Gathering)[edit]

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

There are no independent reliable sources that discuss this topic. The only sources are primary sources that are directly related to the sale of the products mentioned. Unlike Tempo (chess), which while poorly inline sourced, does have reliable sources about the concept, a search of google books and news doesn't show it as a concept in even the few articles about individual notable championship games or the like. The theorists cited are also not independent of the games themselves which make this more questionable. Ricky81682 (talk) 22:31, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 16:07, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I would offer the possibility that there's a couple options here: first, tempo is not strictly limited to Magic but used for many other CCGs (including Hearthstone), but finding strong sourcing for this term is weak. But still, this might suggest broading the topic. I also noted that Tempo (bridge) exists, which is related to the concept (gaining advantages faster than the opponents), so maybe something there, but again, here I can't easily connect how the origin of "tempo" in Magic or other CCG connects to the bridge or chess term. --MASEM (t) 18:07, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

See Tempo_(disambiguation)#Games_and_fiction for a full list. If you think there's something there, I'm fine with draftifying this for further work. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 18:37, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nothing suggesting its own notable article apart from the series itself. SwisterTwister talk 21:47, 18 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 Procedural close. Already speedy deleted at 23:27 on 11 May 2016 by Ponyo (talk · contribs): (G5: Creation by a blocked or banned user in violation of block or ban) (non-admin closure) | Uncle Milty | talk | 23:33, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jodense Valenciano[edit]

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

Okay usually I don't put a AFD for a page that is new-but in this case I'm making a exception. Anyway page has been recreated under Jodense Valenciano (actor) and Jodense Valenciano (singer) also. Now back on topic-from what I can tell this guy might not be that notable. Something is off with the dates-as it mentions him in a magazine as a lead role in 1992 when he was born in 1991. (I doubt he starred in all those shows also, more like one appearance, unless if he was one busy actor!) Wgolf (talk) 22:31, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting that it has been recreated a few times by a different person each time also! Wgolf (talk) 22:37, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nothing at all convincing for the needed notability and improvements. I myself never have regrets about AfDing a new article and, with this case, I would've considered PROD and started an AfD only if it was removed or also if there are risks for restarting again. SwisterTwister talk 23:25, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I've speedy deleted the article as it was created by a (now checkuser blocked) Dakotaparty sock.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 23:28, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment-might want to salt all 3 of the pages I mentioned then. Wgolf (talk) 23:29, 11 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 and redirect to List of Dungeons & Dragons nonhuman deities#Other deities. MelanieN (talk) 00:37, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Modified: After discussion, I undeleted it to preserve the history. The result is now redirect to List of Dungeons & Dragons nonhuman deities#Other deities. --MelanieN (talk) 21:43, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Blibdoolpoolp[edit]

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

The article only has primary sources, and there seems to be nothing significant that could be added to remedy that. TTN (talk) 21:43, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 21:43, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge to List of Dungeons & Dragons nonhuman deities. BOZ (talk) 22:04, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete already has an entry at the above list. Redirecting to there would appropriate.--☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(ring-ring) 23:53, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: One additional independent, apparently reliable source here: [1]. Jclemens (talk) 06:47, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge per BOZ. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 22:42, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect per BOZ, above.Vulcan's Forge (talk) 00:49, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect as above. The Kotaku list entry certainly counts for something, but it's not enough alone. Josh Milburn (talk) 12:28, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as not independently notable. SwisterTwister talk 22:02, 18 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 no consensus. Or rather, no actionable consensus - I get the impression that we do have consensus not to have a separate article, but to cover this topic in one or more of the existing election-related articles. But there's no agreement here about what the target article(s) should be. I recommend exploring this further through a merger discussion on the article talk page. Sandstein 08:25, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Bernie Bro[edit]

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

Oddly found in Category:Hillary Clinton presidential campaign, 2016. Apparent WP:NEOLOGISM, too soon to determine notability. One of the many names thrown around in this US presidential election. If not deleted best to merge somewhere. Wickypedoia (talk) 21:15, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:NEOLOGISM is the right call. Also seems to lack lasting notability so delete per WP:NOTNEWS. – Muboshgu (talk) 03:58, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. – Muboshgu (talk) 03:58, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. – Muboshgu (talk) 03:58, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, Siding with the above calls of WP:NEOLOGISM, I'd say that undue weight is lent to the term, as most of the sources are very tabloid-esque opinion pieces/editorials in news outlets and blogs. Tpdwkouaa (talk) 18:57, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and also add as a short section to Bernie Sanders presidential campaign, 2016 Serious journalism on Bernie bros exists [2], [3] as does extensive coverage in a light vein in serious places [4], [5]. It goes back at leas to October 2015 - very early in the campaign season. And it continues [6]. Mu news google search [7] turned up 79,300 hits (of which I looked through the first page, and the first entries in a "sort by date" search). The sourcing exists to pass WP:GNG. Article needs improvement.E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:53, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – WP:GNG pass; The topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources over a period of time, and notability is not temporary. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:05, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- NA--NTEMP? It's been, what a week? A month? Half an election cycle? We're still in TEMP. Drmies (talk) 12:01, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, maybe merge – It's become a popular term, and has become associated with the campaign. If this page is kept, it could probably be expanded a little bit. If it's merged, then it should be merged into the 2016 campaign page. ^Knowledge_Battle | ^Talk_Page | ^Godless_Infidel ┌┬╫┴┼╤╪╬╜ 06:22, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It's a WP:NEOLOGISM with relevance only to the 2016 election. It has no lasting notability and is WP:NOTNEWS. Reference can be made to the language used in the discussion of the 2016 election.Thalia42 (talk) 07:02, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Sick of these bullshit articles related to the US election. This is a blatant WP:POVFORK and fails WP:NEO, WP:GNG and WP:NOTNEWS AusLondonder (talk) 16:59, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per AusLondoner. Mostly WP:ROUTINE coverage with no indication of long-time notability. Satellizer el Bridget ^(Talk) 10:53, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Bernie Sanders presidential campaign, 2016. Recall WP:NTEMP. Easily passes WP:GNG with the sources currently listed, even lots of us (including myself) think it's dumb. Deus vult! Crusadestudent (talk) 22:36, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
WP:HEY I rewrote the article with better sourcing (except for "section: "Online reaction", which still needs cleanup, edit for POV, source review). E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:59, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- I appreciate the work you did, but still think this should be deleted as a non-notable NEOLOGISM without lasting notability. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:11, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- In a similar vein, I still think it ought to be merged as I noted in my original vote. Deus vult! Crusadestudent (talk) 19:15, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I see you 1 Wall Street Journal discussion of Bernie Bros, which follows the USA Today definition already on the page, and raise you by one Samantha Bee (see news search here: [8]; youtube video here: [9] Seriously, guys, Samantha Bee supports notability, but the article is serious and the sourcing is serious, extensive and massive.E.M.Gregory (talk)

Added a PoliSci study of the BernieBro.E.M.Gregory (talk) 22:31, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

And more material.E.M.Gregory (talk) 23:22, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The existence of sourcing alone doesn't mean an automatic keep. Nobody has denied that sources in legit publications exist, just that that shouldn't make this a page. – Muboshgu (talk) 03:44, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, when the sourcing suffices to provide reliable, secondary sources for the origin, use, definition, notability and impact of a neologism, sourcing does in fact mean keep.E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:36, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note I surmise that some of the delete iVotes were prompted by the sourcing in the article which, when I came to it, was sourced heavily to blogs and non-mainstream news outlets. My rewrite depends on major, mainstream sources like the Washington Post, Wall Street Journal and The Atlantic and USA Today. Really, I think with coverage that is ongoing, and in-depth since October, this topic sails past WP:GNG. The larger challenge was not too few sources in searches, but, rather, sifting through the myriad hits on this topic in reliable sources.E.M.Gregory (talk) 23:22, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Bernie Sanders presidential campaign, 2016 - clearly this term has no notability outside the campaign. Staszek Lem (talk) 16:58, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Very Merge into Hillary Clinton presidential campaign, 2016 for this term is all than put Pro-Hillary/Anti-Bernie propaganda as term sound (obivously) nothing attacking majority of Bernie Supporters that in reality are Liberal with minor exceptions to Moderates or rarely Conversatives. Put I saiding isnt mostly merge into Bernie Sanders presidential campaign, 2016 simply because his name on it, Put rest of page have Anti-Bernie bias in articles otherwise. 2606:A000:85C0:E00:59E5:EB0:6143:A583 (talk) 03:37, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

WP:PAGEDECIDE specifically cautions against articles becoming "too unwieldy." The article for Sanders presidential campaign is already very long and merging the entirety of this article would make it far more unwieldy and lengthy. I think a much better option would be to include a very brief summary of the contents of this article at Sanders presidential campaign, 2016 and then direct readers here with {see also)) or {main article)).E.M.Gregory (talk) 12:34, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect as I'm not seeing this have any better signs of solid independent notability apart from the campaign itself. SwisterTwister talk 22:24, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note, however, that there is no official connection to the campaign.E.M.Gregory (talk) 23:27, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or Merge; despite the page needing work to make this clear, there are now sources that describe the use of the term, which should defuse the WP:NEOLOGISM objections. 75.88.47.95 (talk) 22:27, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Social media in the 2016 U.S. Presidential campaign. CookieMonster755 ^📞 ^✉ ^✓ 22:45, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Except The Bernie Bros have exploded into the news cycle, again, in the wake of the Nevada Democratic State Party Convention ruckus, with article like these [10], [11].E.M.Gregory (talk) 23:26, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yup – The topic continues to receive coverage in reliable sources almost right up to this very day. Again, WP:NTEMP comes into mind. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:06, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Today's Bernie Bro news sorted by date [12].E.M.Gregory (talk) 12:24, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

either Keep or Merge per above.--☭🎆🌎🎼🎺🐦 04:02, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Even if we see them again tomorrow, delete--we're not the news. Drmies (talk) 04:23, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Today's (California) headlines: Are Bernie Bros Actually Going to Turn Out to Vote? [13]; Trump Thugs and Bernie Bros [14].E.M.Gregory (talk) 10:24, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Strange. A few of my headlines: Rescued Chibok girl to meet Nigerian president, Turkey politics: Erdogan ally nominated as PM, Lessons from Venezuela, Syrian government forces, allies capture extensive area near Damascus, 5-year old suspended for bringing bubble gun to school, Recovering addicts explain why synthetic drugs are so dangerous, Humpback whale freed from tangled fishing lines off California coast, Trump launches media offensive to rehab image,Dying GOP Senator Apologizes to Muslims for Donald Trump, Trump taps McCain's VP lawyer to vet his vice president, Grand jury urges tracking system for vote-by-mail mail ballots, Runoff's Early Voting Extended to 9 Days, Bayer makes move for Monsanto in global agrichemicals shakeout,Pew study finds younger adults driving growth of ride-hailing appsLawmakers slam Frontier for bad phone and Internet service, Rose Byrne on Returning for Neighbors 2: Sorority Rising, Alexis Bledel Is a Mom! Gilmore Girls Welcomes Baby With Husband Vincent Kartheiser, Jeff Probst answers Survivor: Kaôh Rōng finale burning questions. No Bernie Bros. I did not include opinion pieces (like you did), nor did I look at the news in other languages. Sorry, your point? Drmies (talk) 11:59, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Opinion pieces in major news media do indicate notability.E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:08, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

National news google: Time, MSNBC, Salon. [15]. E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:03, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. News sources. News follows the news, and rolls by what it called the news cycle, and WP is WP:NOTNEWS. It's really not hard to understand--not everything that is newsworthy is of encyclopedic value. Drmies (talk) 16:00, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Suggesting that we defer keep and revisit later. I am adding solid reporting from the Los Angeles Times to the article now. I suggest that given the fact that coverage in experiencing a major boomlet; the fact that this topic is part of the heated dispute between the liberal/Clinton and progressive/Sanders wing of a party engaged in a major political struggle; and the fact that coverage of the Bernie Bros is likely to continue until after the Philadelphia Convention and perhaps through the election, that we punt. i.e., keep this for now and see how the article looks in a few months. WP:PRESERVE.E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:25, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well, let's default to "delete" then and see if a year from now this has proven to be something notable. Drmies (talk) 16:00, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Also, that Los Angeles Times piece I just added is typical of my effort to stick to stodgy, mainstream media in my rewrite of this article.E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:39, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for now largely for the reasons given by E.M.Gregory. The article has gotten significant attention from the mainstream media, but I think its too early to tell whether this is actually going to tell whether the term is really significant or if its just a neologism that got a spurt of news coverage during the primary season. I think it would therefore be best to keep for now, and re-examine this a couple of months into the general election if Clinton wins, or a couple of months after the general election in the incredibly unlikely event that Sanders wins. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 06:28, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Leading to delete or keep given mostly reasons from Drmies with WP:NOTNEWS, This will not last until Third time call for deletion. Simply because Mainstream News pundits (who probably only attacking last Democratic Candidate in this 2016 election race) keep using term or use more recently as Propaganda againist Sanders supporters, Put regardless most of americans will less likely buying on term or its meaning since only 6% of americans have care about it while 52% others will believe some sources as serious, Seen from this finding^[1] (except Hillary supporters until Democratic Convention). 98.27.17.168 (talk) 08:31, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

— Example (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 07:57, 12 February 2009 (UTC).[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Michig (talk) 07:53, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Carlyn Ocampo[edit]

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

I wasn't sure if I should do a prod or a AFD with this. Went with a AFD in the end. Singer with very questionable notability with no reliable sources to be found. Wgolf (talk) 21:09, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete under criterion A7; also a possible autobiography. And since the article is unreferenced, I think you should tag it with BLPPROD instead. Sixth o f March 22:35, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 (talk) 12:30, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:GNG easily. I searched for "Carlyn Ocampo" and "Carlyn Cabel" but couldn't find any reliable sources. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 12:35, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete member of musical group with no reason that she is notable by herself.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:44, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This person does not satisfy notability criteria at present time. --Dcirovic (talk) 02:24, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and I would've considered A7 as the nearly only claim is the group membership, nothing else convincing. SwisterTwister talk 22:27, 18 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. Michig (talk) 07:57, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

May 9th 2016 tornado outbreak[edit]

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

Does not appear to be a notable meteorological event. PROD declined by article creator. Safiel (talk) 20:24, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No sources have been provided at all. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 01:52, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I could not do a correct WP:BEFORE because there was a significant episode of storms in Oklahoma (I assume this is the same Duncan we are talking about, since the article also mentions Pontotoc) in May 2015 that fills up the search results. However, even if we assume the article is factually correct, it is still too mild an event for WP:SEVERE/N (I do not think "1-2" qualifies as "multiple" fatalities for the purpose of that essay/guideline). Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 12:15, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and I would've still pursued PROD if not for the removal, nothing at all minimally notable. SwisterTwister talk 22:28, 18 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. Michig (talk) 07:59, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Canada and the 2016 United States presidential election[edit]

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

First sentence is "So far Canada has played a very minor role in the upcoming US presidential election." It's WP:TOOSOON to determine the impact Canada has had on the US presidential election. Also has an WP:OR vibe, with sections on "Ted Cruz controversy", "Donald Trump", and "Keystone XL" lumped together to make this an article. Wickypedoia (talk) 20:20, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

While articles like this have occasionally been created for Canada's relationship to some past US presidential elections, it's not a standard thing that should automatically exist for every election (none was ever created for 2012, frex, and before 2000 the only other one that does have one is 1960) — in reality I'm not convinced that any of them should exist at all, but that's beyond the scope of this particular discussion unless and until the others are nominated for deletion as well. There might be a case, much later in the year, for an article like this if some genuinely substantive reason for it emerges, but nothing here is substantive or encyclopedic enough for this to already be necessary today — there's got to be much more substantive reason for it than simply listing every single time Canada has any tangential connection at all to anything that happens and/or public opinion polling about who Canadians would vote for if they could vote in it. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 15:31, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 16:08, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 16:08, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 16:08, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – ^Knowledge_Battle | ^Talk_Page | ^Godless_Infidel ┌┬╫┴┼╤╪╬╜ 07:03, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please read WP:JUSTAVOTE. It's not enough to just say keep; you need to support that with reasons why it should be kept. Bearcat (talk) 14:43, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not a notable topic. WP:OR and fails WP:GNG. Another example of fanatical over-coverage of the US election AusLondonder (talk) 17:09, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination, Bearcat, and AusLondonder. Arguably fails WP:OR and WP:GNG, definitely fails WP:TOOSOON.--Ddcm8991 (talk) 18:39, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, a WP:COATRACK and WP:INDISCRIMINATE listing of every time Canada has been invoked in the United States election. Just the opening phrase "so far Canada has played a very minor role in the upcoming US presidential election" suggests such an article shouldn't exist, or at least not currently. Satellizer el Bridget ^(Talk) 10:49, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete cannot find enough to support an article.E.M.Gregory (talk) 01:29, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - clear WP:SYNTH - no sources discuss namely this particular subject: influence of Canada on 2016 US elections. Staszek Lem (talk) 16:40, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as simply nothing minimally notable to suggest its own article. SwisterTwister talk 22:30, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:52, 19 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.

Dmitry Polyakov[edit]

The result of this discussion was delete. The actual discussion has been hidden from view but can still be accessed by following the "history" link at the top of the page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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) 17:47, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Lil Uzi Vert[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:MUSBIO. Not yet a notable rapper. SanAnMan (talk) 19:26, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 16:09, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 16:09, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Only one source is given, and it treats the topic as possibly up-and-coming, i.e. not yet notable. Willondon (talk) 15:26, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SanAnMan (talk) 16:09, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as I've found some news links but nothing convincingly better and the article is still overall questionable for this applicable notability. Delete for now at best, SwisterTwister talk 22:32, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - only one source and Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Tom29739 ^[talk] 22:40, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails GNG. Philafrenzy (talk) 09:01, 19 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 Userfiied to User:Lksmith13/Lauren Matovic Smith. - never close on one !vote however it seems stupid to delete when it can be userfied and hopefully the editor will work on it - If they don't it can be sent to WP:MFD. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 22:55, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Lauren Matovic Smith[edit]

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

It appears to be an autobiography, but I won't CSD it, because it could be notable. Peter Sam Fan 19:20, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Userfy if the author requests that. Otherwise, delete; I can't find sources that clearly establish notability. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 01:55, 12 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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:59, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Gold & Truth[edit]

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

Invalid stable that does not exist and never existed in WWE. The four members are two separate teams where neither team pass WP:GNG. Only notability are the wrestlers separately. Sekyaw (talk)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 16:12, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - right now the article is a hoax. There is no group of four. starship.paint ~ KO 02:18, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Starship --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 22:03, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as WP:HOAX.LM2000 (talk) 10:03, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fancruft. McPhail (talk) 20:17, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Hoax. oknazevad (talk) 21:54, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete group never existed. MPJ-US 22:09, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Name not sourced. "Logo" is fan-made. Nice work, though. MrBlondNYC (talk) 08:25, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Complete hoax team never existed.Should be deleted. Chris "WarMachineWildThing" (talk) 00:25, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Article subject doesn't exist. Str1977 ^(talk) 13:22, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
SNOW Delete as there's nothing at all convincing of independent notability. SwisterTwister talk 22:34, 18 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. Sarahj2107 (talk) 08:35, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Artificial Agent[edit]

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

Aside from the fact that this article is currently in terrible typographical shape, which can be fixed, it is about a non-notable band with multiple non-reliable sources. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:59, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:GNG and WP:BAND. Article of an unnotable band in horrible shape. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DeviantAttitude (talk • contribs) 20:07, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:GNG and WP:BAND. Although not as horrible as before, still should be deleted.--DThomsen8 (talk) 23:54, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 16:12, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as there are some links here, but still nothing convincing of independent notability. SwisterTwister talk 22:36, 18 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. Sarahj2107 (talk) 08:34, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

CupcakKe[edit]

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

Too soon. Only two primary sources (interviews) at Google News. There is this article, but Cupcakke is not the sole focus. Fails WP:GNG. Strong possibility she'll warrant an article in a year's time, but I ain't a fortune teller. Anyhow, I'm not convinced she meets any of the criteria at WP:NMUSIC -- she's not even signed to a label per the article. I can't think of anywhere intuitive to redirect this article, so I'm proposing deletion.

I do have one of her songs stuck in my head now, so there's that. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 16:34, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep she is getting real publicity from the Complex article mentioned above to the paper mag article currently among the sources.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 14:46, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Point received, TonyTheTiger, but I don't believe interviews can be used to establish notability. And I think this qualifies as a passing mention, since she is not the chief focus and it's hardly in-depth. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 16:30, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 16:14, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 16:14, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Each fact must be evaluated for the reliability of its source. An interview is often a very reliable source for certain facts. Whereas, we would not rely on an interview for a critical assessment of the interview subject's work, we might rely on it for parent's/siblings/offsprings names or existence, place of birth, etc. An interview can provide a reliable source for certain facts.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 17:46, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Okay, but I'm discussing the subject's notability, where you're discussing the reference's reliability. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 18:36, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per TOOSOON and if not even signed to a label, definitely too soon. Inadequate indicia of notability. Montanabw ^(talk) 18:53, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per TOOSOON. The subject of this article could certainly gain enough notability in the future to warrant her own page, but for right now it is far too soon to do so. Aoba47 (talk) 04:58, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per TOOSOON. Not just yet. Maybe down the rod this could warrant an article, but they just don't seem to meet WP:NMUSIC. RickinBaltimore (talk) 19:07, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: The AFD template was removed from the article, I have restored it. --Cameron11598 ^(Talk) 19:08, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as nothing at all convincing for any applicable notability. SwisterTwister talk 22:49, 18 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 speedy keep. Withdrawn per HEY thanks to Tokyogirl79's muckraking. (non-admin closure) Primefac (talk) 14:28, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wasteland (2013 film)[edit]

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

I'm not finding much to indicate a passing of NFILM, let alone GNG. Other than the review in the article, the only thing I've been able to find is this review. Everything else is either a blog, forum, or a simple listing indicating that the film exists. Is it TOOSOON for this film? Primefac (talk) 15:47, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 16:02, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I had to wade through rivers of junk hits for the film - and there were many - but I found just enough for the film to pass notability guidelines via a review from AICN and a local source. It's an insanely low amount of sourcing and not as great as reviews in the Hollywood Reporter and Bloody Disgusting, but it'll make it just barely squeak by NFILM. I also found this but I can't remember if Horror Society is considered a RS on here or not. I don't usually use it, but that doesn't always mean it's not usable. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 08:37, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There might be more out there, but if there is it's pretty deeply buried. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 08:40, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I guess Tokyogirl79 got to it before I could. But I expanded it a bit further. I'd generally consider Horror Society OK for reviews but not for anything else, like news. Their fact-checking seems to amount to loading up the IMDb. But, yeah, I'd say this film passes WP:NFILM. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 09:20, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Cool - I remember that we'd talked about it before, but I couldn't recall if you'd thought it reliable or not. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 10:50, 12 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 Israeli–Palestinian conflict. Sarahj2107 (talk) 08:32, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Israel Palestine conflict[edit]

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

This page was created by user:Oncenawhile in violation of the community consensus regarding the definition of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict (see the discussion where the scope of the conflict was discussed), with his proposal to group 1920-1948 sectarian conflict in British Palestine, 1948-present Israeli-Palestinian conflict and the broader 1948-1973 Arab-Israeli conflict under one article was rejected. While Oncenawhile refused to delete or redirect this page himself per WP:GF on the grounds that disambiguation page is not an article, he was very determined to de-facto change wikipedia redirects (such as this edit) and article content (see [16], [17], [18]) to reflect his position. Furthermore, this newly created Israel Palestine conflict disambiguation page might also violate the previous status quo of refraining from creating new "Israel Palestine" titled articles (see the case of Palisrael and case of Israel-Palestine).
In summary - proposed for deletion or redirect to Israeli-Palestinian conflict article. GreyShark (dibra) 14:26, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Palestine-related deletion discussions. GreyShark (dibra) 14:37, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. GreyShark (dibra) 14:37, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Am I missing something, or should this clearly be a redirect to Israeli–Palestinian conflict? I honestly am asking, as I am not up to date with this whole area. However, this seems very similarly named to Israeli–Palestinian conflict, coming under the remit of Template:R from modification. Also, the discussion you linked was closed as no consensus. — crh ₂₃ (Talk) 14:39, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Crh23: The issue is that our wikipedia article "Israeli-Palestinian conflict" is defined very narrowly, only referring to the conflict post-1948 and excluding the wider Arab-Israeli component of the same. Whereas in the real world, scholars almost unanimously discuss the conflict as beginning in 1917 or 1920 when the British took over, and cover the whole lot together.

It's the difference between the longer-term and multi faceted War in Afghanistan (1978–present) vs. the War in Afghanistan (2001–14) that is more commonly discussed today.

Oncenawhile (talk) 15:52, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Israeli–Palestinian conflict. There was no consensus for starting an article, and having a DAB only encourages gradual expansion. Number 5 7 19:01, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Number 57: can you please provide your views on the underlying question at hand here - when the "the wider conflict" (under whatever name you choose to call it) actually began? Oncenawhile (talk) 23:02, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Israeli-Palestinian conflict as per above. I suggest that this could easily have been redirected per WP:BOLD, but for the fact that it's this topic. Oncenawhile, If you are concerned with the definition of the term, then having an article here that defines it differently than at the hyphenated title isn't going to clarify anything. Best to discuss the issue there. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 20:44, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Ultraexactzz: Thanks for the advice. I've opened a direct discussion on the question underlying all of this at Talk:Arab–Israeli_conflict#RFC:_Is_this_the_whole_conflict's_parent_article?. Oncenawhile (talk) 21:57, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to Israeli–Palestinian conflict (disambiguation) with an Other uses hatnote on Israeli–Palestinian conflict. Tanbircdq (talk) 20:58, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – I can't see any of these editors have previously been involved in editing this article nor were hey involved in the recent talk page discussion, therefore, can Greyshark09 please explain why he chose to WP:CANVASS Wykx, Number 57, No More Mr Nice Guy, WarKosign, Kosboot, Darouet and Hertz1888? Tanbircdq (talk) 21:13, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Actually I was involved in the discussion where it was decided not to create this page, and so were Wykx, Number 57 and presumably others (you are welcome to check one by one, I didn't bother). “WarKosign ” 11:34, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Israeli-Palestinian conflict as per above. Wykx (talk) 21:40, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Wykx: can you please provide your views on the underlying question at hand here - when the "the wider conflict" (under whatever name you choose to call it) actually began? Oncenawhile (talk) 23:02, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please see Talk:List_of_ongoing_armed_conflicts/Archive_8#Starting_date_of_Israeli-Palestinian_conflict. Wykx (talk) 17:42, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Wykx: thanks - an interesting discussion. It seems like you and Mateo share my passion for finding a solution for the current mess, although we all seem to have different views as to what the outcome should be. Perhaps you could share your views at Talk:Arab–Israeli_conflict#RFC:_Is_this_the_whole_conflict's_parent_article?.

Your chart above is interesting and shows the problem well. Your view starts the conflict in 1947, and although you exclude events like the King David bombing or the Hebron massacre, it still means that no article covers the whole lot because our Arab-Israeli conflict article starts in May 1948. It is all very muddled. Oncenawhile (talk) 20:56, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your compliment and tag. This issue is a total mass.

I have mentioned in my conversation with Wykx that setting clear cut dates on historical processes, especially conflicts, is a mistake. It's always artificial and most times just raises more stir.

The conflicts regarding Israel are good example. No conflict started at 1947, it's clearly a false compromise. The Arab-Israeli conflict began way before, while the Palestinian-Israeli one couldn't be possible.

After explaining extensively that these conflicts should be separate, I would suggest setting all starting points of the Israeli-Arab conflict to "Late 19th century" and the Israeli Palestinian ones to "mid 20th century", and let the sides interpret it as they like. Not all historical events "began" one sunny afternoon. Most did not. But considering this is an unorthodox way to look at history, i did measured the complexity of the issue at hand and suggest a starting date.

First of all This article should be completely deleted. It's an original research with clear POV background that got into a huge snowball messing up the whole issue at hand. Most of it's important data appears in the politics section of the mandate article anyway, and the rest can be solved by sticking with the two known conflicts of the region: The Arab-Israeli and the Israeli-Palestinian. Now because the former conflict (Israeli-Arab) should cover it all as you say, it should probably start with the first Zionist immigration to Israel/Palestine (than ottoman province). If one defines a conflicts in a more narrow sense of two clear sides under intentional physical struggle, then one might consider the reaction to Balfur's declaration as the start of the more general conflict. The later conflict should start in 1964, around the time the PLO got independent from the interests of Arab state, while still in the Arab league.

Deleted - This new article reclines on an article that should be deleted, it should be deleted as well.

With regards, 23:11, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

Redirect I agree with the claim that there were conflicts in the area that are not covered in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, which is limited to after the foundation of the state of Israel in 1948, but the good reason is that indeed there can not be an Israeli Palestinian conflict without there being an Israel first. Debresser (talk) 21:52, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Debresser: but there was an "Israel" in the minds of the Zionists. From also day one there was a push to change the name of Palestine to Eretz Israel. Oncenawhile (talk) 23:02, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect: I can't imagine that anyone who searches for "Israel Palestine Conflict" would be looking for anything other than Israeli-Palestinian conflict. No use having a disambiguation page here. OtterAM (talk) 22:34, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@OtterAM: I strongly feel that most people searching for "Israel Palestine Conflict" are looking for an overview of the whole conflict. What makes you think they are only looking to understand only a specific niche within the story starting 30 years after the wider conflict began and excluding the wider Arab conflict? The current situation is bizarre. Oncenawhile (talk) 23:02, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or redirect. It was already determined that this article is not needed and only confuses the reader. “WarKosign ” 11:36, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@WarKosign: can you please provide your views on the underlying question at hand here - when the "the wider conflict" (under whatever name you choose to call it) actually began? Oncenawhile (talk) 15:55, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Intercommunal conflict in Mandatory Palestine began in 1920, and there is an article dedicated to it. Arab–Israeli conflict originates in the late 19th century. There is no need to add another article to further confuse matters. “WarKosign ” 16:03, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@WarKosign: Our Arab–Israeli conflict states that it "refers to the political tension, military conflicts and disputes between a number of Arab countries and Israel" and that this conflict started in 1948. Its history section begins in 1948.

Which article do you interpret to be the "parent" article, relating to the overall conflict? Or do you believe there is no article relating to the overall conflict but don't consider that to be a problem?

Oncenawhile (talk) 16:31, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect: Simply just redirect to lsraeli-Palestinian conflict. KGirlTrucker87^{talk what I'm been doing} 21:13, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Israeli–Palestinian conflict.brew crewer (yada, yada) 02:57, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect and I nearly closed it myself, nothing currently suggesting if there are the concerns listed. Current contents listed are also questionable. SwisterTwister talk 22:51, 18 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 keep. Will be renamed to Australian Consulate-General, Houston. (There is no one consistent way of naming consulates general here, but this is the format currently used for other Australian consulates.) MelanieN (talk) 00:46, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

List of Consuls-General of Australia in Houston[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/List of Consuls-General of Australia in Houston

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

procedural nomination - should have been a separate AfD rather than a joint one nomed by @LibStar: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_Consuls-General_of_Australia_in_Mumbai JMWt (talk) 11:35, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Comfortably passes WP:GNG, randomly nominated with a more questionable one. The Drover's Wife (talk) 13:45, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
delete fails WP:GNG. The sources are about the office of the consulate, not the people that are consuls general. There is a distinct difference as a list of these people have been nominated. LibStar (talk) 14:56, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- This strikes me as wikilawering. This is the only article about the consulate, and the fact that simply retitling it Consulate-General of Australia in Houston would obviate your argument shows that it is not a substantive one. postdlf (talk) 17:22, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Agree with above. A change to Australian Consulate-General, Houston would make the page more in line with notability guidelines.Siegfried Nugent (talk) 05:31, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not really convinced by this argument. Let's say that we could prove that the job titled "Consul-General" for any given country in any given place was notable. That we have high quality sources talking about the job, the current holder and so on. I'm not sure it then follows that the previous holders of the job are therefore notable in the sense that we could assume that the list of the people who previously had that job were notable. That'd be like saying that CEO of Walmart is notable and therefore a page called "list of CEOs of Walmart" would be notable if it was renamed "CEO of Walmart". I'm sorry if that sounds silly, I'm struggling to process this or explain it. JMWt (talk) 11:04, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with JMWt, for what it's worth. The Drover's Wife (talk) 11:41, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it does sound silly. If the position of CEO of Walmart were notable, we would not delete an article because it contained a list that (let's assume) was inappropriate for some reason; we'd remove the list. Here by advocating for deletion on the grounds that there shouldn't be a list, you're effectively saying that there shouldn't be any article on the position regardless of whether the position is notable.

But we need not even get to that point because people don't need to be notable to be listed in an article on a broader topic, such as a notable position. As WP:N makes clear, notability guidelines do not restrict article content.

We also have here a "list" of one person, which makes the deletion positions all the more absurd; "sure, you can have an article on the position, but it's taboo to say who holds it!" postdlf (talk) 18:03, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 14:29, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 14:29, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 14:29, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 14:29, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 14:36, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm !voting delete. It seems to me that we have a few brief notices that a certain person has fulfilled the role/job of Consul-General, but I think that could be accommodated by having a page for the Consul-General, but as I mentioned above, I still am not convinced that even if that page existed, it would have to be more than just a list of present and past holders of the role. On that basis, I don't think there is sufficient information to write a useful page (beyond that which is already published online by the Australian government about their Consul-General) and I can't see that we have sources which show that the job-holders of Consul-General are always notable. In fact it appears that the role is only really noticeable when particular individuals are appointed to it. JMWt (talk) 11:11, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Is it too much to ask that people actually read the sources before voting? "A few brief notices that a certain person has fulfilled the role" might be what this editor might expect an article on a consul-general to have, but critically in no way describes the actual sources cited in this article. The Drover's Wife (talk) 11:40, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Source 1: Archive of the Australian gov website
Source 2: Press release about the opening of the consulate from Aus gov
Source 3: News article about the opening of the consulate
Source 4: News article about the opening of the consulate
Source 5: Archive of Australian gov website about appointees to the consulates
Source 6: News article about appointee Alastair Walton

Sources 1,2 and 3 are hardly independent secondary WP:RS. Source 3 is not about the incumbent, but is hardly a long and significant piece. Source 5 is a short section of a longer article about the incumbent. - wrong, see below

At best we have ~~two~~ three independent WP:RS, neither of which actually help determine whether or not the person who holds the office, or the office itself is noticeable. It is possible that the Consul-General is notable in his own right. It is possible that the job is notable. But this is pretty thin ground to show either. But either way, neither help much with the determination as to whether a list of the past holders of a minor diplomatic role are notable IMO. JMWt (talk) 12:41, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Funny that there are were more than five sources cited, and more than two of them from indisputably independent sources. As I said, this seems to be people making up their mind based on the subject and then getting creative about arguing around the sources to try to justify it. The Drover's Wife (talk) 13:08, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You are right, I made a mistake and have corrected the above list. Sources 3 and 4 are short and about the establishment of the consulate. Source 6 is about the incumbent. I don't think this makes a substantive difference: they're two short articles about the consulate and one about the incumbent, which is still not enough to show that a list of incumbents of the job are notable, even if the sources are used to show that the job itself is notable. JMWt (talk) 13:28, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

So you can admit that the subject is notable, as long as it gets moved out of sync with all the other consul-general and ambassador articles because you dislike the name of the article. Helpful. The Drover's Wife (talk) 13:51, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

no, I do not believe the subject is notable as I do not believe that a small number of mentions meets the standards of the WP:GNG. It falls outside of the notability standards for ambassadors and for politicians. But even if the subject itself was notable (ie the position of C-G), that doesn't make this list notable. JMWt (talk) 14:00, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as still questionable for the needed notability improvements. SwisterTwister talk 04:55, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but rename official foreign embassies and consuls general are usually notable, and the holders of the office are sufficiently notable however, here, there is no article for the one holder so I would suggest a rename to: Australia General Consulate in Houston which seems the real topic of the article. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 17:23, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

official foreign embassies and consuls general are usually notable no. There is no inherent notability of embassies and even less so consuls. LibStar (talk) 22:39, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 09:08, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:55, 11 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. Sarahj2107 (talk) 08:08, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Program for the future[edit]

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

No external references. Not much content. Rathfelder (talk) 13:25, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 16:03, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 16:03, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, establishes no context for the subject matter, I've read this and I still have no idea what it is about. Insert CleverPhrase Here 05:47, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as nothing at all convincing for solid independent notability. SwisterTwister talk 22:59, 18 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.

Mint (newspaper)[edit]

The result was Speedy keep per WP:SKCRIT. This is evidently a waste of our time. Adding a "spam" tag in the article. I may myself edit it later. (non-admin closure) Cheers, Nairspecht Converse 06:14, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

Deceptively well-sourced article with most sources (6 out of the total 12) its owned assets. The only other verifiable articles are the NY Times and Financial Express ones, which mention "Mint" only in passing. While I thought making small changes would be fine, on closer examination, the whole article is written with explicit promotional tones. Hence, delete. (Unsure if this satisfies WP:G11). Nairspecht Converse 13:09, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and improve. Not the best written article, but a national Indian daily business newspaper that was launched as a co-venture between The Wall Street Journal and the publisher of The Hindustan Times is almost certainly notable and the sort of thing that Wikipedia should cover. Here is coverage of the paper's 2007 launch in The International Herald-Tribune [19] and Advertising Age [20]. The article certainly needs improvement and updating, in particular to cover the 2014 termination of the WSJ involvement, covered for example in the Business Standard. [21] --Arxiloxos (talk) 15:31, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and improve. The sources provided by Arxiloxos allow this to meet GNG and WP:NME (yes, I know it's an essay; useful, though, in this context). The promotional language can be pruned out. The claim of readership also would suggest notability; the source is not independent, but the primary survey it is based on, is. Vanamonde93 (talk) 03:32, 12 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. Not a snowball's chance. czar 08:43, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hypixel (Minecraft Server)[edit]

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

Contested CSD#A7 CSD#G11. ~~This articles only purpose is to advertise this~~ minecraft server dose not meet WP:GNG or WP:CORPDEPTH move for SPEEDY DELETE McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 12:33, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Edited my nomination to reflect efforts of editors trying to bring this to Wikipedia standards. McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 21:39, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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)).

Delete as not notable, advertisement. ThePlatypusofDoom (Talk) 12:36, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This page was created and moved in a manner to circumvent the SALTing of Hypixel. McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 12:45, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: All ads have been deleted. And it isn't a SALTing attempt. Target360YT (talk) 04:56, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 12:46, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Quebec-related deletion discussions. McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 12:47, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 12:47, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No independent source or coverage were cited or found - Fails WP:NWEB. JW Noctis^{talk to me} 12:48, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - As per WP:GAMECRUFT there are a number of violations regarding reliable sources. There is some indication of notability but this article is not in the realm of where that notability lies. This is an article that the company running this Minecraft Server should have their very own wiki and not have it here. This is not encyclopaedic in it's current form. - Pmedema (talk) 13:32, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete The person above says it all. This would probably belong in a Wikia, not here. It also looks like an advertisement. Peter Sam Fan 15:01, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Objection I deleted all stuff I thought were ads, should be fine now. Target360YT (talk) 02:44, 12 May 2016 (UTC) — Target360YT (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Delete. Not notable at all. @Target360YT:, please read WP:GNG. It's clear you're very involved with Hypixel, making it also a possible WP:COI. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 11:39, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt. Minecraft servers aren't notable. Anarchyte (work | talk) 12:51, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The game is certainly notable, but nothing here demonstrates the notability of this particular server. ubiquity (talk) 16:50, 16 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. Sarahj2107 (talk) 08:08, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Tissa Gunawardena[edit]

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

The subject is only a drama teacher at a secondary college. There is no evidence to establish notability. Doesn't meet WP:GNG or WP:SCHOLAR. Whilst stated that the school dramas he has produced have won awards there is no verifiable evidence that this has actually occurred. The only referenced sources are from a school blog site and a YouTube video that can't be accessed without login verification. 12:14, 11 May 2016 (UTC) Dan arndt (talk) 12:14, 11 May 2016 (UTC) (talk), please give me more time to solve this. because this artist silent character. But he has been many contributions for school drama art. so, enough details does not in online. english news papers as wel. every verified references in almmostly hard copies or vidoes . so do you have any idea solve this. please help me (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 13:38, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Article was previously deleted on 20 April 2015 on the basis of WP:A7. Dan arndt (talk) 12:22, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletion discussions. Dan arndt (talk) 12:22, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Dan arndt (talk) 12:22, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Dan arndt (talk) 12:22, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Doesn't meet WP:ACADEMIC or WP:CREATIVE criteria. OtterAM (talk) 22:37, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Seem to be few independent sources. Xxanthippe (talk) 03:56, 12 May 2016 (UTC).[reply]
Delete for lack of sources and credible claim to notability. Agricola44 (talk) 15:17, 12 May 2016 (UTC).[reply]
Delete for now as everything is still questionable for the needed solid independent notability, nothing convincing yet. SwisterTwister talk 23:04, 18 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. Sarahj2107 (talk) 08:07, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Clementine von Radics[edit]

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

Procedural prod removal so bringing it to AfD. Concern was fails wp:gng and wp:author. Lacks WP:RS as well Gbawden (talk) 12:03, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'd just like to point out that the removal of BLPPROD tags doesn't affect normal PROD, so there was no reason to DEPROD this. Adam9007 (talk) 15:46, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Adam9007: I asked for advice at Editor Assistance. User JohnInDC was of the opinion that this was a case of BLPPROD as FB and twitter are not sources. He advised that "You are correct about the sourcing, but once the PROD is removed by any editor for any reason (I guess, short of vandalism) the PROD process is over and the article must be nominated for deletion at Articles for Deletion." Hence we are here Gbawden (talk) 11:33, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Gbawden: That only applies to normal PROD. It states explicitly here that deBLPPRODed articles can still be PRODded. Adam9007 (talk) 12:29, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

They can be subsequently PRODed, sure, but when the standard PROD is removed it can't be re-added. I don't know whether the BLP PROD here was properly added - or properly removed - but the standard PROD remains a one-shot deal. JohnInDC (talk) 19:39, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 (talk) 05:30, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 (talk) 05:30, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 (talk) 05:30, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is WP:TOOSOON. While we do have some references [22],[23],[24], this is not enough for WP:GNG. (There are trivial mentions here [25] as well). Unfortunately wouldn't satisfy WP:AUTHOR at this time either. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 05:38, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I feel a bit weird !voting delete here though. I actually love her poetry (particularly "For Teenage Girls") and I know she has a decent online following. But here, it all comes down to sources. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 05:42, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oregon-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 (talk) 05:45, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Article lacks any sources other than social media.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:02, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, bit of a worry that article creator's edit comment on creation of this article was "Inserted bio from website". Coolabahapple (talk) 16:15, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as nothing at all convincing for any solid independent notability. SwisterTwister talk 23:03, 18 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) 00:57, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

On The Road To 10K Mixtape[edit]

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

Article about a mixtape. Fails WP:NALBUM for lack of available reliable sources. - Mr X 11:24, 11 May 2016 (UTC) I am also nominating the following related pages because there is no evidence that any of them pass WP:NALBUM:[reply]

Selftitled (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Selftitled Album (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - (also nominated for CSD:A10)
Greatest Hits Mixtape Album (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Comin' At Ya Live & Direct Mixtape (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

- Mr X 10:59, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 16:15, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as all still suggest questionability for their own notable article. SwisterTwister talk 23:09, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Philafrenzy (talk) 09:04, 19 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) 00:58, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Rina Charaniya[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. There are very few independent and reliable sources available which even briefly mention the article subject. Neither can WP:ENT be applied here as there is no evidence of significant roles in multiple notable films. (The article subject has 3 film credits: one special appearance, one cameo and a role in an upcoming film which has not been released). This is WP:TOOSOON. Lemongirl942 (talk) 10:49, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 (talk) 10:49, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 (talk) 10:50, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 (talk) 10:50, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as the currently listed article has nothing for any applicable notability, clearly nothing acceptable. SwisterTwister talk 07:18, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete per TOOSOON. I take issue with "nothing acceptable," there's "something", just not enough to keep for now. Montanabw ^(talk) 18:48, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails GNG. Philafrenzy (talk) 09:05, 19 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 BeIN Sports. MelanieN (talk) 01:09, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

BeIN CONNECT[edit]

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

It's a redistribution company whose only news coverage is in press releases or lists of sporting events. Dubbin^{u | t | c} 10:02, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect and Merge to BeIN Sports per WP:COMMONOUTCOMES with television over-the-top content/TV Everywhere services. Nate • (chatter) 13:46, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Good suggestion, I'd support that. Dubbin^{u | t | c} 14:16, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

BeIN CONNECT is not the same as BeIN Sports. Exactly as Sky Go is not the same as Sky Sports or ESPN3 is not the same as ESPN. I don't agree with merge proposition User talk:Fsalati —Preceding undated comment added 12:30, 16 May 2016 (UTC):[reply]

Sky Sports and ESPN are fundamentally more notable than BeIN so their subsidiaries merit separate articles. Merging as proposed doesn't imply the subsidiary is the same, merely that it is a subsidiary. If its section grows sufficiently in size with good content, it can be turned into a dedicated page at any time in the future. Dubbin^{u | t | c} 13:58, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect as not currently independently notable or any signs of it. SwisterTwister talk 23:07, 18 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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:44, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Super Applock[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG with no secondary sources - prodded for this and unprodded with no sources added. I can't find any significant press coverage. Some concern that this article was being written as "Super AppLock, also known as Privacy Lock" with a mix of external links to both apps (apparently written by different developers - one with millions of downloads, one with only thousands), with no source confirming the products to be related. McGeddon (talk) 09:54, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 16:16, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a newly started software, nothing currently suggesting better for any applicable notability. SwisterTwister talk 23:08, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Philafrenzy (talk) 09:07, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I'm only seeing a bit of chatter about this, an example being this article here, from various websites that are not reliable sources. I don't see any particular reason to think of this as being notable. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 13:26, 19 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. Note: EVENT does not apply at all. A7, however, does. Drmies (talk) 18:09, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

BEANISH[edit]

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

unreferenced. Not notable Rathfelder (talk) 13:49, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor ^Talk! 09:37, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor ^Talk! 09:37, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor ^Talk! 09:37, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor ^Talk! 09:37, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Deleteper nom. Legacypac (talk) 04:32, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non notable. Does not meet WP:EVENT. DeviantAttitude (talk) 13:56, 12 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 Woolworths Limited. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 23:01, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Woolworths Mobile[edit]

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

Trivial coverage only. Article created by probable COI editor. Does not meet WP:CORPDEPTH AusLondonder (talk) 09:48, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. AusLondonder (talk) 09:52, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. AusLondonder (talk) 09:53, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Woolworths Limited. Anarchyte (work | talk) 08:51, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Woolworths Limited. Insert CleverPhrase Here 22:58, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Agree - Redirect to Woolworths Limited and include noteworthy info there Clare. (talk) 08:12, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment this was declined in G11 some news search results have Woolworths Mobile in the title. Looks like newbie edit, talk page has a history of declines in AfC, I don't see any warnings about COI, just the in the AfC notice. There are references out there and tangentially related blurb from the Daily Mail could probably be cut. 009o9^Disclosure(Talk) 09:07, 15 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. Sarahj2107 (talk) 08:05, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sanjay Bahadur[edit]

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

Notability is in question. His book was only in the list of the Man Literary Prize, but never won it. Uncletomwood (talk) 07:50, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk) 19:33, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk) 19:34, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor ^Talk! 09:31, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, I can not find significant coverage in English and no reliable sources (perhaps this one) have been brought up in the article to justify WP:GNG. No longer a penguin (talk) 12:25, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - All I see is the personality being short-listed for a literary award. While that is fine and does have considerable coverage across various good, independent sources, there is no talk about the short-listed book or about the author per se. Does not satisfy WP:GNG. Per WP:ANYBIO, the person has to have won an award or at least should have been nominated multiple (2 or more) times. Mr. Bahadur apparently has not. Cheers, Nairspecht Converse 15:22, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as nothing currently suggesting any applicable notability, still questionable overall. SwisterTwister talk 23:13, 18 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 move to draft space at Draft:Paani (film) Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 10:34, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Paani (film)[edit]

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

Per WP:NFF and WP:CRYSTAL. A long delayed film whose principal photography is still uncertain. We should wait for the filming to begin. Yashthepunisher (talk) 06:34, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:25, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:25, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:25, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I do not know why this currently isn't mandatory but please move it to the draft-space if the outcome is delete. --Fixuture (talk) 17:50, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor ^Talk! 09:22, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify - All I see is speculation. Upon closer investigation, there is no solid confirmation about the film's progress. Does not satisfy WP:GNG. Surely it should have a page once it releases or nears release. Hence: draftify, Cheers, Nairspecht Converse 15:25, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Draft as nothing currently suggesting a confirmed filming or release date, nothing to suggest solidity yet. SwisterTwister talk 23:14, 18 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. joe decker ^talk 00:47, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Songs I Can't Listen To[edit]

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

No references, no claim of notability, fails WP:NSONG and WP:GNG. Prodded and prod removed. Richhoncho (talk) 08:38, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 16:13, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or weak merge with the band's article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DeviantAttitude (talk • contribs) 13:58, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete simply as nothing suggesting its own notable article. SwisterTwister talk 23:14, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Philafrenzy (talk) 09:07, 19 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. Sarahj2107 (talk) 08:04, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

S & M Cafe[edit]

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

Substub on a long-defunct minor company. ("Chain" is too strong a word; at the time of their closure they had two branches, and at their maximum extent had six.) It's vanishingly unlikely that any source other than the occasional mention in local papers will exist, even if someone one day wants to expand it. (For anyone fancying doing WP:BEFORE work, for obvious reasons "S&M" is unlikely to give you what you're looking for on Google; searching their main branch's address of "48 Brushfield Street" is your best shot.) ‑ Iridescent 08:19, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I prodded this article without realizing that it had previously been prodded and the template removed. Iridescent has said everything I could have said here. — Scott • talk 09:40, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 16:13, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 16:13, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 16:13, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. This is a no-brainer! The article doesn't add any credence nor bring it with it any significance. st170e^talk 19:01, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as there's nothing minimally better for independent notability. SwisterTwister talk 23:16, 18 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. joe decker ^talk 00:46, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Bruce Wilson (basketball)[edit]

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

NBA Development League does not qualify members for automatic notability per WP:BASKETBALL. Insert CleverPhrase Here 07:49, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 16:07, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 16:07, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iowa-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 16:07, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NBASKETBALL is not the only route to notability. Does Esho meet WP:GNG?
Delete as still currently questioning independent notability. SwisterTwister talk 23:15, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails GNG. Philafrenzy (talk) 09:08, 19 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. Sarahj2107 (talk) 08:03, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Daigneault[edit]

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

NBA Development League does not qualify members for automatic notability per WP:BASKETBALL. Insert CleverPhrase Here 07:48, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 16:08, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 16:08, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oklahoma-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 16:08, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - run of the mill NBA franchise employee. Bearian (talk) 17:55, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as still questionable for solid independent notability. SwisterTwister talk 23:18, 18 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. Nakon 03:25, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jordi Fernández[edit]

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

NBA Development League does not qualify members for automatic notability per WP:BASKETBALL. Insert CleverPhrase Here 07:47, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 16:08, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 16:08, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 16:08, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as still questionable for his own notable article, still questionable and likely questionable for any near future. SwisterTwister talk 23:19, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Philafrenzy (talk) 09:09, 19 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. Sarahj2107 (talk) 08:02, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

David Gale (basketball)[edit]

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

NBA Development League does not qualify members for automatic notability per WP:BASKETBALL. Insert CleverPhrase Here 07:46, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 16:09, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 16:09, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 16:09, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete' According to WP:NHOOPS, he needs to have wona major award in the D-league to be notable for that tenure alone.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 19:01, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Just to be clear in case anybody's not sure, he's a an assistant coach in the NBA Development League rather than a player — but that's not an automatic notability freebie either, so it doesn't change anything as such (although it does mean you have to be careful not to misjudge him against the inclusion criteria for players). That said, the sourcing here is entirely to primary sources, with no indication of reliable source coverage about him shown, and nothing claimed in the article grants him a presumption of notability in the absence of enough sourcing to pass WP:GNG. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 14:32, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as still questionable for independent notability. SwisterTwister talk 23:19, 18 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. Unopposed. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 23:06, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dylan Murphy[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Does not meet the criteria for automatic notability as outlined in WP:NBASKETBALL Insert CleverPhrase Here 07:31, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 16:10, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 16:10, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Indiana-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 16:10, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete he is an assistant coach of a development team. I am not sure the head coach of the team would be notable, but assistant coaches clearly are not.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:13, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Head coaches are only notable fi they are in a major NBA franchise (not the dev league). However, the coverage that head coaches get for coaching a dev league team means they often meet GNG. However, assistant coaches get no such coverage. Insert CleverPhrase Here 21:21, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as still questionable for solid independent notability. SwisterTwister talk 23:20, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Philafrenzy (talk) 09:09, 19 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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 23:13, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Kevin Capers[edit]

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

Does not meet the criteria for automatic notability as outlined in WP:NBASKETBALL Insert CleverPhrase Here 07:31, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 16:10, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 16:10, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 16:10, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NBASKETBALL is not the only route to notability. Does Esho meet WP:GNG? Rlendog (talk) 13:46, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as still questionable for his own notable article at best. SwisterTwister talk 23:22, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Philafrenzy (talk) 09:09, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - He seems to pass the bar neither through WP:NBASKETBALL standards nor through WP:GNG standards. I'm not finding information about him from reliable sources (or, at least, publications that look possibly like them) other than a tangential mentioning here and there. For example, take a look at this and that. He's referred to in a paragraph; that's it. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 16:52, 19 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. joe decker ^talk 00:46, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Maxie Esho[edit]

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

Does not meet the criteria for automatic notability as outlined in WP:NBASKETBALL Insert CleverPhrase Here 07:29, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 16:10, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 16:10, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iowa-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 16:10, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NBASKETBALL is not the only route to notability. Does Esho meet WP:GNG? Rlendog (talk) 13:46, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as still questionable for his own notable article at best. SwisterTwister talk 23:22, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Philafrenzy (talk) 09:10, 19 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. joe decker ^talk 00:46, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nick Mazzella[edit]

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

Does not meet the criteria for automatic notability as outlined in WP:NBASKETBALL Insert CleverPhrase Here 07:25, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 16:11, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 16:11, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 16:11, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - the user creating all these D-League personnel related articles has no concept of notability (or any concept of Wikipedia editing). A D-League GM is a non-notable figure. DaHuzyBru (talk) 13:28, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as still questionable for solid independent notability. SwisterTwister talk 23:22, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Philafrenzy (talk) 09:10, 19 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. joe decker ^talk 00:46, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Brad Seymour (basketball)[edit]

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

Does not meet criteria for automatic notability under WP:NBASKETBALL. Insert CleverPhrase Here 07:18, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 16:12, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 16:12, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 16:12, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nothing convincing of better independent notability. SwisterTwister talk 23:25, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Philafrenzy (talk) 09:11, 19 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 keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Insert CleverPhrase Here 21:01, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ryan McDonough (NBA executive)[edit]

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

Is not a head coach or player, therefore does not meet the criteria outlined in WP:NBASKETBALL. Insert CleverPhrase Here 07:16, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. WP:NBASKETBALL is not the only road to notability. The general manager of an NBA franchise is usually an important position, and very likely to pass WP:GNG, and in this case, sources are provided and a Google search shows thousands of additional sources about the subject. --Arxiloxos (talk) 14:34, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 16:12, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 16:12, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 16:12, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Arxiloxos. Nomination doesn't even bother to address GNG. Rlendog (talk) 14:51, 12 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. joe decker ^talk 00:45, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Bubba Barrage[edit]

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

Only served as an assistant coach, therefore does not meet WP:NBASKETBALL. Insert CleverPhrase Here 07:10, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as I myself reviewed, nothing at all for any applicable notability. SwisterTwister talk 15:23, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 16:05, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 16:05, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 16:05, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Philafrenzy (talk) 09:12, 19 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. joe decker ^talk 00:45, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jordan Brady (basketball)[edit]

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

Does not meet the criteria outlined in WP:NBASKETBALL, NBA Development League (minor league) teams do not qualify an athlete for notability. Insert CleverPhrase Here 07:08, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 16:04, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 16:04, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Utah-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 16:04, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as still questionable for his own article. SwisterTwister talk 23:25, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Philafrenzy (talk) 09:12, 19 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 no consensus. The key argument that the list is too broad to be useful is a matter of judgment, and there seems no agreement about it. Perhaps the best course would be to organize the list and improve its usefulness. DGG ( talk ) 01:45, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

List of computer hardwares[edit]

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

Wikipedia is not a list; the purpose of this page would be best served as categories, or edits to the relevant articles. #!/bin/DokReggar -talk 06:30, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per WP:CLN, Wikipedia contains lots of lists and this is fine. Andrew D. (talk) 06:52, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree, WP:DOAL explicitly mentions that (quoting) "Some topics […] are so broad that a list would be unmanageably long and effectively unmaintainable)". A list of all possible hardware elements one may include in a computer is bound to reach this status at some point. Why would the use of categories, such as Category:Computer storage devices, not be adequate to achieve this, since they are already implemented in the target articles? #!/bin/DokReggar -talk 07:26, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

WP:CLN lists advantages and disadvantages of both lists and categories and there is no clear preference. The key point there is WP:NOTDUPE which says quite explicitly: "Furthermore, arguing that a category duplicates a list (or vice versa) at a deletion discussion is not a valid reason for deletion and should be avoided." Andrew D. (talk) 19:32, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think this topic is too broad, nor do I think it will become unmanageable because this article itself indicates there are a limited number of hardware items. And, it appears this list article is staying true to its topic by listing only hardware items and not going off in other directions. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 02:49, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 16:17, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 16:17, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete effectively useless, as evidenced by the pageview graph, per DokReggar this is an unbounded list which is without use to our readers. If someone wants to know what's inside a computer, I suggest the information is hosted in Computer, not a "List of computer hardwares (sic)". The Rambling Man (talk) 19:09, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The list is quite new and it's quite surprising that we don't seem to have anything of this sort already. But the list of computer components and peripherals is quite fundamental and familiar and so easily passes WP:LISTN -- see PC Hardware in a Nutshell for a source covering the common PC type of computer. It would be easy to improve per our editing policy. We just need to get this silly deletion discussion out of the way first. Andrew D. (talk) 19:32, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's far from silly. Please try talking in English rather than in wikilinks in future, people will take you more seriously Colonel. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:45, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that this article would be easy to improve per our editing policy, because Wikipedia is a work in progress. Also, I actually take people seriously when they use links to policies and guidelines or name policies and guideline. For me it takes the guesswork out of determining merit or inclusion^{[disambiguation needed]} for an article on Wikipedia.---Steve Quinn (talk) 03:09, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is what categories are for... and navigation templates; both of which already exist for this "topic". We don't need a third thing to get out of sync with the other three. List articles in general are an unfortunate fact of life on WP, as they add no encyclopedic information other than a list of names or terms. Jeh (talk) 23:50, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sources and additional encyclopedic content, such as a lead section and images, have been added to the article. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:21, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"Encyclopedic content" does not mean sources and images. Jeh (talk) 01:39, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I may expand the article with descriptions if it's retained. I don't want to waste my time doing so at this time only to see the article deleted, though. What came first, the chicken or the egg? North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:34, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Then it would just be a list of dictionary entries. Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Encyclopedic content would describe not just each term but when and who developed the items in question, the relationships of the various types of hardware to each other, the interlocking histories of their development (e.g. the progression of mass storage from magnetic tape through magnetic drums and disks to solid state drives, with the migration of mag tape from "live" mass storage to backup uses; the near-extinction of punched card input and the tremendous reduction in reliance on printed output brought about by display screens and keyboards; etc.). And then it would not have to be called "List of..." anything; it would be an actual article. Of course, that's a lot more work then just typing everything you find in the "Computer hardware" categories into yet another big damn list article. Jeh (talk) 04:59, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and rename List of computer hardware (or another name). At first I thought this would be a list of all products ever offered to sale to attach to a computer, but a list of the types of hardware is fine. I doubt this list will ever reach 100 entries as there are not a million computer architectures out there. It meets WP:CSC #1 (list with all elements standalone-notable).

The pageviews are irrelevant - I bet Viișoara, Glodeni (thank you, "random article" link) does not get many hits either, but it meets the guidelines so we should keep it. And "duplicate from category" is (see above) explicitly noted as an irrelevant argument.

Finally, while I disapprove throwing around wikispeak (and I am guily of doing it occasionally), Andrew D. made his point in plain English. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 12:57, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that page views are irrelevant for determining whether or not an article is acceptable on Wikipedia, whether the article is new or so many years old. Rather, the most important factor is WP:N notability, of which page views is not a part. Hence, as User:Andrew D has mentioned, this appears to pass muster with list article guidelines. And, not meaning to offend - this does matter - because we editors cannot accept, willy nilly, any kind of posted content. Otherwise, our discussions might be about liking or not liking this or that article, which would not be helpful. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 03:29, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A unsourced & useless article. Yashthepunisher (talk) 16:05, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sources and additional content have been added to the article. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:20, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as the current contents are not convincing of keeping as anything of an article at this time. SwisterTwister talk 23:23, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:14, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and improve – Qualifies for an article per WP:NOTDUP relative to Category:Computer hardware. Also qualifies as a functional navigational aid per WP:LISTPURP. An easily expandable and improvable article. I have performed some additions and copy edits to the article, including the addition of some references, something that cannot be done with categories. I have renamed the article to List of computer hardware. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:14, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I do not really see a use for this, since you can find the same content in the computer hardware article. Why not contribute to this article and the ones linked instead? #!/bin/DokReggar -talk 07:41, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Computer hardware is a article with content, List of computer hardware is an index. Both serve different purposes and it is fine. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 08:45, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete; seemingly random list of indiscriminate information. Sandstein 18:14, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Sandstein: Well, it's not now. I just removed the peripherals from the list. The list now only includes hardware. I'm not seeing how the list is indiscriminate as per WP:IINFO at this time. It has a well-defined scope and only has relevant entries now. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:13, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Although I can see grounds for a list if the parts that make a computer system, this list doesn't cut it. For example, it has a "punched card" next to "solid state drive" and "Free and open-source graphics device driver" next to "graphics card (GPU)", "graphics hardware" and "graphics processing unit" which is just random grabs from 50 years of computer history. GPU means Graphics Processing Unit, creating double entries. My impression of this article in total is that it is written in chaos and not fixable other than starting with a clean slate. DeVerm (talk) 01:41, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@DeVerm: A punched card is a type of computer hardware, as verified in the following source: Encyclopedia of Library and Information Science. p. 277. It's an an alphabetical list, so sure, they're listed next to one-another. I removed the redundant GPU link in the article, which took one second to accomplish. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:39, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No, a Punched card is not computer hardware but just a piece of paper from a time that character recognition by a computer was science fiction and they needed punch holes in specific locations which could then be detected by a punch card reader. This reader is the computer hardware; you can find it in musea. The punch card was equal to a computer print-out now, which is also about to become obsolete. DeVerm (talk) 15:11, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@DeVerm: That makes sense. I have changed the entry in the article to read "Punched card reader" (diff). North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:36, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That does not help; if editing at all, you should remove it because the card reader is already on the list as the first item. The article linked explicitly includes punch card reader. Creating pages is not a matter of throwing edits at it until it, by chance, is a hit. It requires much more in-depth study of the scope as well as each item listed. I still recommend to start over because the list is hardly improving, if at all. DeVerm (talk) 15:52, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

All right, I removed punch card reader. That was easy. As I stated above, I wouldn't mind adding descriptions, but if this is to be deleted, that would be a waste of time. Hopefully the article will be retained, so the work I have already performed to improve it can continue. At this point, I guess I'll wait until the AfD discussion is closed before potentially proceeding with any more edits to the article. Of course, the time you spent here discussing the matter is far greater than it would have taken to simply perform the edits you suggested to improve the article. However, you want it deleted, and WP:AFDISNOTCLEANUP. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:13, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This article appears to be a definite benefit for the general reader, in particular as a useful index. Also, per WP:NOTDUP, "Overlapping categories, lists and navigation templates" are not perceived as duplication on Wikipedia. Furthermore, "it is neither improper nor uncommon to simultaneously have a category, a list, and a navigation template which all cover the same topic. These systems of organizing information are considered to be complementary, not inappropriately duplicative." Hence, saying that we have categories that cover such lists seems to be a weak argument. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 02:42, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in reliable sources.
1. Dhanda, Naresh (2010). CLEP Information Systems and Computer Applications. Piscataway, New Jersey: Research & Education Association. p. 27. ISBN 073860836X. Retrieved 2016-05-22.
  The article notes:
  As defined earlier, computer hardware includes all the physical components of a computer system that can be seen and touched, including the keyboard and mouse (input devices), the CPU and memory (processing devices), display monitors and printers (output devices), the hard disk and RAM (storage device), as well as DVDs, CDs, flash memory cards, etc. (storage media).
  Printer and USB cables, modems, and network interface cards (NIC) are other examples of computer hardware. Some hardware, such as a keyboard or a mouse, can be seen on the outside of a computer. Other hardware, such as RAM, an internal hard disk, and the NIC, can be seen only after opening the system unit. Peripheral devices are attached to the computer system in order to perform a variety of tasks. All the hardware devices listed above are also peripheral devices.
  The book gives further example of computer hardware.
2. Ravichandran, D. (2001). Introduction To Computers And Communication. New Delhi: Tata McGraw-Hill. p. 2. ISBN 0070435650. Retrieved 2016-05-22.
  The book notes:
  The physical parts of a computer are called the hardware. In other words, the units that are visible and units which one can touch and feel are known as the computer hardware. Some examples for hardware units or system devices are following:
  - Processor
  - Display Screen
  - Keyboard
  - Disk Drive
  - Printer, etc.
  The main parts of a computer hardware are the storage devices, the input devices, the output devices and the Central Processing Unit (CPU).
3. Pride, William M.; Hughes, Robert J.; Kapoor, Jack R. (2012). Foundations of Business (3 ed.). Mason, Ohio: Cengage Learning. p. 420. ISBN 1111580154. Retrieved 2016-05-22.
  The book notes:
  Computer hardware is the physical components of a computer. Examples include the hard disk drive, keyboard, mouse, and monitor.
4. Dlabay, Les; Burrow, James L.; Kleindl, Brad (2008). Intro to Business. Mason, Ohio: Cengage Learning. p. 267. ISBN 0538445610. Retrieved 2016-05-22.
  The book notes:
  Examples of computer hardware include keyboards, cameras, microphones, speakers, monitors (or screens), chips, and printers.
  Hardware is constantly changing and expanding. For example, today most computers can handle sound, graphics, animation, and video. In the past, these features were only offered on large computers. Multimedia computer systems are now common in small businesses and homes.
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow the subject to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 04:38, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The subject also passes Wikipedia:Notability#Stand-alone lists, which says, "One accepted reason why a list topic is considered notable is if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources, per the above guidelines; notable list topics are appropriate for a stand-alone list." Cunard (talk) 04:38, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User Cunard thanks for posting these sources. I think this is really helpful. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 05:21, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This seems a useful hub or index for a diverse but not over-large topic. Quite functional.--Elmidae (talk · contribs) 18:57, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, st170e^talk 01:22, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Wikipedia has lots of lists, and all this needs is a little bit of improvement. Peter Sam Fan 13:51, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a hopelessly broad compendium disguised as a list - one that can never approach encyclopedic quality. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:24, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The point of the creation of this article appears to be providing a user-friendly guideline of items that a computer is likely to have and how it all functions together. And it isn't that helpful since, first, it doesn't explain in layman's terms what each thing does and, second, we already have pages like the main article 'Computer' and the related 'Computer hardware'. What's the difference between this and, say, having: 'Guideline of the Systems in Your Car', 'Guideline of the Organs that are in Your Body', 'Guideline of the Branches in Your U.S. Federal Government', 'Guideline to the Planets in Your Solar System', etc? All of those can indeed be sourced easily, as this article here is, but why have them all? I would expect each of those things in downloadable pamphlets on college websites related to Astronomy 101 classes and so on instead. Wikipedia as an encyclopedia isn't quite the same thing as a friendly 'how to get this' exploratory text.

And, if we have to have a guideline to how a computer exactly works major part by major part, then... let's have a guideline to how a computer exactly works major part by major part. Add huge sections of prose to this list coupled with step-by-step illustrated instructions, maybe with a fellow taking pictures of him using a screwdriver and pointing out the specific connections here and there. Put in a bunch more links. Add a bunch more citations. And give this page a much better name, maybe 'Explanation of computer hardware functioning' say. But I'd rather this just be deleted. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 16:21, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Huh, no, that list is not a mistitle for "Hardware interaction in the computer". It is just like a table of contents; its only point for readers is to click on the blue links. If your point is that a navigational-only page is useless and should be deleted just for this reason, that is pretty much against any of the list guidelines. And for the record, there is List of gravitationally rounded objects of the Solar System, and, more to the point since this one is a list of bluelinks with no content, List of organs of the human body. Both of which are fine lists. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 11:06, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 06:03, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - does not require its own article. A category is sufficient enough (Ajf773 (talk) 09:05, 27 May 2016 (UTC))[reply]

For the n-th time, WP:NOTDUP. While it may be that the topic is not suitable for an article, "a category is enough" is not a valid argument. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 11:10, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

NOTDUP is from a page (read the box at the top) that's id'd as an "editing guideline", not policy. And I happen to think that a category and a navbox are enough. That's my argument and I'm sticking to it. Jeh (talk) 12:16, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This is a major problem for some editors who can't actually think independently and who simply attempt to render argument by reference to some essay or guideline. Arguments such as "a category is enough" are indeed perfectly valid arguments. That someone believes we need this information in three distinct formats is beyond me. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:32, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Because the mainspace article format is the most beneficial for the general reader - our customer. Most people (our customers) come to Wikipedia only to read the articles, not to derive or discern information from categories. Also, the general reader (or lay reader) does not peruse categories, they seek out information from mainspace articles. Categories are a function of our editing, and are used for our editing. Hence, these are two different activities; one for the benefit of the lay reader and one for the benefit of editors (like us). --- Steve Quinn (talk)

Accepted, but a dumb list like this (which is basically a navigation aid) is no different at all to a category or a navbox. It's actually pretty hopeless. If it approached something like Glossary of association football terms then I could understand its utility, right now it's utterly pointless. And you make an interesting (and unfounded, or at least unverifiable) claim that categories are not used by the reader. Can you prove that or are you just making it up? The Rambling Man (talk) 17:03, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[26] says the category is hit a lot less though the factor is "only" of ten. It can reasonably be assumed to show that the cat page is hit less by readers (though it could be that WP editors hammered the list page even when readers prefer to use the category). I took "cats" because that is one of the default examples for the pageview tools page, could be different for other lists though. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 17:23, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It is an editing guideline "best treated with common sense and exceptions may apply", so what? Everything is subject to WP:IAR, too, but it does not mean everything is an exception to all guidelines. I have seen plenty of cases where a guideline was not followed for the greater good of WP, but if you are going to say an editing guideline such as NOTDUP should be ignored in a particular case, you better had to say why that one case warrants it ("it is beyond me" is not enough), and Ajf773 did not do that above. If you want the guideline to be ignored all the time, go ask for it to be removed at WP:VPP or wherever. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 17:29, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It seems you can't see the wood for the trees. That's fine, and you've made your point, just as many others have adequately refuted it. This list provides nothing, absolutely nothing. It might as well be "Words beginning with A". The Rambling Man (talk) 20:07, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

At the risk of being redundant, the article can easily be expanded with descriptions and other additional content. I considered doing so, but it would be pointless if the article is to then later be deleted. See also: WP:NOEFFORT. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:42, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well a referenced glossary of terms would have been unlikely to have been nominated. Just saying. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:44, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I added the sources, etc. after this was nominated. In addition to qualifying for an article per WP:NOTDUP, the topic also passes WP:LISTN, having been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:45, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, as it passes WP:STAND, but expand to include basic information about each listed item, which would make it much more useful to anyone who comes across it (see List of vegetable oils, a featured list, for a good example of this being done in an acceptable manner). I would also suggest (if consensus dictates that this list fails the inclusion criteria) merging into computer hardware, with each item on the list becoming a section of the article, which already includes most of the items on the list as is. My only major concern is that this list is WP:REDUNDANT to computer hardware, though this is unlikely, since "categories, lists, and navboxes that contain the same elements are typically allowed". Colonel Wilhelm Klink (^Complaints|_Mistakes) 21:25, 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 delete. Sarahj2107 (talk) 07:43, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Torn Between Two[edit]

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

Contested prod, reason was: Film with questionable notability with no sources to be found anywhere that also sounds like a advertisement Wgolf (talk) 04:56, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 16:14, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

in lookig

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

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

Delete per failing WP:NFF and being WAY TOO SOON. Heck, the article itself tells us it is about an "upcoming" film abd the"information is subject to change as the film is still under review and development", so at kindest we can with until (or if) it gets filmed and released and IF it gets coverage the topic can be re-visited. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 08:59, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and I would've pursued the PROD if not for the removal, nothing convincing at all as there's nothing confirmed. SwisterTwister talk 23:26, 18 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. Sarahj2107 (talk) 07:42, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Arvind Iyer[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

The article-subject has emailed me stating "I do not wish to be on Wikipedia... and wish to stay private... I live a private life and teach orphaned children..." Typically we have a strong preference to respect the privacy of people that are not public figures and of marginal notability, as is the case here. WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE also encourages us to errr on the side of deletion when specifically requested by the article-subject. The page has only 5-10 views per day and its value to Wikipedia or our readers is dwarfed by the harm/distress to the article-subject. CorporateM (Talk) 04:46, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

DELETE- To the best of my knowledge,the above information is correct.Low notability.Request for privacy should be respected ( Rajeshbm (talk) 09:43, 11 May 2016 (UTC) )[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 16:15, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 16:15, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE. GabeIglesia (talk) 16:16, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
DELETE- I work with a site that utilizes the Wikipedia content, and have corresponded with the referenced person for nearly 2 years and understand his desire for privacy. As an interested observer and occasional Wikipedia author, I concur with the request to delete. gbnewby —Preceding undated comment added 16:22, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete at best, still questionable even with the current article. SwisterTwister talk 07:10, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I see no reason to keep this article over the subjects objections.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:36, 14 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 Speedy Deleted (G8) by an admin. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 23:04, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Chakra khadka[edit]

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

Article has no references and there is no indication of Notability. Insert CleverPhrase Here 00:59, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment-the article is only 14 minutes old, you should wait to put up a afd, also there was already a BLP prod on it. Wgolf (talk) 01:01, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Also-this AFD needs to be renamed as the page name moved. Wgolf (talk) 01:10, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Noted for future reference, and the AfD has been renamed (although the page name itself could still use moving, I'm not sure if this would break things). Insert CleverPhrase Here 06:10, 12 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 11. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 04:01, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 16:17, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nepal-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 16:17, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete People should put in references before they make the initial save. This article has been around for over 3 days and still lacks any references, so I say delete.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:46, 14 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. joe decker ^talk 00:45, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Hallway[edit]

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

Not a notable band. JDDJS (talk) 03:25, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 04:06, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 04:06, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as newly started and nothing at all for any applicable notability. SwisterTwister talk 23:28, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Philafrenzy (talk) 09:13, 19 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. Sarahj2107 (talk) 07:41, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Diamond Construct[edit]

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

Not a notable band. No google news results. JDDJS (talk) 03:20, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 04:06, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 04:06, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I couldn't find anything useful in my usual sources, on this group. One of its label managers is Philip Bottenberg, which indicates a conflict of interest for the article's creator.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 05:19, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
delete clearly fails WP:BAND. No reliable sources. LibStar (talk) 15:36, 18 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. joe decker ^talk 00:45, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mauricio Ramos Arango[edit]

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

Non-notable individual lacking non-trivial support. reddogsix (talk) 03:15, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 04:05, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Colombia-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 04:05, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and I would've pursued PROD if not for the removal, there's nothing here suggesting the needed applicable notability. SwisterTwister talk 23:29, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: the three sources are reliable ones, but the first two only mention quotes from Mr. Ramos, and the third source makes no mention of him at all. Nowhere is there any verification of the important roles he is quoted as having played, e.g. leading acquisition teams, so virtually the whole article is basically an unverifiable CV. Richard3120 (talk) 20:40, 20 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. Michig (talk) 08:47, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jake C. Young[edit]

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

Unreferenced BLP of a non-notable actor made by a user who appears to have a conflict of interests, and very well might be the subject. JDDJS (talk) 03:08, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 04:04, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not a single reliable and independent source exists for verifying the information. Fails WP:GNG by a mile. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 05:52, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Kentucky-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 (talk) 05:52, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I can't find anything to suggest that he passes notability guidelines and to be honest, he'd probably qualify for A7 deletion. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 08:09, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as this is a classic example of an not yet acceptable article we've seen before, there's simply nothing to accept for now. SwisterTwister talk 07:16, 14 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. Michig (talk) 08:44, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Batman: Dark Avenger[edit]

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

Not a notable fan fiction film JDDJS (talk) 03:06, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This article is about a fan fiction film released on youtube. No reliable independent sources exist for verification. The facebook page has 50 likes and the videos on youtube have < 500 views. Delete now as WP:TOOSOON. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 05:49, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 (talk) 05:50, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Delete (without prejudice) for now, and perhaps redirect to a mention in the Jake C. Young article if it survives its own AFD. As this is an ongoing fan film series with 9 episodes posted from 12 December 2015 until 10 May 2016), if it gains reliable sourcing it might be reconsidered. For now it is just TOO SOON. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 06:52, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This could honestly probably be speedied via A7, since it's a YT series. I can't find a single thing out there about this series that would show it'd pass Wikipedia's notability guidelines. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 07:27, 12 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 Procedural close. Already Speedy Deleted at 09:35 on 11 May 2016 by SpacemanSpiff (talk · contribs): (A7, G3, G5) (non-admin closure) | Uncle Milty | talk | 12:34, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Rohan Ali[edit]

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

Non notable Bollywood actor and model. Could not find sources. Page author keeps adding entirely unrelated references. Happy Squirrel (talk) 02:52, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I mean seriously, this is complete bollocks. Quoting from the article At Harvard College, he was known for reciting lines from epic poems such as The Iliad. Not a single reference is available to verify any of the facts. The 2 references in the article are to a couple of profile pics on a facebook page where I see no mention of the subject's name. This whole page is one big hoax and I would have tagged this for speedy deletion. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 05:12, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note Has been CSDed for being a hoax. Clubjustin (talk) 05:15, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete of course as I actually PRODed but I'm curious why Happysquirrel removed the PROD, was it to use AfD as a locking mechanism for G4? SwisterTwister talk 06:53, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I see now it may have been a collision of both the contribs. SwisterTwister talk 06:54, 11 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 keep. postdlf (talk) 01:44, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

List of role-playing game software[edit]

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

This isn't an AfD I file lightly; I don't think the subject is inherently non-notable, or unsuitable for a list. But. The list as it stands is pathetically scanty, mentions nothing released in the last 13 years (and the only two references date from 2005 and 1986 respectively), and is obviously unmaintained. Since there have been quite literally hundreds of such software packages -- heck, I've got several dozen online ones bookmarked -- and they come and go rapidly, this might just be an unmaintainable list. Ultimately, I think WP:TNT applies, although I wouldn't object if a few editors with a great deal of time on their hands proved me wrong in the next week. Ravenswing 20:28, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Searching for the term provided nothing of this sort. There were "virtual tabletops" but no "assist software" like in our article. At the very least it needs a rename, but I'd see a better fit for this being merged to some related article. The main one for tabletop doesn't quite fit. But that article needs a heavy redo in any case. At this point in time WP:TNT probably applies to our article. --Mr. Magoo (talk) 20:54, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It needs a lot of work, but is a reasonable topic. Hobit (talk) 01:12, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:43, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:43, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:43, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – A functional article that qualifies per WP:NOTDUP relative to Category:Role-playing game software. Also qualifies as a navigational aid per WP:LISTPURP. The list seems quite maintainable relative to entries at the category, and regarding it being incomplete, see WP:NOEFFORT. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:44, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – Under the assumption that the articles in the list are notable, the list represents a coherent and sensible concept composed of notable items, hence I think it should be kept. (Now, if you succeeded in AFDing most of the items on the list – I'm not suggesting you should, but just suppose you tried that and succeeded – then I'd say the list should go if it only had a couple or zero notable items in it.) SJK (talk) 09:04, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nakon 02:09, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per others. Is a useful navigation aid. VMS Mosaic (talk) 08:17, 11 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. Sarahj2107 (talk) 07:41, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Quentin Wiltz[edit]

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

Poorly sourced WP:BLP, with some advertorial leanings, of a person notable only as a non-winning candidate for election to a city council — which is not a claim of notability that gets a person into Wikipedia in and of itself. While it's claimed that his election race was "historic" because it went into a runoff with two minority candidates, that's not the basis for standalone WP:BLPs of the competitors — at best, its historicity might merit one or two sentences in Pearland, Texas. Pearland isn't a large enough city to make Derrick Reed, the guy who won the seat, notable enough for inclusion in Wikipedia just for being a city councillor — and by definition, as an actual officeholder Reed is more notable than Wiltz would be as a losing candidate. Nothing here is a valid notability claim, and the sourcing isn't solid enough to pass WP:GNG. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 02:09, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 04:02, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 04:02, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Can't put it any better than the nom. AusLondonder (talk) 15:57, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as nothing for the applicable notability, nothing else convincing. SwisterTwister talk 23:35, 18 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 keep. (non-admin closure) Sam Sailor ^Talk! 15:50, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

John Wesley (actor)[edit]

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

The article is unsourced and it fails WP:GNG and WP:NACTOR. Hitcher vs. Candyman (talk) 11:32, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sarahj2107 (talk) 11:00, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. While the article is lousy, more than 100 credits over five decades, including recurring roles in about a half dozen US network TV series, creates a pretty strong presumption of notability that the cursory nomination statement does nothing to undermine. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by administrators since 2006. (talk) 21:22, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk) 19:58, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk) 19:58, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep passes WP:NACTOR having a large number of roles including prominent roles in notable fims and television shows ( notable meaning having wiki articles). will look for RS to add to the article. Update: have now added references to the article so it is no longer unsourced. Atlantic306 (talk) 22:33, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as still questionable for the needed improvements for solid notability, there's nothing outstanding to suggest a better article. SwisterTwister talk 22:44, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

Keep per above. Lousy article needing improvement, but subject passes WP:NACTOR having many roles over long career. MB (talk) 02:57, 11 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. Sarahj2107 (talk) 07:39, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Juscelino Dourado[edit]

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

It's a resume page. non-notable biography with no sources 2601:703:201:650:B4BD:EE50:21D8:542A (talk) 01:27, 11 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 11. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 02:01, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Borderline WP:CSD#G11. Not sufficient coverage to meet GNG. Vanamonde93 (talk) 03:10, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as nothing at all currently suggesting any applicable notability. I have speedied now. SwisterTwister talk 23:36, 18 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. Michig (talk) 08:38, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Shane Scott[edit]

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

WP:BLP, based entirely on primary sources with not a shred of reliable source coverage shown, of a person whose only potentially valid Wikipedia notability claim is as a producer of low-budget independent horror films. Being a film producer does not entitle a person to an automatic "no sourcing required" inclusion freebie, but the level of reliable source coverage needed to get him in the door is not locatable. The only sources present here are his primary source profiles on the website of the city council that he also happens to serve on -- but city councillors don't get over WP:NPOL just for being city councillors. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 02:00, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete; clearly non-notable. Couldn't find any coverage about him. Best, FoCuS contribs; talk to me! 02:08, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 03:59, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 03:59, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 03:59, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Abjectly fails WP:GNG. AusLondonder (talk) 10:00, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as there's nothing minimally acceptable including for any applicable notability. SwisterTwister talk 07:20, 14 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. Notability not established. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 04:36, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nanvaent[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Article topic lacks significant coverage from reliable, independent sources. (?) It had no meaningful hits in a video game reliable sources custom Google search. There are no worthwhile redirect targets. czar 03:46, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and Redirect to LPMud as I found nothing better. SwisterTwister talk 22:37, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The custom WP:VG/RS Google search engine brings up zero results. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 16:12, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: I've made a request for Audyssey Magazine to be considered for reliability purposes at WT:VG/RS; if it were held to be reliable that may affect the outcome of this discussion, as Nanvaent has been reviewed there. —chaos5023 (talk) 17:36, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Audyssey has zero hallmarks of reliability (reputation for fact-checking, editor pedigree) so there is no chance that it would be considered a reliable source. Going to need much more than one review, too... czar 21:19, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Can I interest you in registering that opinion on Audyssey at WT:VG/RS? Nobody else has commented. It wouldn't be one review, it'd most likely be one review and the Independent cite, which isn't amazing but maybe passable. —chaos5023 (talk) 16:12, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to LPMud (with no deletion) where it is mentioned. The game has an entry in the book Internet Virtual Worlds Quick Tour, that looks like an RS and it is listed in many of the main MUD directories, e.g., the MUDStats entry. This is an old enough game that I could believe that there are other paper sources out there not yet indexed by Google. Hence, basic information is verifiable, but it doesn't quite make it to the notability threshold. Redirecting to the more general article seems the best alternative at the moment, per WP:ATD, with keeping the article history for future source material per WP:PRESERVE. There is nothing harmful in the prose and thus no reason to delete the article history. --Mark viking (talk) 22:49, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Mark viking, "please keep the ordering of this list as: Genesis LPMud first, other MUDs alphabetized; do not add MUDs that do not have articles about them, they will be removed" This is the direct quote of the comment that precedes that list of games at LPMud. I don't see why we would use it as a redirect target. czar 16:56, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keeping a particular ordering sounds fine to me, but asserting that notability is required just to be mentioned in an article has no basis in policy; verifiability is all that is required. It was an assertion that Chaos5023 put in the article about 5 years ago, but there was no discussion about it on the talk page. I have thus removed the notability recommendation from the comment. I will note that WP:PRESERVE is a policy, and a redirect of this topic to a mention in a more general article is in perfect harmony with that policy. Deleting verifiable material because it fails a mere notability guideline, as you propose here, is in violation of WP:PRESERVE. --Mark viking (talk) 18:34, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Putting aside the vague waves to capital letters, that section is about improving articles and the closest it gets to agreeing with your suggestion is in merging content where it can be useful. But we're not talking about merging useful content—we're talking about incidental redirects. Is the plan to make a list of every LPMud that has ever been mentioned in a source of any reliability? Didn't we just do the opposite in another AfD? I think that was the point of Chaos's comment five years ago (which, regardless how you feel is warranted today, had five years of consensus through editing, if not explicit talk page consensus). czar 18:45, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nakon 02:00, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 03:59, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Czar is doubtless correct that Audyssey will not be deemed reliable; notability would be debatable even with that citation registering in support, and without it the GNG is clearly not met. —chaos5023 (talk) 16:14, 12 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 nomination withdrawn as the article has been substantially improved. Bearcat (talk) 15:16, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ferdinand Larose[edit]

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

Biography, which goes only about a millimetre further than "Topic is a person who existed, the end", of an agronomist whose only claim of notability is that he planted a small forest of exclusively local significance. Three of the four "sources" here are primary ones -- a press release from the forest's own management committee, the website of the county in which the forest is located and the website of the local conservation board -- and the only one that represents actual media coverage in a reliable source just namechecks his existence a single time in the process of failing to be about him. Neither the claim of notability, nor the quality of sourcing provided to support it, are enough to warrant permanent coverage in an international encyclopedia. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 00:54, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – The article sucks first of all, and I don't think it is going to be expanded any more than it currently is. Adding references would just be useless. NikolaiHo 03:03, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Article' subject * has been referenced in both English and French here: [27],[28], [29], [30], [31], [32], [33], [34], [35], [36],* page has been populated and improved, * it is about the origins of a large man planted forest the (Larose Forest) in Canada, i.e (bilingual/ French - English and timberland) at the beginning of the last century. * Also note that local is part of global. --DDupard (talk) 07:07, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, "local is part of global" has nothing to do with anything for our purposes. We don't aspire to be a complete directory of everybody who ever existed at all — people of purely local notability (e.g. school trustees or restaurateurs or local shopkeepers) don't qualify for Wikipedia articles just because they can technically be referenced to local media, if that coverage doesn't demonstrate a reason why their notability and potential readership extends beyond the purely local. This article has seen improvement, and thus now does a better job of demonstrating that his notability does extend beyond the purely local, so I'm withdrawing this nomination accordingly — but the minimum standard that a topic normally has to meet to merit inclusion in Wikipedia is that their notability is more than purely local. Bearcat (talk) 15:16, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, historian John Bacher, university of Toronto, is a good secondary source (in several publications), who in short defines his significance for french-speaking Ontario-east where he was the first french-speaking governmental agronomist. In the WP-article, it has to be added the connexion between Edmund Zavitz, the OKA university (where he was the first french-speeking agronomist getting his agronomist diplome), the 1921 reforestation act of 1921, which coincides with the first reforestation experiments of Larose, the forestry act of 1927, which brought him to push the united counties to buy enough desert land to fall unter that forestry law ; the [tours he organised in the 30's to convince politicians to invest in better reforestation. And also, his struggle for introducing better seeds and plants to raise yields, his struggle for introducing teaching in french , as well as his involvment in organising farmers in the Union des cultivateurs franco-ontariens, 1929. Concerning his continuing notability, see also New York Forester, 1959, House of commons debates, 1989, Savais-tu que... 150 things to know, John Filliol Talks on the History of, TV5.ca--Havang(nl) (talk) 16:23, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Whaow ! Thanks--DDupard (talk) 21:40, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The article and its referencing have been massively improved since I first nominated it, so I'm withdrawing this. Good job, guys. Barnstars all around. Bearcat (talk) 15:16, 12 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. Michig (talk) 08:23, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Susan Weber[edit]

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

WP:BLP of a person notable only as a local school board trustee and an unsuccessful candidate for the local fire department board -- neither of which is a claim of notability that gets a person into Wikipedia per WP:NPOL. At this level of purely localized office, the media coverage of the officeholder has to nationalize before they can claim to have passed WP:GNG as an alternative path to inclusion -- but the coverage here is exclusively local, and thus demonstrates no reason why an international encyclopedia should concern itself. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 01:51, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 03:58, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 03:58, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I'm not finding anything in GNG requiring national coverage, and I've never before encountered such a criterion raised in a deletion discussion. Care to fill me in? Rebb ing 04:02, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Purely local figures, such as school board trustees, are not eligible for Wikipedia articles on the basis of purely local coverage — they have to be demonstrated as significantly more notable than the norm, by virtue of getting unusual levels of coverage well beyond the ordinary level of local coverage that any school board trustee can always expect to get in the local media. Bearcat (talk) 06:47, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

So you're saying that coverage must be spread over a relatively large geographic area to qualify as "significant" under GNG? I don't see this in our guidelines anywhere. Routine coverage is already disregarded under ROUTINE regardless of territorial distribution. I see no need to read a "national coverage" criterion into the notability guideline, and I am somewhat concerned about the systemic bias such a requirement might introduce. Rebb ing ~~07:02~~ 07:07, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In my experience, it's become necessary to avoid invoking WP:ROUTINE when discussing local media coverage of a purely local interest figure, like a school trustee or a small-town city councillor — while I am personally among the many editors who hold that it does apply, there are other editors who insist that ROUTINE only deprecates things like birth and death and wedding announcements in the classifieds, and/or "this weekend's events" calendar listings. The principle is the same either way — if the political role that the person holds is of exclusively local notability and doesn't automatically pass NPOL in and of itself, then the media coverage has to demonstrate a substantive reason why the person could be seen as more notable than the hundreds of thousands of other people who hold comparable roles and generate comparable levels of local coverage — but applying ROUTINE to any coverage that exists in the news section of any newspaper tends to generate a lot of pointless circular debate about whether it applies or not, thus causing the discussion to stray off topic. Bearcat (talk) 14:53, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your explanation. I see your point about ROUTINE's scope being controversial. Looking at this again, I think it ought to come down to GNG. The sort of news coverage local politicians receive typically runs something like this:

X Running for Mayor;
Meet X, a Local Bookstore Owner (four sentences and a few words about local issues);
X Wins Race;
X Performed Routine Executive/legislative Action Y;
X Runs for Re-election...

Such coverage is frequent but trivial, and I think it can be said to fail GNG's "significant coverage" prong without invoking ROUTINE or considering local versus national attention. On the other hand, I would likely consider to be notable a local politician who actually received significant and independent yet entirely local coverage. (For comparison, despite receiving regular media attention, I doubt any of my mid-size city's politiicans have had coverage sufficient for GNG.)

Thanks for humoring me; I'm relatively new to AfD, so I lack the wisdom that only experience brings. Rebb ing 17:22, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No in-depth coverage of Weber. All coverage is purely trivial mentions. AusLondonder (talk) 09:59, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. In my view, the available coverage is not "significant coverage" as contemplated by GNG. Rebb ing 17:22, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete I think the coverage is sufficient and need not be national or even heavily regional; (I don't like to see WP:ROUTINE raised in these cases) but here, we have a relatively minor local officeholder with insufficient special notability and that is why I think not adequate. Feels like a vanity piece. Montanabw ^(talk) 18:46, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There is obviously nothing inherently notable about local officials in a county of 250,000 (or in general, for that matter). The school district that Weber represented is one of ten in the county. She would have to be a particularly remarkable or interesting school board president for her to meet Wikipedia's notability standards, and I don't see any coverage in the sources provided that goes above and beyond what you would expect of someone in her position. IgnorantArmies (talk) 13:06, 17 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. Michig (talk) 08:20, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Julie McAnulty[edit]

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

WP:BLP of a politician notable only as a local authority councillor. The only other thing we've got here is that she was an unsuccessful candidate for her party's nomination for the Holyrood election last week, but being an unsuccessful candidate in a nomination contest or primary does not normally augment a person's notability at all — and the only thing that might lift her very slightly above the normal non-notability of unsuccessful nomination candidates, the fact that there was some controversy around the nomination contest she lost, simultaneously fails WP:BLP1E. Nothing here constitutes a reason why she warrants permanent coverage in an encyclopedia at this time. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 01:22, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 03:57, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 03:57, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete: Appears to have some regional press notoriety in her current position, but if primarily a municipal official, unless there is significant coverage for her acts in office, probably not sufficiently notable. Montanabw ^(talk) 18:55, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As per the nom, local councillors aren't inherently notable. The media coverage McAnulty has received seems to me to be related to only a single event ("event" being loosely construed), so I think WP:BLP1E applies: "We should generally avoid having an article on a person […] if reliable sources cover the person only in the context of a single event […and…] that person otherwise remains, and is likely to remain, a low-profile individual […and…] the event is not significant". IgnorantArmies (talk) 13:27, 17 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. Sarahj2107 (talk) 07:38, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ten Masked Men[edit]

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

Fails WP:NMUSIC. The article The Ten Masked Men Strike Back was turned into a redirect to this article as being about a non-notable subject. However, the subject of the target article itself is not notable either. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 17:49, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as the current article is not convincing and I found nothing better. SwisterTwister talk 22:58, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 22:58, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 22:58, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:47, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

delete. I've been unable to find significant independent coverage of this group in any sources, let alone reliable ones. Thryduulf (talk) 10:45, 14 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. Sarahj2107 (talk) 07:37, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ekkehard Nuissl[edit]

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

Does not appear to be a notable academic. Merely teaching, let alone on an honorary basis, at notable schools is not necessarily a claim to notability. A search for reliable sources results only in brief mentions. However, the article claims that he was once Vice President of the Leibniz Association and has been inducted in to the "Hall of Fame of Adult Education". I have no idea how prestigious either is, but it's possible that he could pass criterion #3 and maybe criterion #6 of WP:PROF, and I'll happily withdraw this nomination if it is shown that his position at the Leibniz Association is enough to pass criterion #3. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 14:13, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 14:19, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 14:19, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 14:19, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. A GS h-index of 18 gives a pass of WP:Prof#C1. Other achievements help. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:51, 3 May 2016 (UTC).[reply]
Keep per Xxanthippe. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by administrators since 2006. (talk) 16:40, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as I'm convinced by DGG, this is currently questionable for the needed notability. Keep perhaps if that seems to be the consensus. Asking DGG for his usual analysis. SwisterTwister talk 22:53, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Quoting h index as an absolute number without taking into consideration the field is meaningless. Almost as meaningless is using h index without considering the actual distribution of citations. 18 papers with 18 citations each give h=18, and so does 17 papers with 200 citations each and 1 with 18. The second is notable in essentially any field, the other usually not. In this case, the more highly cited works are mere reports, not peer-reviewed publications.,and so the citation figure doesn't matter at all--no academic becomes notable by such publications. In general I agree with the nominator: the positions are not intrinsically notable, nor likely to have references showing notability. A honorary doctorate from a major university is notable .West University of Timișoara is not in that category. "honorary professor: as used in the article means merely visiting professor. DGG ( talk ) 22:20, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:47, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, essentially per DGG. Skimming the cited publications of this individual does not convince me that they meet WP:PROF; the publications are too minor, and the citations too few. Vanamonde93 (talk) 02:59, 12 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 keep. Sarahj2107 (talk) 07:33, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Cześniki[edit]

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

I am also nominating the following related pages because identical issues and topic:

Czesniki and Wilka Weglowa had any sources for years, while Kałuszyn and Fraustadt only cite a single Polish source of no known author credibility. I couldn't find anything about any of these articles in English and in any second and third-party sources. Droyselich (talk) 00:43, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 03:55, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 03:55, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I just added the Reflist, pictures from Commons, and citations to Battle of Cześniki, Battle of Wólka Węglowa, and Battle of Kałuszyn. Too bad, nobody took care of these entries before now, but these battles were notable. Thanks, Poeticbent talk 05:45, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep since they have now been improved. WP:V requires that articles should be verifiable, not that they should be verified, though that is obviously better. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:34, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and I nearly closed, these are convincing enough for notability. SwisterTwister talk 23:38, 18 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. Consensus does not preclude userfication if someone requests that. joe decker ^talk 00:44, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Tigirlily[edit]

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

Article on a band which is possibly up-and-coming, but not notable at this time. Provided references were a couple of local news articles, and I found nothing better. A7 speedy nomination was declined. --Finngall ^talk 20:10, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of North Dakota-related deletion discussions. --Finngall ^talk 20:15, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. --Finngall ^talk 20:15, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Userfy. This band seems like they are on the brink of notability, and that way the creator can add references as they become available and then move the article to mainspace when it meets the guidelines for inclusion. White Arabian Filly ^Neigh 15:43, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and then Userfy if needed, none of this is solidly better convincing of keeping and improving with the needed notability. SwisterTwister talk 22:59, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:43, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Outside of a few minor local interest pieces they lack coverage in independent reliable sources. Note that the deceptively claimed billboard charting is regional not national. duffbeerforme (talk) 07:54, 19 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. Michig (talk) 08:16, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Abdul Khaliq Masroor[edit]

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

My searches found nothing at all to suggest the necessary notability improvements and that would not surprising since there's not a large amount of information and also given his age. SwisterTwister talk 20:14, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 20:15, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 20:15, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- agreed, the notability is lacking, needs to be removed. NikolaiHo 21:23, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:42, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Wow, there really isn't anything out there about this guy. Should we see if the article creator has any sources? Tpdwkouaa (talk) 00:56, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete via WP:PAK - no sources to establish notability. --lTopGunl (talk) 14:46, 11 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. joe decker ^talk 00:43, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Kōji Ogata[edit]

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

He worked on the Boogiepop series and did a poster for Origin: Spirits of the Past, and one non-notable video game. Is that enough to keep him around? AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 00:42, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 00:42, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 00:42, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 00:42, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 00:42, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 00:42, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There is another Koji Ogata page so if this gets deleted, the other one should assume this name. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 00:44, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

AngusWOOF, what is the other page? Surely not this one: Koji Ogata (karateka). —Prhart com♥ 12:43, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That's the other one I saw. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 14:15, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I thought you were implying they were somehow related. Now I understand that you know that is just some random karate instructor; not they same guy. That karate guy's article should be deleted too., actually. —Prhart com♥ 14:31, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This appears to be a case where the anime adaptation of the manga received notability. I feel bad for the creator of the manga series, but sometimes this is the way things go. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 13:23, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Does the notable anime adaptation have an article? —Prhart com♥ 12:43, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes here: Origin: Spirits of the Past, although now that I take a second glance it needs more sources as well. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 13:52, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

And it doesn't mention Ogata. Thanks. —Prhart com♥ 14:31, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. We're not there at all, for notability. Does not meet GNG nor CREATIVE. —Prhart com♥ 14:31, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as not at all convincing for any applicable notability. SwisterTwister talk 23:39, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails GNG. Philafrenzy (talk) 09:17, 19 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. Nakon 02:44, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Fairford Electronics Ltd[edit]

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

Nearly A7 material if it wasn't for "Fairford became the first company in the world to design and produce a fully digital three phase Motor Controller with automatic Energy Optimising"; my searches have found nothing convincingly better and the current article is still questionable for notability. It's worth noting this has basically stayed the same somewhat since I reviewed it in May 2012. SwisterTwister talk 20:32, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 20:33, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 20:33, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 20:33, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 20:33, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Delete. Just commercial blurb (paid editing?). No independent sources. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:25, 7 May 2016 (UTC).[reply]
Keep. Inventing a soft start controller for 3-phase motors is not just commercial blurp but notable and has independent sources. DeVerm (talk) 02:06, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:40, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or incubate - From what I can see a good 2/3 of the article text is about their invention, which has it's own article. What's left about the company itself isn't promising as a standalone article. Tpdwkouaa (talk) 00:51, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There is an article about their invention but it does not include anything about the history nor inventor. It could be merged to that article, with a redirect for the company name. DeVerm (talk) 19:34, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

delete fails WP:CORP. the few gnews hits it gets are either passing mentions or primary sources. LibStar (talk) 17:23, 20 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 List of Mobile Suit Gundam characters. I guess? Or elsewhere as Gundamologists may deem best. Sandstein 17:42, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

RB-79 Ball[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Seven years ago this was kept, with, sigh, the prevailing argument being "it appears in several anime series" so WP:ITSIMPORTANT. Let's see me be clear: this is not a valid argument. I cannot find any independent, in-depth coverage about this having significant cultural impact or such. Anyone can find some refs which discuss this robot that are not fansite/plot summaries? I can't :( _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 11:22, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect perhaps as of course best connected to that but nothing convincingly suggesting a better separate article. SwisterTwister talk 00:06, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect where? --Michig (talk) 08:12, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I thought of the series itself but anything linked works. SwisterTwister talk 23:42, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 00:07, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 21:24, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:36, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Move and Redirect to it's appropriate character list article. Tpdwkouaa (talk) 01:00, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Where should it be moved to and once it has been moved, where should it be redirected to? And why? --Michig (talk) 08:12, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect - Without a sources to establish notability, there is no need for an article. TTN (talk) 21:06, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect where? --Michig (talk) 08:12, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Michig: Redirect target could be List of Mobile Suit Gundam characters. I suggest pinging people when you post here, I doubt TTN will see your comment otherwise. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:56, 18 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 no consensus. May need another and more thorough discussion. Sandstein 17:45, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Resource Guru[edit]

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

no actual evidence of notability a third party ref from techcrunch is not by itself sufficient. DGG ( talk ) 08:53, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I've added additional sources such as Dow Jones and articles written about company. ~ Ablaze (talk) 11:16, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 17:53, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 17:53, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 17:53, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 17:53, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as even with Dow Jones, this is still questionable and my searches have found nothing solidly better convincing and that's not surprising considering the company was founded about 5 years ago or so. SwisterTwister talk 07:31, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I understand why you think it is questionable and I don't want to just compare it to other similar, less sourced, yet not considered for deletion articles. The company has been mentioned in numerous articles and blogs such as Small Business Trends, Capterra, Docurated and another TechCrunch article to name a few. I will however refer to DGG and your more experienced judgement since you seem to focus a lot more on articles for deletion that I do. For the record I have never worked for the company. I was only trying to document a small UK based company who seem to be constantly tweaking and improving themselves if you read their blog. ~ Ablaze (talk) 10:07, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There are several hundred thousand articles in WP accepted in earlier years when the standards were lower that we need to either upgrade or remove. The least we can do is not add to them. DGG ( talk ) 23:40, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 21:25, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Actual evidence that nominator could not find (but some was there nonetheless) has been added since nomination. DeVerm (talk) 04:01, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:35, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Even considering the apparently new improvements, the article is still not solidly convincing and because it's still a somewhat newly started company, it's also unlikely there's anything else better. SwisterTwister talk 23:44, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG and fails WP:CORPDEPTH. The current references in the article are all WP:SPS. I couldn't find anything better on searching online either. I would be glad to change my decision if someone can show me coverage in reliable and independent sources. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 01:25, 19 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. joe decker ^talk 00:42, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Kiyonori Matsuo[edit]

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

He's in Oricon but it is not clear how notable he is as his works are fairly old for the database. Needs a search back. Other than that, he has only sung one theme song for an anime (Maison Ikkoku). JA Wikipedia doesn't show much either, just a discography. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 00:34, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 00:34, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 00:34, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 00:34, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging Prosperosity for Oricon data lookup. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 23:32, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now at best as I've found a few links but nothing noticeably better, still questionable for notability. SwisterTwister talk 23:45, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I see nothing that indicates notability here. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 13:13, 19 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 keep. (non-admin closure) st170e^talk 01:20, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Takayoshi Sato[edit]

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

Japanese video game programmer. Of three refs in article, two are for interviews and one (deleted) was a wiki-type page. Further research turns up maybe one decent ref, but not enough to establish the independent in-depth coverage needed for notability. HappyValleyEditor (talk) 05:16, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see what's wong with the interviews. Interviews are the best information sources, you know. Anyway, the are articles with less information and references and still you keep them (for example: Mari Asato) DaftRose (talk) 18:08, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There is not any prohibition from using info from an interview DaftRose. This article subject is notable, and has references which offer significant coverage in WP:RS reliable sources. thereby passing WP:GNG. Fouetté rond de jambe en tournant (talk) 18:38, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Fouetté rond de jambe en tournant, you are correct that there is no prohibition, but the supplement to WP:Verifiability says to treat them as primary rather than secondary sources. What is missing from this article are good secondary sources, which is why I nominated the article.HappyValleyEditor (talk) 21:57, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. A quick search on the WP:VG/RS custom Google search engine brings up some more reliable sources and info: apparently Sato also worked on Fatale by Tale of Tales and worked with Virtual Heroes, Inc.. Sato was interviewed for Game Developer, which can be found here. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 08:05, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 21:25, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:33, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 15:59, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 15:59, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 16:00, 11 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. Sarahj2107 (talk) 07:26, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

TimberTech[edit]

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

insufficient sources for notability , . The refs are press releases and consumer complaints. DGG ( talk ) 18:24, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:23, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:23, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nothing actually suggesting any applicable notability. SwisterTwister talk 20:46, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Music1201 ^talk 22:37, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:32, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: My searches turned up one newspaper piece about the firm, which I have added as a reference, but that was local coverage. Other than that, I am seeing only PR-based announcements, though in substantial quantity. The firm and its products do seem to have a fair number of international outlets, which saved the article from speedy-deletion at outset, but I am seeing nothing to meet WP:CORPDEPTH or WP:GNG. (If this article does survive AfD, it is questionable whether its Potential Lawsuit section should remain, unless there is evidence that it became a reality.) AllyD (talk) 18:08, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Apart from the one local coverage, I found a trivial mention in NYtimes where it says The leading makers of these decks are Trex and TimberTech,. However, there are no other reliable sources which I can use for significant coverage about this company. I'm not convinced that it requires an article at this moment. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 01:46, 19 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.