The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 05:54, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Embassy of Tanzania, Berlin[edit]

Embassy of Tanzania, Berlin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

fails WP:ORG. embassies are not inherently notable. there is also no bilateral article to redirect to. nominating for the same reasons:

• High Commission of Tanzania, Lusaka
• High Commission of Tanzania, Pretoria
• Embassy of France, Dar es Salaam

LibStar (talk) 23:43, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 00:21, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Blythwood (talk) 05:14, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. No point in having such tiny articles that only restate the article title. ¡Bozzio! 15:33, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:15, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Tanzania-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:15, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:15, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Zambia-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:15, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:15, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:15, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per Bozzio. Chris Troutman (talk) 21:12, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Ice Bucket Challenge. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 23:11, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Pete Frates[edit]

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

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

Filthy Frank's page was deleted because he was only notable for the Harlem Shake. This guy is only notable for the Ice Bucket Challenge. WP:BLP1E applies. KATMAKROFAN (talk) 23:34, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Ice Bucket Challenge. Blythwood (talk) 05:14, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Ice Bucket Challenge. Lots of news coverage, but seems to be a case of WP:BLP1E. ¡Bozzio! 15:35, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:17, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:17, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:17, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Ice Bucket Challenge. I created Pete Frates as a redirect with no intention to make it an article, and I still feel that's the right approach. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:31, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Ice Bucket Challenge: Doesn't seem notable for individual article. —MRD2014 (talk • contribs) 23:48, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect as per above comments. It should be noted, however, that BLP1E applied just as much to the John Henry Williams page, which was recently kept. These AfDs are getting more inconsistent by the week. - Bbny-wiki-editor (talk) 01:19, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please avoid WP:OTHERSTUFF arguments. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:07, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Please go play Wiki Lawyer somewhere else. There's no point in having these AfDs if standards are going to be applied in such an inconsistent manner. - Bbny-wiki-editor (talk) 01:05, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) –Davey2010^Talk 23:11, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mercury Filmworks[edit]

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

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

Fails WP:BIZ, WP:GNG Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ (talk) 23:14, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ (talk) 23:17, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ (talk) 23:17, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ (talk) 23:17, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per meeting WP:CORP. The article needs use of available expansion and sourcing. Speaking toward its European expansion Variety does call it Canada’s premiere animation studio, Ottawa Business Journal speaks toward of it in depth when reporting on Canadian animation studios raising funds, Animation Magazine speaks toward it in detail staffing when it reports "Culbert Appointed VP of Production at Mercury Filmworks", and it also when it reports the "Annecy Details 2016 Pro Conferences" (a major animation industry conference), and the are many other sources available to show that under WP:NRVE and WP:NEXIST we have a reasonable assertion of topic notability, even if currently unsourced. So sorry nominator, we improve weak topics and not delete simply because they need editorial attention. WP:BEFORE is always a great tool to use. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 10:35, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:02, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:02, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep as passing WP:CORP and WP:GNG. In addition to Michael's examples, I would add this other Variety article, as well as this article from the Canadian childen's content trade magazine Kidscreen on a new digital venture from the company. There's really no shortage of Gnews coverage on the company. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:06, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:12, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep There seem to be enough available sources for an expansion. Dimadick (talk) 17:17, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Requires expansion but is not worthy of deletion. -- Dane2007 ^talk 18:13, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 05:54, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Educational Issues in Fresno Unified[edit]

Educational Issues in Fresno Unified (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Appears to be a group project to create an article on Wikipedia based on the article creator's username. Non-encyclopedic essay about current controversies in a local school district. TonyBallioni (talk) 21:52, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Appears to fail WP:GNG. Doesn't belong in the encyclopedia. -- Dane2007 ^talk 21:56, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete as a content fork. Blythwood (talk) 05:18, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:59, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Materialscientist (talk) 00:23, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Frank Cooper (Youtuber)[edit]

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

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

Disputed PROD, concern was: Non-notable YouTube personality. Fails NBIO and the GNG. Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 21:50, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Reasons for opposing the deletion of article "Frank Cooper" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Matthewethanchowtoy (talk • contribs) 21:52, 10 October 2016 (UTC) It has been suggested that "Frank Cooper" is irrelevant and this page should be removed. I disagree with this due to the fact that he is a very important and significant figure for the hobby NERF, where he promotes the hobby to new viewers. NERF is in turn a very important hobby/brand/toy because many kids play with them, and NERF blasters draw in an estimated $400 US million dollars a year.[reply]

In conclusion, while he does not have as many views or subscribers as some channels, he is still significant because of his promotion for the hobby NERF. I feel this page should stay up.

Any more comments/questions may be posted in this talk page or on my talk page. Regards,Matthewethanchowtoy (talk) 21:51, 10 October 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Matthewethanchowtoy (talk • contribs)

• Delete From WP:INHERIT:

Inherited notability is the idea that something qualifies for an article merely because it was associated with some other, legitimately notable subjects. This is usually phrased as "____ is notable, because it is associated with Important Subject."

So Frank Cooper is notable because he is associated with NERF? I do not think that is sufficient justification for keeping the page. Cheers Comatmebro User talk:Comatmebro 22:35, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

But NERF is one of the largest toy brands in the world right now. Matthewethanchowtoy (talk) 22:43, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Additionally, he has most surely caused more sales in this hobby, he has created many viral videos. NERF is significant again because it is one of the largest toy brands in the world, and contributes vastly to the global toy market. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Matthewethanchowtoy (talk • contribs) 22:47, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. --Animalparty! (talk) 23:41, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as failing the General notability guideline, as summarized in the "Golden rule". I have found no significant coverage of this person in any reliable, independent sources. It is apparent that the article creator has an interest in this subject, but notability requires evidence that sources with a reputation for accuracy and editorial judgement have already given attention to a subject. Until then, it is TOO SOON for a Wikipedia article. --Animalparty! (talk) 23:48, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. "Outdated" is indeed not a reason for deletion and the other issues appear to have been resolved. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 05:55, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

GeneCalling[edit]

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

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

1st nomination was in 2007; the few folks who !voted, noted then this was PROMO but found it notable. Article was created by a SPA (Special:Contributions/Mbeach14) and has hardly changed since it was created, and technology is now far outdated. No reason for this promo cruft to exist. Jytdog (talk) 21:29, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• I have no opinion at present about whether this should be kept or deleted, but must point out that the technology being far outdated is not a valid reason for, or contributory factor towards, deletion. We cover the history of science as well as current science. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 21:49, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:42, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:42, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, When you look at the article's history it appears that Seraphimblade has removed much of the promotional stuff. What remains seems to be in line with the sentiment held at the last AfD which was kept. 92.2.76.202 (talk) 21:20, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

note to closer: per its contribs IP appears to have arrived simply to oppose my !votes; this is a weak rationale as is the other. I appear to have a "fan" in Manchester. Jytdog (talk) 21:29, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Outdated is no reason to delete. Perhaps even adds strength to keep argument, so that there is some encyclopedic record of it. Promotional argument has been largely addressed. Eno Lirpa (talk) 12:31, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - As stated above, outdated isn't a reason to delete. -- Dane2007 ^talk 18:15, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

nobody voting !keep is paying attention to the abysmal, badly-sourced, PROMO state of the article. In the face of these thoughtless !votes it is clear that the article will be kept and I will just have to withdraw this and rewrite it from scratch. Frustrating but this is the nature of working in a community Jytdog (talk) 19:20, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I partially rewrote the article by cutting promotional content, rewriting the lead, and adding independent reliable sources. Of the sources in the article, The Kirst 2005, Green 2001, and Klein 2002 sources seem independent reliable sources with enough depth to write a short article on the topic. Multiple reliable sources are sufficient for notability per WP:GNG and with the promotional content largely gone, WP:PROMO and WP:TNT no longer apply. There is of course much room for improvement, but the article has WP:POTENTIAL. A notable topic and an article with WP:SURMOUNTABLE problems suggests keeping the article. --Mark viking (talk) 21:29, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 05:56, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nikki Vianna[edit]

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

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

Non-notable. Fails NBIO and the GNG. I only found one legitimate article in a reliable source about her. Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 21:11, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 21:12, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. Ok, I temporarily ended the article about the singer, please feel free to discuss inclusion, review the links I have outlined. I have not removed the tags on respect for the rules of wikipedia. Thank you for the corrections. Misantropileño (talk) 22:27, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I went through the sources and they are suspect at best. Mostly tabloids with one very odd Yahoo Finance article that is written in a very promotional tone. Fails WP:GNG and should be deleted. Comatmebro User talk:Comatmebro 22:38, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. Far away from subjective judgments on the referenced pages, I guess While not in banned by Wikipedia, are valid. The tone in which yahoo or other websites refers about singer is responsible for drafting and editing director, yahoo not required to comply with a policy of fairness, we in wikipedia if. The singer has over three million followers in their social networks, is much more than many of the groups and singers who are proposed to be eliminated from wikipedia. Our law is the legality of wikipedia, subjective morality should not intervene, if she is or not famous for showing her buttocks is not something that we should rest us, is part of the culture, our culture, and modeling is preferable to other issues that really affect our society. And she is a singer and a songwriter. Misantropileño (talk) 23:30, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete lack of indepdent coverage that would pass GNG.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:31, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Materialscientist (talk) 22:45, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Abrakadabr[edit]

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

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

Not enough coverage in independent, reliable sources to verify or sustian article. Fails Wikipedia's General Notability Guidelines and WP:PROF. This article looks like it exists to expound and promote this person's theories. I can find no evidence that anyone is discussing him and the references appear to be citations within his theories rather than to reliable sources about him or his work. Jbh^Talk 21:09, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Jbh^Talk 21:10, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. Jbh^Talk 21:10, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Arab Emirates-related deletion discussions. Jbh^Talk 21:10, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Yemen-related deletion discussions. Jbh^Talk 21:10, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. No sources to be found. May change vote if they can be. Is this BLP a hoax? At best WP:Fringe. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:39, 10 October 2016 (UTC).[reply]
• Speedy delete - Hoax. I am fairly certain this was speedily deleted yesterday as a hoax but created by a different editor??  Velella  ^{Velella Talk}   22:09, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as hoax same article as recently created at GomerOzDubar. Copy at User:Lexington Kromwell/sandbox. Likely socks of User:Mollymaybach See WP:ANI#GomerOzDubar Hoax?. --Jules (Mrjulesd) 22:12, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Note I tagged the article ((db-hoax)) per above. Jbh^Talk 22:37, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 05:58, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ravertooth tiger[edit]

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

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

Non-notable record label. Fails NCORP and the GNG. Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 20:37, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 20:38, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 20:38, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 20:38, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete No assertions of notability made in the article. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 20:39, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Grand total of zero Google News hits [1], and no reliable sources found with a broader search. TonyBallioni (talk) 20:42, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete-Nothing found to establish notability ABF99 (talk) 02:48, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, not notable. ¡Bozzio! 15:36, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete – A few searches have provided no coverage in reliable sources; fails WP:N. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:00, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Not notable at all. -- Dane2007 ^talk 18:16, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 05:58, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Policies of Telangana State[edit]

Policies of Telangana State (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Surely the state of Telengana has many policies; more than can be contained in a single Wikipedia article. And if the article were to become comprehensive, it would essentially be a textbook of the laws an policies of Telengana. There is not an equivalent article on the policies of any other state or nation (although articles about specific government officials do exist) so there is no clear reason why this article (with its scant sourcing) should exist. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 20:25, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:14, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:14, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. The Government of Telangana must be pretty thrifty if they're relying on Wikipedia to inform the public of their policies. ¡Bozzio! 15:38, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: This article could be merged within List of government schemes in India (only blue links) or Government of Telangana (supported by multiple RSes). For now, WP:TNT it (considering the low quality of contents and sourcing in there. there also appears to be some wp:copyvio issues). Anup [Talk] 18:11, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Vanamonde (talk) 07:31, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Arslan Sheraz[edit]

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

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

Delete. Poorly sourced article, with some advertorial/promotional overtones, about a musician -- he may have a valid claim to passing WP:NMUSIC, but with inadequate sourcing it's hard to determine what's accurate and what's PR bumf. Initially I speedy deleted this G11 (unambiguous advertising and promotion), but then following a request from the creator I restored it to her own sandbox for improvement -- upon which she added a couple of unreliable PR blog sources and then copy-pasted the sandbox page back into articlespace again without actually addressing the tone problems at all. It was then flagged for G11 again by another editor, which in turn was almost immediately declined by still another editor. This all remains without prejudice against recreation in the future if somebody can write and source a proper article about him that reads like an encyclopedia article instead of an EPK -- but this is still not appropriate for inclusion in its current form. Bearcat (talk) 18:59, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete ---No reliable sources found to establish notability, article needs much better sourcing and tone, as mentioned. ABF99 (talk) 03:38, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Don't Delete --- I am agreed with the wordings which are mentioned above and yes it was already deleted and I made a request for restoring it because I wanted to make some changes in it. And I also removed some content which was seems to be like promotional content however I am still making changes in this article and I hope within a day it will be completely changed :) So, rather than deleting kindly give me time for making changes and writing in a proper way. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AngelaRola (talk • contribs) 04:08, 11 October 2016 (UTC) "" Recreated from scratch "" Hey, I put my hard work for recreation of this article and removed all the content which was seems to be promotional content. Moreover I also included his accurate information. Kindly review it again and remove this tag of deletion from the article after reviewing again — Preceding unsigned comment added by AngelaRola (talk • contribs) 06:04, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. This is the second AfD I've seen this week with an attempt to tamper with it by doing an early, improper close. —C.Fred (talk) 18:18, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Don't Delete ---This article should not be deleted as above I mentioned that I will take some time to make changes and I have done all things, I've removed the content which seems to be promotional while I also recreated the article from scratch, You can also review the article before anyone hit the delete button. There is a lot of hardowrk behind this article, Kindly don't remove it again and again over. AngelaRola (talk) 07:55, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Don't Delete --- I am not author of this article but I read this article just a few minutes ago and I didn't find any thing due to which this article should be deleted. However article needs to be improved. So, I think rather than deletion there should some tags be added for improvement of the article like if someone wants to help for improving otherwise there is nothing for deletion.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Muzentwala12 (talk • contribs)

— Muzentwala12 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

• Don't Delete --- This article has some flaws and needs lil bit improvement but I don't consider it to be deleted.damqalandar (talk —Preceding undated comment added 05:53, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

— damqalandar (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

• Delete there are no reliable independent sources provided that establish notability- fails to meet WP:NMUSIC. If the article's creator requires extra time then it should be worked on in their sandbox not in the main space, then check before moving it again. In its current form in needs considerable improvement & most importantly suitable references. Dan arndt (talk) 12:25, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment: I am administrator in Commons. AngelaRola and Muzentwala12 have no contributions in Commons except uploading copyright violations about Arslan Sheraz (now all deleted). Damqalandar is not a registered user in Commons. Taivo (talk) 14:37, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete non-notable singer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:23, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was withdrawn by nominator. Delete !votes not a significant proportion of the total. (non-admin closure) Primefac (talk) 22:24, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Pen-Pineapple-Apple-Pen[edit]

Pen-Pineapple-Apple-Pen (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

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)).

YouTube views, a Bieber tweet, and filler stories by news sites do not make a stub article's topic notable. KATMAKROFAN (talk) 18:15, 10 October 2016 (UTC) Withdrawn, taking to PROM with singer's article. KATMAKROFAN (talk) 00:21, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. In-depth coverage by the BBC [2], CNN [3], The Straits Times [4], India Today [5], and CTV [6] among others would show that the subject meets WP:GNG. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 18:38, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

All news sites publish filler sometimes. We really need to cut down on YouTube and internet meme coverage per WP:NOTKNOWYOURMEME. KATMAKROFAN (talk) 19:17, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If reliable sources cover it, it's legitimate coverage of cultural phenomena. There are plenty of well-sourced articles on Youtube stars and internet memes on Wikipedia. WP:IDONTLIKEIT isn't a reason for deletion if the sourcing is there. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 19:45, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If there are sources, import it to Wikinews and rewrite it completely a) to be more news-y and b) for CC-BY-2.5 compliance. KATMAKROFAN (talk) 20:50, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"If" isn't the question, I've shown that it clearly does and is a well-sourced cultural phenomenon that meets general notability guideline for coverage. Wikinews is a terrible Wikimedia project anyway. As for lasting coverage, this is well into its second week of coverage and international reliable sources have talked about its popularity in the Philippines, [7] Wales,[8] Hong Kong [9] and India [10]. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 15:06, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete per WP:NOTNEWS. All of the sources are simply gee-whiz news stories over a week or two.(It seems that events have overtaken us and this has charted in Japan, and maybe elsewhere. 16:26, 14 October 2016 (UTC)) 86.17.222.157 (talk) 20:38, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete No prejudice to re-creation if this song somehow charts on Billboard, but as-is just another viral video filling time on newscasts and viral video shows until the seven-day forecast rehash. Nate • (chatter) 20:39, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per User:Mrschimpf and User:86.17.222.157, it is not news. But if it really becomes a music album of some sort, not just a viral video, I'd suggest to keep it.
  ^∞😃 Target360YT 😃^∞ (talk · contribs) 02:00, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, but keep until trend is over. As per above, it should definitely be deleted as per WP:NOTNEWS. However, since it is still ongoing, I suggest we keep this article for now and renominate it immediately for speedy deletion about 3-4 months later.XFusionSGX (talk) 06:13, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• That's not the way Wikipedia, in particular WP:NOTNEWS, works. We don't keep articles while their topics are in the news and then delete them afterwards, but rather wait until they have been shown to have more than fleeting coverage before writing an article. A more policy-compliant way to deal with this would be to delete it for now and then recreate it if it later transpires that it has lasting notability beyond the current news cycle. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 17:43, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Now that it is notable and it has even topped the charts, my stance now is to just simply keep it per WP:GNG and WP:NSONG as below. XFusionSGX (talk) 04:03, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. As Patar knight notes, this video has received significant coverage in multiple reliable sources worldwide. This is not routine coverage, the song is described as a "viral sensation". Who are Wikipedia editors to decide if a topic is "filler" or not? That smacks of IDONTLIKEIT. The coverage has persisted for weeks so is not just one news cycle. If editors really must not have an article on this, then the content must be merged to Daimaou Kosaka, the comedian who created the song. Don't go thinking about deleting that bio - check his Japanese Wikipedia bio, he's definitely notable there and what's notable in Japan is notable for English Wikipedia too. Fences&Windows 18:21, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Of course it's routine coverage. For a few days in late September there were news reports that this was a "viral sensation", but such news reports over any other few days, or other news outlets over the same few days, will routinely describe something else as a "viral sensation". The fact that many journalists are too lazy to look beyond what's trending on Twitter or wherever doesn't mean that we should emulate them. This is precisely the kind of situation that WP:NOTNEWS is designed for. And, no, I wouldn't dream about asking for the deletion of the article on Daimaou Kosaka, but his notability is not inherited by everything he creates. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 18:37, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Given the coverage of the song and the notability of its creator, it seems that merging the content to the creator's page is what should occur instead of deletion, if the delete !votes have it. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 15:06, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Agree per User:Patar knight. Merging is a good idea so solve the problem. I'd say Keep this article until the trend is over, then Merge into Daimaou Kosaka. Also, leaving a redirect is a good idea as pageview statistics are over the top. ^∞😃 Target360YT 😃^∞ (talk · contribs) 12:14, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep obvious WP:GNG pass. SSTflyer 12:37, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • If still not convinced, try searching for Japanese sources. SSTflyer 12:41, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• From WP:NOTNEWS: "Wikipedia considers the enduring notability of persons and events". Maybe younger editors have a different attention span, but as far as I'm concerned a few weeks is not "enduring". Would we consider a topic to have enduring notability if it got a couple of weeks of coverage in, say, 1966 rather than 2016? 86.17.222.157 (talk) 19:02, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• That would be more of an issue of WP:RECENTism than anything else I'd think too. RickinBaltimore (talk) 16:30, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Pen-Pineapple-Apple-Pen is a piece of music on sales at iTunes [11]. And it sells in 134 countries [12]. So, if this is removed, all song titles will be removed. Carl Daniels (talk) 19:32, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep It has debuted on the Japan Hot 100 at number 4 and charted on the US Bubbling Under Hot 100 Singles, thus passing WP:NSONG. The song and video has received plenty of coverage in reliable sources as well. —SomeoneNamedDerek (talk) 20:30, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep – Passes WP:NSONG, having received enough coverage to qualify for an article and per having charted on two Billboard charts: Bubbling Under Hot 100 and Japan Hot 100. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:29, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't pass it for Bubbling Under, but Billboard Japan Hot 100 is notable. If it hits Oricon, then it'll be notable for sure. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 00:53, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep – Unlike many viral songs, this song has actually charted on various charts. Yoshiman6464 (talk) 22:42, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. I haven't read the above discussion but this has now come up at RfD, or rather a redirect to it, at Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2016_October_13#Apple_pen. There, we're discussing the redirect not the article, but one will follow the other. Nominated at RfD by User:SSTflyer, who has not commented here or there, but I see a couple of regs here from RfD, User:AngusWOOF and User:Patar knight, all of which are regs at RfD. The R will have to follow the article, not the other way around, so there is little point discussing it at the RfD. Si Trew (talk) 11:25, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The song may be viral, but it's charted, so to me at least it would meet WP:NSONG. RickinBaltimore (talk) 16:30, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete.  Sandstein  18:07, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Plasmolifting[edit]

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

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

This article is essentially an ad for one company's branded version of autologous blood injection. Since we already have an article on the generic topic, the only reason for the existence of this article is to promote the particular developers' claims. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 16:48, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:32, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:32, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• delete and salt promotional brochure. gah. Jytdog (talk) 07:17, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Since the product is primarily marketed outside the Anglo-Saxon world, we dont have that many English language sources. This should mean that we ought to avoid letting a bias in favor of Englishness cloud our judgement on whether this is notable. 92.2.76.202 (talk) 21:17, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

note to closer: per its contribs IP appears to have arrived simply to oppose my !votes; this is a weak rationale as is the other. I appear to have a "fan" in Manchester. Jytdog (talk) 21:31, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@92.2.76.202: The availability of sources is not the problem. The product is one brand of a generic process for which Wikipedia already has an article. Since there is no mention of the product at the existing generic process article, there is no point in a redirect, so the proper solution to the problem of WP:SPAM is deletion. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 22:09, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into autologous blood injection, to the extent that the suggested (sourced) application for photodermatosis treatment might get a mention there. Otherwise superfluous and promotional.-- Elmidae (talk · contribs) 13:23, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete and salt per nominator. Citobun (talk) 13:39, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - not even sources worth a redirect. Not sure about salting though. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 15:32, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Drmies (talk) 23:48, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Tonetta (musician)[edit]

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

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

No indication of notability. Single source of questionable quality. Zackmann08 (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 16:01, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This rationale suggests you only looked at what was in the article. --Michig (talk) 19:47, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:31, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:31, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. There's no claim of notability here that would pass WP:NMUSIC — the article basically amounts to "he exists" — and the only source here is a Q&A interview on a blog, so there's no claim to passing WP:GNG either. Bearcat (talk) 21:11, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. The Quietus is not a blog. --Michig (talk) 19:38, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Coverage that exists is adequate to demonstrate notability, e.g. [13], [14], [15], [16], [17], [18], [19], [20]. --Michig (talk) 19:47, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I've reviewed Michig's sources. Qualifies on GNG. Lourdes 10:24, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Drmies (talk) 23:48, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Henrik von Scheel[edit]

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

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

No indications that the article's grandiose claims are accurate. The one reliable third-party source, Times, has gone 404, but the archived copy I found does not mention von Scheel. Google News only gives two blogs, no reliable sources. That leaves us with this fawning biography which I rather doubt was independent or subject to meaningful editorial oversight. Huon (talk) 10:41, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:24, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:24, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:25, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete lack of reliable sources to back up the grandiose claims of the article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:11, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. AustralianRupert (talk) 01:27, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Marrickville Metro Shopping Centre[edit]

Marrickville Metro Shopping Centre (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Appears to fail the WP:GNG. While there are a few mentions out there in news articles the coverage appears to not be significant enough as to confer notability. Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 06:06, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Shopping malls-related deletion discussions. Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 06:07, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 06:07, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - nothing notable about this shopping centre. Ajf773 (talk) 03:40, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete -not enough significant coverage, as noted. ABF99 (talk) 03:50, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete -as per nom and comments above. A run-of-the-mill shopping mall. Not notable.Wayne 17:04, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete.  Sandstein  18:12, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Knopflerfish[edit]

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

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

Appears to fail WP:GNG and WP:NORG, with a lack of significant coverage in reliable, third-party sources. Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 05:45, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 05:46, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• delete apart from no sources at all here, a basic WP:BEFORE shows a few passing mentions in news and books, but I haven't found anything actually about it. Willing to be convinced ... - David Gerard (talk) 10:02, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:20, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Undecided - it's certainly not an unknown; there's the odd paper describing implementations [21], stackoverflow has ~30 questions about it [22], and generally a fair amount of talk on boards etc. But yeah, nothing specifically about it. I'm not too firm with software notability criteria; this may not qualify.-- Elmidae (talk · contribs) 08:37, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 East Waynesville Baptist Church. MBisanz ^talk 01:04, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Chan Chandler[edit]

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

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

A classic example of failing WP:BLP1E - the subject is not notable for anything apart from this event. StAnselm (talk) 02:08, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Conservatism-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:29, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:29, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:29, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:29, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• This may have been nominated as a result of my raising it at the closely related Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/East Waynesville Baptist Church. I would suggest these two articles be considered jointly. If one is kept, the other could well be retained as a redirect to that target page. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:31, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:32, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:32, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete He was a pastor of a church of about 100 members who received some attention for his method of making a stand about how he felt about the moral positions of political candidates. It was clearly one event. It is also not very good coverage, considering that the article states that there was allegedly a recording of what he said. Either what Chandler said was or was not recorded, such poor wording suggests less than notable level coverage. I would also advocate deleting the article on the congregation he lead, unless people can find sources covering that congregation from its organization to dispersal or current functioning, sources in the article do not make it clear it still exists slightly more than 10 years after the incident in question, it might, but we need more sources to justify the article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:49, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the article doesn't mention the audio recording any more - I removed it since it was not supported by the cited source. StAnselm (talk) 03:03, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Keep Passes WP:GNG — Preceding unsigned comment added by JohnTombs48 (talk • contribs) 08:01, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What do you think of the BLP1E issue? Is there significant coverage outside of that event? StAnselm (talk) 10:07, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge into the main article at East Waynesville Baptist Church. I could see a Weak Keep is there was more evidence on his impact onto the larger evangelical movement as a whole or other situations impacted by his actions. South Nashua (talk) 18:56, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. He used up seven minutes of his 15 minutes of fame. Bearian (talk) 21:29, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to the church, because he was its pastor for a while. DGG ( talk ) 00:07, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As nominator, I have no problem with redirecting. StAnselm (talk) 00:36, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to the church.E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:32, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Possibly Redirect to church, but both this and the church article have the feel of COATRACK articles from a Presidential election 12 years ago. I suspect that the church article ought also to be deleted. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:12, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 05:59, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Arjun Tudu[edit]

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

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

Player fails WP:NFOOTY and WP:GNG. PROD contested cause he was on the bench twice this season and is bound to make his debut soon... WP:CRYSTALBALL much. ArsenalFan700 (talk) 17:26, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 17:41, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. GiantSnowman 17:41, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Fails NFOOTY as has not played senior international football nor played in a fully professional league. No indication that subject has garnered significant reliable coverage for any other achievements to satisfy GNG. A case of WP:TOOSOON at best. Fenix down (talk) 17:48, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above. KGirlTrucker81 ^{huh? what I'm been doing} 20:09, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete fails WP:NFOOTY and WP:GNG. — Yellow Dingo (talk) 05:17, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - He has not played in a fully pro league or received significant coverage, meaning the article fails WP:NSPORT and WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik (talk) 21:41, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Delete indeed. Promising player, but not notable enough yet. Coderzombie (talk) 03:07, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Classic case of WP:TOOSOON. Fails WP:NFOOTY and WP:GNG. Can always be recreated in the future. Inter&anthro (talk) 20:14, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. -- Dane2007 ^talk 18:16, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 close. As noted below, this is the wrong forum. Feel free to open a discussion at WP:RFD if you wish. (non-admin closure) Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:22, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Monastery of Our Lady of Kazan (Tambov)[edit]

Monastery of Our Lady of Kazan (Tambov) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

The redirect is meaningless, because the city of Tambov ≠ monastery in this city. The separate article is possible to create (ru:Казанский монастырь (Тамбов)), the monastery is notable for Wikipedia. I don't understand how such redirects follow the policy.

I may create a stub if the redirect will be deleted. --Wolverène (talk) 16:56, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Two things. First, this should be listed at WP:RFD as it is a redirect not an article. Second, if you can write the article, you can do so without having the redirect deleted . Just remove the redirect and write the article. -- GB fan 17:30, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hello, GB fan. I didn't know that this should be discussed at RFD because enwp is not my home project; next time I'll start in the right place. As for the second thing, I'll think about but it's more interesting to be the original author of the first edit. :) Just a point of principle, in some sense. Regards, --Wolverène (talk) 18:07, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 09:28, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Black Metaphor[edit]

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

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

It most possibly lacks WP:MUSICBIO and WP:REFERENCE. DBrown SPS (talk) 16:20, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:54, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:54, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:55, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep it already has references to reliable sources such as The Source and music genre specific sources such as XXL Magazine. It was approved in January 2015 through the AFC process. Atlantic306 (talk) 18:37, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: There is no reliable source linked to the person, making it unsourced. The Source and XXL are lowered besides reliable, but the others aren't highly known. 206.125.47.10 (talk) 21:16, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Fails WP:BASIC, WP:ANYBIO, and WP:MUSICBIO. Most of the sources cited are trivial mentions, or are interviews, which are considered primary sources. "People are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources", per WP:BASIC. Magnolia677 (talk) 21:23, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment he has been signed to a major record label Warner/Chappell Music since 2012, the Source is rs as are others. Atlantic306 (talk) 21:34, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The criteria in WP:MUSICBIO states: "has released two or more albums on a major record label". Magnolia677 (talk) 22:57, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

WP:MUSICBIO is only a guideline, he seems to have produced a significant number of songs on albums released by a major label ,and to have produced charting songs so he seems to meet the spirit of the guideline rather than the exact letter of it. Atlantic306 (talk) 00:04, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Um...if it's "only a guideline", why would you care if you "meet the spirit" of it, or any part of it? I mean, it's only a guideline. It's just a wet paint sign, I can touch the wall if I want to, but maybe I'll just touch a tiny part of it, in case it's wet paint. Magnolia677 (talk) 20:02, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete pending better evidence of solidly, independent third party sources. The ones here all have compromised merit. Just to be featured in The Source (ref. 5) is not automatically indicative of third party coverage. A respectable publication, yes. But it is also an arm of a music marketing/branding parent company, which, among other things, generates press for it’s clients to be featured in The Source and its other properties. (see: http://www.thenorthstargroup.biz ).

XXL and HipHop87 (refs. 1,2,6) can be misleading, as both are chock full of legitimate coverage. Yet they become compromised in their free solicitation of content (see: http://www.xxlmag.com/submission-guidelines/ and http://hiphopsince1987.com/contact/ ), opening the door for professional promotional agencies to submit work for consideration, making it difficult to accurately vet because of varying standards from one publication to the next. I’m not entirely sure of these two—and if I’m wrong I’m wrong—but my experience recognizes the subtleties of promotional hype when I see it. (I worked in music marketing/promotion in the 90’s—and while the technology has changed over the decades, the general nature of the work hasn’t. If you truly know what you are doing a well aimed pitch usually results in a magazine hungry for content to let you write an article about your client.)

World Star Hip Hop (ref. 4) simply posts the submissions it accepts. And ref. 3 is trivial. And I’m also not sure what to make of the claimed connection to Warners/Chappell and other major labels as a sign of notability. Based on his work history up to the present it seems the connection is through the artist he is producing rather than a personal association. So I think this is trying to make a WP:NOTABILITY CONFERRED claim. We’ve seen so many of these “(fill in the blank artist name) was signed by (fill in major record label)” in AFD only to find upon investigation that it is something considerably less, but sure looks good on a resume! Looking over this subject’s bio it’s easy to imagine that is the case, but I may be wrong. The specifics may be in one of these interviews, although, as mentioned, those are unverifiable first person sources. Anyway, give me better sources, and I’ll gladly change my vote to keep. ShelbyMarion (talk) 17:28, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. ShelbyMarion's arguments carry the issue for me. Also, Danitha Jones' piece in The Source is an interview, which is a primary source, not suitable for establishing notability. Same with Ralph Bristout's piece in XXL. The guideline at MUSICBIO says that we should not rely on sources "where the musician or ensemble talks about themselves". Binksternet (talk) 13:32, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - The sources available are too trivial to count toward significant coverage. An interview cannot be reliable as the most extensive source because, as Binksternet explained, we cannot rely primarily on instances where the musician talks about himself/herself.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 20:03, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 06:00, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Daldalia massacre[edit]

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

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

Fails notability. I have found zero sources about this massacre, or coverage in reliable third party sources, or even just basic verification at a bare minimum. The article cites three non-English links (Bangladeshi, I presume) which are dead. Mar4d (talk) 16:15, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:41, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:41, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:41, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:41, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Fails WP:V. Chris Troutman (talk) 23:27, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, as stated, fails notability and WP:V. Kierzek (talk) 14:03, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment -- I suspect that the Bangladeshi war of independence, of which this was an incident was a brutal affair. What we have here is apparently based on Hindi language websites or articles, which are likely not to be NPOV, and will not tell us why the Pakistani Army decided to attack this village: they may have had a reason or it could be a random attack, assuming it happened. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:04, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - I was also unable to find a single credible reference about this incident, considering most results were just Wiki-mirrors. Falls way short of WP:V. GAB^gab 16:23, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 09:22, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Functional food definition by FFC[edit]

Functional food definition by FFC (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

This apparently WP:COI article is basically presenting one organization's particular definition for "functional food" and its background. This is WP:UNDUE emphasis on the activities and motivations of the this one organization, the FFC. It's basically an advocacy essay, even after I deleted, just now, a section stressing the importance of all of this. It's essentially the organization using Wikipedia to publish its views. Largoplazo (talk) 17:37, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:52, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:53, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I found zero RS on searching for the FFC itself, which I therefore assume is not a notable company. Consequently, it is highly dubious that its definition of whatever is notable, when no source to that effect is provided. And that is without even looking at potential OR issues. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 16:39, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Not to say that FFC's definition of functional foods is absolute or should they take any or all credit for defining the concept, however, much like all things in the field of science, everything is up for debate and discussion because things change. FFC is not trying to claim that everybody in the industry should understand functional foods by solely their definition. It is FFC's responsibility to let the functional food community know that this is a refined version of the many historical definitions. The fact remains, this is not a definition that was created out of thin air and had no scientific proof; more or less it was a definition that would better communicate the qualities and essence of functional foods. Since this is a scientific field of study, the current FFC definition of functional foods will not be a permanent one, as there will be more research to facilitate a new or updated definition. FFC is only advocating that functional foods be understood as something more than just orange juice fortified with vitamin D. Functional foods cannot be defined as a general term because there are so many properties that validly point out that there is more than what meets the eye. It is a much deeper concept than one would assume, there is no conflict of interest because FFC is only wanting the community to understand that functional foods are functional for a reason, they treat chronic diseases. That is all FFC wants to advocate, a major detail in the scope of functional foods. 19:48, 7 October 2016 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:646:8980:900B:D88C:B4FF:3C31:6BED (talk) 19:48, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's fine for FFC to advocate and convey an understanding, but not here. Wikipedia isn't an outreach vehicle. Largoplazo (talk) 20:12, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment If wikipedia is an online encyclopedia that is comprised of several references and citations to convey an understanding, how is that different from the FFC page? Does the page not provide reputable peer reviewed sources that contribute to the topic? Does the page only provide references that cite from its own substituents and entity? Is it only the name of the article that breaches the guidelines for conflict of interest? The way this is set up at the moment, if the wiki page were to be merged with the "functional food" page, then there would be a conflict of interest where FFC would be advocating that their definition is the absolute definition for functional foods. As you mentioned, Wikipedia is not an outreach vehicle; that is correct, it is an online encyclopedia. However, what if the entirety of the functional food community is at a consensus with this definition? Would there still be a conflict of interest? That would mean that there is objectivity on the matter. I could only assume given the direction of your response, there is no reasonable way for this wiki page to remain active under the sanctions of wikipedia. 18:39, 8 October 2016 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:647:CA03:17D0:1D24:CEA3:672A:7D13 (talk) 18:39, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • A generally accepted definition of a thing is already going to be the core of the article on that thing. We aren't going to have an article called "Definition of phobia" separate from the article "Phobia", an article called "Definition of climate" separate from the article "Climate", etc. Largoplazo (talk) 20:02, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as WP:FRINGE. Blythwood (talk) 05:23, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete "Functional food definition by FFC": whether academically accurate or not (FFC is related to a university). It should not be merged with the existing Functional Food article, an action which DanikMartirosyan attempted to do without WP:CON today. The edit contains information showing DanikMartirosyan is President of the FFC, so a probable WP:COI applies. I reverted it and will be placing a warning on this user's Talk page. --Zefr (talk) 22:41, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hopefully, this detail will help with the merging clarification that took place earlier today. Largoplazo made a proposition on the functional food definition by FFC wiki page and told me to link it to them. 18:41, 11 March 2016 (diff | hist) . . (+1,276)‎ . . User talk:Largoplazo ‎ (→‎Proposed merge with Functional food definition by FFC: new section) It is possible that Largoplazo did not receive the message of the necessary changes that were made in my talk page, which outlined all the editing that would have resolved any issues. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Functional_food_definition_by_FFC&oldid=713739982 On April 5th, I created the talk page that would list all changes or revisions to the functional food definition by FFC page, but there was no response by Largoplazo. So there may have been a miscommunication where Largoplazo was not notified, however it was proposed by Largoplazo to merge the two pages together. The activity from earlier today was not an agenda to put out my content to advocate for FFC's definition. I'm just trying to resolve this issue by following the guidelines of wikipedia and the enforced policies by wikipedia employees, but this is much more difficult than what your suggestions offer. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DanikMartirosyan (talk • contribs) Here are a few links to the conferences that took place around the world to show that FFC is an organization that represents the functional food community as a collection of scientists, professors, USDA, and FDA officials, working together to educate students, doctors, and everybody about functional foods. To clarify, these are individuals that do not exclusively work with FFC, but are collaborators. Here is a conference report for the Harvard Medical School Conference: http://hosted-p0.vresp.com/572102/dbfc12f0d4/ARCHIVE Conference Report for Kobe University: http://hosted-p0.vresp.com/572102/d5db3f5096/ARCHIVE Conference Report for University of San Diego: http://hosted-p0.vresp.com/572102/d4d2113e77/ARCHIVE These conference reports highlight notable speakers from government organizations such as the USDA and FDA, even researchers from the NHI. If you would please take a look at these conference reports, it would provide you with a bigger picture of what FFC does as a company. We are not trying to push an agenda that functional foods are as what we define it as, we are collaborating as a scientific community to reach a better understanding of functional foods and educate our audience with the current affairs. More importantly, if we could merge the two pages like what was initially proposed, then this issue would be resolved. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DanikMartirosyan (talk • contribs) 19:47, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That the organization exists and that it engages in activities aren't in question here, and the organization's merits are beside the point. Using Wikipedia as a vehicle for espousing its mission and notability of the organization are among the concerns under consideration. Largoplazo (talk) 20:03, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Commissioner (musical group). Dont usually close on 2 but consensus is always to redirect these and it's no different here so closing as such (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 23:12, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What Is?[edit]

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

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

Unreferenced. Not notable Rathfelder (talk) 15:41, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Could not locate reliable sources to verify the notability of the soundtrack. Per nom, delete. Comatmebro User talk:Comatmebro 16:22, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:56, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:56, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Commissioner (musical group). That article isn't, frankly, much better. But it at least seems to have a presumptive claim to notability under WP:BAND #6. So we might as well redirect the sole EP there. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 20:43, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Commissioner (musical group), fails WP:NALBUM.--☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(ring-ring) 00:31, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 06:00, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Getter (musician)[edit]

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

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

Lack of coverage, fails WP:MUSICBIO. - TheMagnificentist (talk) 15:17, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete – Getter does not cite notable references, nor does his bio or discography. I believe it makes this an unsourced article, only about him and nothing else related to him. DBrown SPS (talk) 16:25, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:58, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:58, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Article lacks significant independent, third party coverage that conveys notability. ShelbyMarion (talk) 15:12, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete non-notable musician.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:55, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 09:23, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

List of songs recorded by Nicola Roberts[edit]

List of songs recorded by Nicola Roberts (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Roberts has only released one album, and the information about the songs is already covered in the article about the album. The information about the the three b-sides is already covered in the articles about the singles that they were attached to for its release. I would recommend deleting this, and only restoring it if/when the singer releases more music to justify a separate list of this fashion. Aoba47 (talk) 15:16, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Aoba47 (talk) 15:17, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Aoba47 (talk) 15:17, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Aoba47 (talk) 15:21, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete -- seems to be overly detailed "fancruft". The relevant material is covered elsewhere. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:09, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Cruft. We're not Wikia. Drmies (talk) 23:54, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:28, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 06:00, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jayashree madan patil[edit]

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

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

Party president of small district. Not an elected government official. Fails at WP:NPOL. Couldn't find much coverage in English reliable sources, tried to translate local language sources, couldn't find anything substantial, hence failing at WP:GNG. Hitro talk 15:11, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 17:04, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 17:04, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Fails NPOL. Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 11:10, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete With the Congress Party very much being out of power, and nothing like a state party it was in the early 1980s, the local heads are not default notable. I am not sure they even would have been in 1981, but clearly not today.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:04, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Drmies (talk) 23:57, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Seyan[edit]

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

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

Still fails WP:GNG as far as I can see. The arguments for "keep" last time round were invalid: one said that it should be kept because it was listed in a navbox (which is kinda circular) and the other said it should be kept because H. A. Rose mentioned it in his Glossary of the Tribes and Castes..., but that book by a British Raj administrator has long been deemed to be an unreliable source. I haven't been able to verify the alleged alternate spelling of Sian, which obviously might form the basis of a redirect to Sian or the Iranian town. We don't seem to have articles for anyone who uses Seyan as a last name. - Sitush (talk) 14:52, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:57, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:57, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:57, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:57, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Yes, it appears to be failing WP:GNG. Couldn't find a single reliable source for this topic. Anup [Talk] 20:33, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Drmies (talk) 23:56, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Society of Accounting Education[edit]

Society of Accounting Education (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Can't find evidence that this is notable. I do see that it is affiliated with two diploma mills, Pebble Hills University (see List of unaccredited institutions of higher education) and Southern Delaware University[23] and something called Newton Hills University which seems as dubious.[24] Doug Weller talk 13:30, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:26, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:26, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:27, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• delete fails WP:ORG. 1 gnews hit. Unless someone can find something Urdu. LibStar (talk) 16:03, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Drmies (talk) 23:59, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

88 Films[edit]

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

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

Outdated, badly sourced article that has a strong smell of advertising. No evidence that is satisfies WP:GNG The Banner talk 13:10, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• KEEP - searching through Google News seems to indicate a massive pile of related news clippings. Perhaps the article needs to be better sources and more NPOV written, but its noteworthy and should be included. Zlassiter (talk) 13:22, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I really don't see the advertising here, it's simply poorly sourced, because there aren't really sources available, and what is available is announcements of releases and the like. I see some appreciative comments about the company in DVD reviews, but really not enough coverage to justify an article. --Michig (talk) 14:30, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:41, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:41, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:41, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: I'm seeing lots of trivial and incidental mentions, but no WP:SIGCOV in WP:RS. Safehaven86 (talk) 00:30, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Unsourced article, and no evidence that there are available sources on this company. Dimadick (talk) 17:21, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect (with a partial merge) to list article List of 88 Films releases. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 12:09, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 01:04, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Azad Al-Shakarchi[edit]

Azad Al-Shakarchi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

I can't find anything to show that this person is notable - even his companies don't show up. Azad City doesn't seem to exist, here are the photos on its website.[25] Doug Weller talk 12:56, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:48, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iraq-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:48, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete non-notable businessman.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:28, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - extraordinary claims require extra proof. I don't see it. Bearian (talk) 21:31, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 WP:CSD#G3 blatant hoax. JohnCD (talk) 17:34, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Lagboken Paragraf 26C[edit]

Lagboken Paragraf 26C (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Foreign language Rberchie (talk) 12:53, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:49, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:49, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:49, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• It is normal to list foreign-language articles for translation for two weeks before nominating for deletion, but in this case a quick run through Google Translate shows that it is a blatant hoax, so I have tagged it for speedy deletion accordingly. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 14:56, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Delete no need for AfD. Widefox; talk 17:20, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 06:01, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Open PLA[edit]

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

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

Non-notable software. The article currently has one dead link and no sources. I can't find any significant coverage in independent, reliable sources to meet WP:GNG. Sarahj2107 (talk) 12:48, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Subject lacks notability. KGirlTrucker81 ^{huh? what I'm been doing} 14:19, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:50, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:50, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• delete apart from it being barely an article, a basic WP:BEFORE turned up nothing usable in Google, GNews or GBooks ... is there anywhere else one might find RS coverage? - David Gerard (talk) 15:57, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete As a LibreOffice database template, this specialized piece of software does not seem to have generated any independent reviews that I could find. Without any reliable sources, this topic fails notability guidelines and precludes merging as well. Hence, deletion is warranted. --Mark viking (talk) 21:34, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Kenku. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 23:12, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Quorlinn[edit]

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

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

This article does not establish notability. TTN (talk) 12:42, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 12:42, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 12:43, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to Kenku. Jclemens (talk) 14:20, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep or merge to List of Dungeons & Dragons nonhuman deities. BOZ (talk) 14:32, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge as above; either target works. Josh Milburn (talk) 21:27, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to Kenku. Aoba47 (talk) 23:45, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 14:05, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to Kenku as that appears to be an appropriate spot for this. -- Dane2007 ^talk 18:17, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete.  Sandstein  18:12, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ruspublica[edit]

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

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

My first AfD, apologies if this is utterly wrong. I saw this on the 'Copy Edit' required list. It appears to be just a promotional piece for the business. There are only two references, one is its own website, the other is appears to be a PR announcement issued by Ruspublica for its own online store. I couldn't find any other references to it when I googled it. Scribolt (talk) 12:11, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. It gets a mention in a Russian Forbes piece that after running it through Google Translate, seems to describe it as: "little-known, - Ruspublica Julia Pilyugin only works on the Internet and sells clothes two dozen authors." Doesn't seem notable based on that claim and the only other piece on GNews was a namedrop. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 14:32, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:50, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:51, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:51, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 14:39, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Swati singh[edit]

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

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

Swati Singh (politician) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - new article title

Fails WP:POLITICIAN. Till now the subject hasn't contested an election. Almost all of the coverage is due to her husband's controversial statement and its aftermath. The page is written in promotional tone. Skr15081997 (talk) 11:06, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Skr15081997 (talk) 12:32, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Skr15081997 (talk) 12:32, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. While there's certainly POV and potentially copyright problems with the article, the subject seems to meet WP:BASIC even though she fails WP:NPOLITICIAN. The coverage of her in Firstpost [26] is significant coverage about her rise as a major political figure in the state after her husband's incident. The source about her from NewsX is about a key role she's taken on with the state party in Uttar Pradesh. [27] Even the coverage of her during her husband's scandal mentions her in a significant manner, such as the article from the The Economic Times. [28] ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 14:45, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: This one is a classic example of people-notable for one-event. Almost all of the coverage where she is mentioned has its origin in Mayayati Vs. Dayanand incident which in itself is a non-notable event. Let her contest and win an election seat or trigger some kind of controversy of her own before considering a standalone piece. Find me one mention of subject, where she is covered by any reliable media independent of that event, and I promise, I will !vote keep.

This article is most probably created in the light of upcoming election in the state she belongs to. It is not a new phenomenon where activity around politician articles increases during election-time. The article is written in a WP:PROMOTIONAL tone for a reason.

Delete this thing for failing WP:NPOL and WP:BIO, and meeting WP:SPAM. Anup [Talk] 19:31, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

How important are state wings of the BJP Mahila Morcha? ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 00:41, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mahila Morcha itself constitutes a very small division of national organisation (they seem to exist on-principle only. women's participation in politics is still very low and dissatisfactory in India).

For encyclopedia, in general terms, I would rate state wings of a such divisions whatever bottom is of importance scale being used. (chiefs are not elected representatives and are often switched over for political gain.). Anup [Talk] 02:39, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The information which is provided here are true and it doesn't seems like promotional, this is not meeting WP:SPAM and this is not written in WP:PROMOTIONAL tone, article shouldn't be deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 223.179.115.105 (talk) 18:56, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. By our usula criteriafor politicians this is way too insignificant and the references altogether inadequate. this is a prime example of whywe need BLP1E -- its a single minor controversy and not even primarily about her. DGG ( talk ) 22:53, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:BLP1E and WP:NOTNEWS This is a minor incident and that too, tangentially involving the subject. I agree with DGG that this is exactly why BLP1E is needed. The article essentially consists of a bunch of COATRACK, some of which are purely allegations. If I remove all of them, there will be literally nothing left. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 05:41, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The templates are not properly under consideration here at AFD and so should be listed at TFD. postdlf (talk) 15:02, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Results of the Monash Student Association elections, 2016[edit]

Results of the Monash Student Association elections, 2016 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Article listing the results of a student union election, which is clearly not notable. Was prodded, but the prod was removed by the article's creator. I suggest that the numerous templates created by the editor to use in this article (the only place they are used) are also deleted, specifically:

• Template:Monash politics/name/420 Blaze It
• Template:Monash politics/name/Halal Snack Pack
• Template:Monash politics/name/Left Hook
• Template:Monash politics/name/Equal Marriage Rights
• Template:Monash politics/name/No Hanson
• Template:Monash politics/name/Refugee Rights
• Template:Monash politics/name/No Night Exams
• Template:Monash politics/name/24 Hour Libraries
• Template:Monash politics/name/Free Beer
• Template:Monash politics/name/Free Parking
• Template:Monash politics/name/Grocery Store On Campus
• Template:Election box gain Monash party
• Template:Monash politics/name/Independent
• Template:Election box hold Monash party
• Template:Election box candidate Monash party
• Template:Monash politics/name/Left Action
• Template:Monash politics/name/Grassroots
• Template:Monash politics/name/Go!
• Template:Monash politics/party colours

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:12, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:12, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:12, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:13, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete clearly fails WP:GNG. I can't find any reliable sources about the subject. — Yellow Dingo (talk) 10:14, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  Also, may as well delete the templates (which were not listed when I first read this AFD) and, to any editor in the future that says they should go to WP:TfD, see WP:IAR. — Yellow Dingo (talk) 10:16, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. — Yellow Dingo (talk) 10:19, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• delete seriously results of a student election? This would only get published by the university and even most students don't care. LibStar (talk) 10:23, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - fails WP:NOT, specifically WP:GNG. It's obvious that Wikipedia doesn't have and need such student election results.Your welcome | Democratics ^Talk→ Be a guest 10:55, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - student election, not notable. The templates may as well go, too, as they have no potential uses outside the article. Neiltonks (talk) 12:07, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• DELETE - not noteable Zlassiter (talk) 13:30, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Can't believe someone wasted so much time on such a highly non-notable topic. Ajf773 (talk) 17:58, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. A student election would need a lot of coverage in independent reliable sources before I would consider it notable. This article doesn't have any sources, not even non-independent or unreliable sources. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 01:37, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: I didn't realise that there would be so much opposition. This being the case, I won't object to the deletion. Orthogonal1 (talk) 04:20, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:OUTCOMES and WP:MILL. We have deleted many articles and lists about student government elections, such as this. Bearian (talk) 21:48, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Not even close to notable. The Drover's Wife (talk) 05:11, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 06:01, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dylan Edward Marshall[edit]

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

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

Non-notable boxer. Does not meet WP:NBOX Peter Rehse (talk) 10:04, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Boxing-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 10:04, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:11, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:11, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete non-notable boxer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:44, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Subject have not being discuss in reliable source therefore fails WP:GNG. Non notable.--Historical Ben (talk) 22:56, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Struck content from confirmed sock above, per WP:SOCKSTRIKE. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:02, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Several users herein have determined that this article comprises WP:SYNTHESIS, and most agree that this present article is not up to Wikipedia's standards. No prejudice against the creation of a new article based upon what reliable sources report, sans any synthesis or unverifiable claims. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:29, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nano brain[edit]

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

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

This article was mainly written by three WP:SPAs and it reads as WP:SYN, pretty blatantly so. The sources do not discuss the subject as such, and most of the text is not supported by the sources. As far as I can tell this topic embodies deep speculation and is not widely discussed. Top Google hists are sites like mindcontrol.se, and most of the high ranking hits score 8 or above on the bollocksometer. Guy (Help!) 09:33, 10 October 2016 (UTC) Guy (Help!) 09:33, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

• Delete as it stands A quick WP:BEFORE turns up (a) primary sources (b) fringe/conspiracy sources (c) a band of this name - David Gerard (talk) 10:56, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete This is pure SYNTH. There is nothing cited in reliable scholarly sources and for concepts like these only high quality sources are required. I am finding a bunch of unreliable papers/patents - some of them are about a nano-sized brain implant, some are about a brain-computer interface. Some of the sources in the article do not support the text either and have no mention of "nano brain". This is ripe for a delete. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 11:32, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep but rewrite: there are several publications about nanotechnology that discuss the concept of a "nano-brain". Jarble (talk) 03:20, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Would anything be left of the present article? You're talking about a completely different article with coincidentally the same title, not the present article at all - David Gerard (talk) 05:46, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • See WP:TNT. If there was a completely different article, we should keep it? Sure. But there isn't. Guy (Help!) 06:40, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:TNT. Supported by a strong reference from the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the U.S.A. (PNAS), an excellent and highly reputable journal, but the content of the article is poorly written and makes WP:SYNTH claims. There is no content here worth keeping, so I think WP:TNT applies. Roches (talk) 15:03, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• delete per TNT. gah so much Neurohype out there. there's another article i need to write. Jytdog (talk) 19:54, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Fran Lebowitz. Sarahj2107 (talk) 09:19, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Progress (book)[edit]

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

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

A book that exists, but seems to fail Wikipedia:Notability (books). I cannot find any reliable (non-user generated) review, nothing but a few passing mentions in media. The content of this tiny stub is repeated at Fran Lebowitz. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:53, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:09, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:09, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: As far as I can tell, this book has never been released. There are mentions here and there, but all trivial. I've found mentions like this NYT article that mentioned that the book was supposed to release around the time of the Vanity Fair article, but that the release never happened for whatever reason. Lebowitz is a famous enough person to where if the book did release, it'd get some sort of coverage. I say that this redirects to her article until it releases - if it ever does. It's not uncommon for authors to have books that never actually see the light of day. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:02, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Fran Lebowitz. This isn't independently noteworthy and the coverage just isn't there to show that it would pass - or that it'll be released any time soon. I have no objection to this being restored once the book publishes and gains coverage, but it should not be done before then. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:45, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to author's article where the listing there could be expanded, apparently not being completed in the near future - "... the forthcoming “Progress,” which will be published within the century."from 2011 NYT article. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:45, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 06:02, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Design Performance[edit]

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

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

Probably non-notable topic. No references at all. Google didn't helped me to find something on this. XXN, 07:50, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]