< 22 September	24 September >

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 both. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:39, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

One Shot (Serbian band)[edit]

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

No results in a Google search. No presence in Serbian or Serbo-Croat Wiki. The only citations are to (1) their FB page and (2) their record label Bassivity Music, whose page does not mention them. All non-trivial links are redlinks. Narky Blert (talk) 23:45, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related page because this album by this band also fails WP:MUSIC

Delete - Both pages for lacking any kind of notability. Meatsgains (talk) 00:39, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 22:52, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 22:52, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Serbia-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 22:52, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:V, WP:MUSICBIO. If they've been active for a decade, why are there no reliable sources to prove notability? Bearian (talk) 20:45, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both as there's certainly speedy material here, nothing at all let alone suggesting notability and substantial improvements, and based from this, it seems it's not going to happen. SwisterTwister talk 00:33, 30 September 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 Charles & Eddie. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:18, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Charles Pettigrew[edit]

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

This really doesn't require an article on its own. The stuff on Charles & Eddie should suffice. Laun chba ller 23:27, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Charles & Eddie. A merge seems so obvious I have to wonder why AfD was even considered. --Michig (talk) 06:28, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I wanted to seek a second opinion first.--Laun chba ller 06:30, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Charles & Eddie. No reason for a seperate article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:25, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 22:54, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. First, to dismiss several off-point opinions: The sanctions violation is not grounds for deletion by itself because WP:ARBPIA3's remedy reads "This prohibition may be enforced by reverts, page protections, blocks, the use of pending changes, and appropriate edit filters" - i.e., not by deletion, so I can't follow Epson Salts's "delete" opinion and delete this as an arbitration enforcement action. Peterkingiron's "keep" is just insubstantial.

The remaining opinions are divided about whether this is either an unsourced hoax or a notable topic of discussion in geopolitics. Sadly, editors divide largely along predictable lines, insofar as I recognize the usernames. That being said, Nishidani's sources show convincingly, and so far uncontestedly, that this idea, associated with one Mr. Yinon, has been the topic of substantial discussion in reliable sources. This makes many of the earlier "delete" opinions less convincing - but it does not render them obsolete, as their contention that the current content is of poor quality and based on at best questionable sources is, in turn, not substantially contested.

So, while we don't have formal consensus on the "delete"/"keep" question, I consider this discussion to have established that there is a good case to be made for covering this topic in some shape or form, but that the current content urgently needs cleanup and that a later renomination for deletion might be successful if editors don't address this problem. Sandstein 10:18, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yinon Plan[edit]

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

In it's current for it's libelous, because there is no actual fact Oded Yinon ever existed and this looks like modern version of The Protocols of the Elders of Zion. Arthistorian1977 (talk) 21:57, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have made some changes to remove any libelous element and make it more about the article than the person. However, it should be noted that the author self-identifies as Oded Yinon in a respected journal which no-one has challenged. If it were a pseudonym, then it is still OK to call it the Yinon Plan, but we would remain in the dark about who it is. If is is a pseudonym, then clearly we are no longer talking about a living person but a fictitious one and you cannot libel an non-person! If it is a pseudonym, it does not alter the fact that this article has been published in a genuine journal and deleting it would mean that Wikipedia was missing information on something that truly exists which would make it less of an encyclopedia (albeit by just 1 small article).

I have also changed the reference to the Protocols and it is clear that it is not a modern version of it. Firstly, the article has been categorically published in a real journal which no-one disputes. Secondly, my article does not claim it is an official policy but that the article has been written, and that there are those who see that the events in the middle east since 1982 could be following this plan either by coincidence and opportunism or deliberately. I do not make a judgement about this as it is and will always be purely speculative.

I have also taken out some repetition and added a section with a summary of the actions set out in the plan which makes it easier for others to add more details there if they want to.

I strongly believe this article adds something that is missing on Wikipedia and would be hugely disappointed if the page were deleted. Martyn.Preller (talk) 16:40, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The editor who created this article and is practically the only contributor to it is not allowed to edit anything related to the Arab-Israeli conflict, per WP:ARBPIA3. This may even qualify for speedy deletion because of that, but I am not versed enough in speedy deletion policy to say for sure. Epson Salts (talk) 18:33, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep If, as Arthistorian1977 states, there is no such person as Oded Yinon, then the article cannot possibly libel him. As it happens, there is indeed such a person, and the article does not libel him. The original text appeared in Kivunim, a publication of the World Zionist Organisation. It was translated into English by Israel Shahak, published by the Association of Arab-American University Graduates, and was available on Amazon.[1] I have a copy on my shelves. The subject is notable, and at the time of its publication (1982) was widely discussed in the context of Israel's attack on Lebanon. Many books cited the plan, and Shahak's translation. This is a valid and important topic, it is a significant oversight that an article did not previously exist, and we should certainly keep it regardless of who initially created the article. RolandR (talk) 22:58, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This book (p94) appears to be a reliable source by an author who has seen the original and checked up on "Oded Yinon". He is described as a "senior Israeli Foreign Affairs Official and journalist for the Jerusalem Post". He also published an academic article in the same year (which provides no more personal information about him). The reasons for proposing deletion are not valid, but the article is very poor at the moment and I'd like to see suggestions for improving it before voting. Zero^talk 00:16, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I am changing my vote from noncommittal to delete with some reluctance, as most of the delete arguments presented on this page are unconvincing. To mention some: (1) Oded Yinon never existed (dirt easy to disprove), (2) Yinon's article never existed (likewise false), (3) Yinon's article is antisemitic (huh?), (4) our article is antisemitic (so fix it), (5) Yinon was non-notable (irrelevant — many important works even have unknown authors), (6) Shahak was <insert favorite nasty words> (the old shoot-the-messenger technique, nah). Having read several other of Yinon's articles, I don't have the least doubt that he wrote much as in Shahak's translation; it would have been perfectly in character. So here is why I am voting to delete: Yinon's article's only lasting notability is that it is presented as some sort of official blueprint for Israeli policy, but nobody has come up with a reliable source that Yinon had any influence on policy. As far as we can show with reliable sources, it was just some ephemeral article appearing in a magazine. Nor do I see enough sources to sustain a narrative about the reception and reaction to the article. I could change my mind if someone came up with a better source than I've seen so far. Zero^talk 12:40, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 04:03, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 04:03, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 04:03, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment What is the argument for deletion here? Arthistorian1977 raised the issue of libel, but that is easily dealt with by removing the offending material, which has apparently been done. Epson Salts says it was created in contravention of WP:ARBPIA3, but according to that page it is supposed to be enforced by "reverts, page protections, blocks, the use of pending changes, and appropriate edit filters", not page deletions (or, to put it less legalistically – the ARBCOM's intention appears to be to prevent new editors from making further edits, rather than removing their good-faith contributions after the fact).

It seems to me that if this is a modern-day version of the Protocols of the Elders of Zion, then it's probably notable and something we should cover appropriately (i.e. in line with WP:NPOV and WP:FRINGE). From some quick research it looks like it is indeed widely cited by anti-Zionists/conspiracists, but I'm hesitant to commit to a keep !vote on an area I don't know much about. Joe Roe (talk) 12:24, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

So, you think Arbcom's intent was to prevent such users from adding any new material (good faith or not) in existing articles, but it was fine with letting them create new articles? I'm sorry, but that sounds like wikilawyering of the worst kind, that doesn't make any sense. But I'll ask for clarification. Epson Salts (talk) 14:51, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No, I think ARBCOM perhaps did not foresee deleting decent content purely because it was created by a new editor. I'm willing to be convinced this particular article isn't decent or salvageable. But I don't think your accusation of "wikilawyering of the worst kind" is particularly warranted, given that I've abstained from !voting and explicitly said I wasn't sure about any of it. Please remember that AfD is a venue for discussion, not a battleground. Joe Roe (talk) 16:32, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The article is still not supported by any reliable sources. For example, statements like this "the ideas set out in this article were largely taken by successive Israeli governments since 1982" are quite bold and require verifiable source. Arthistorian1977 (talk) 13:16, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Quite true, but again an argument for cleanup rather than deletion. I'd invite you to either source or remove the statement you've identified as problematic. Joe Roe (talk) 16:32, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Possible keep I do not see what is wrong with this article. However, I am not qualified to judge its accuracy. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:14, 25 September 2016 (
Delete: This article does not contain a single reliable source. Not a one. Nothing points to the notability of the subject of this article. conspiracywatch.info? Seriously? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 01:19, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This article is compliant with the general notability guideline. The article should be further improved, but there is no good reason to delete it. The fact that the article was created by a new editor (who was not aware that new editors are not permitted to create new articles in the I/P topic area), does not imply we should delete good-quality content that passes the notability bar. Ijon Tichy (talk) 18:56, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As per Ijon Tichy. If the sticking point is that the creator is not allowed to edit in the IP area (which they were in good faith unaware of) move it to the userspace of someone who is, let them have a look over it, and they can then take responsibility, but I dont think this is necessary. Only in death does duty end (talk) 15:03, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
note that the "translator" of this purported article, the late Israel Shahak, was notorious for aggressively anti-Semitic interpretations of Jewish and Israeli texts widely cited by the anti-Semitic fringe. Here: [2] is an article on Shahak by Werner Cohn. Here is a typical Shahak "fact": "both before and after a meal, a pious Jew ritually washes his hands....On one of these two occasions he is worshiping God... but on the other he is worshiping Satan..."[3].E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:38, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note on sources

source # 1. globalresearch.ca the website of Canadian conspiracy theorist Michel Chossudovsky
# 2.Conspiracy Watch, a website with which I am not familiar
# 3. Hani Ramadan a radical Islamist
# 4. Roger Garaudy a notorious Holocaust denier
# 5. self-sorurced to Israel Shahak
# 6. a purported copy of this purported plan by the conspiracy theorist who brought you source # 1.E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:48, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as an antiIsrael hoax hoax. I have tagged this page as a hoax. Zero reliable sources have been found for the existence of this alleged article, none are on the page. The sources on the page are conspiracy theorists and notorious anti-Semites and anti-Israel activists.E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:56, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I removed your tag. The article is not a hoax. Above I posted a reliable source that gives the full citation including the Hebrew title. There was also at least one review in an academic journal. The aspect of Yinon's article that historians can argue about is the extent to which it matched Israeli policy rather that being just one journalist's opinion. There is no reason at all to believe that the article didn't exist. I found several later articles of Yinon in the Jerusalem Post that show a consistent attitude, though nothing so wide-ranging as this. So far I see nothing to convince me to change my non-vote here. Zero^talk 00:10, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I also found a letter of Oded Yinon in Commentary (Dec 1986) which is entirely consistent. After calling the "territory-for-peace" concept a "folly" and a "myth" that is "now dead", he ends mysteriously with "In the coming years, however, we are going to see a totally different Israeli policy..." (ellipsis in original). Zero^talk 02:34, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

30 September 2016 (UTC)Card1&Daf=2 Here is proof that the article existed. Zero^talk 08:54, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note that Oded Yinon was deleted as non-notable. Non-notable persons generally write non-notable things. Extraneous, WP:BLUDGEON material discourages editors from joining AFD discussions.E.M.Gregory (talk) 09:19, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Although this is not the right forum, I'll also note that if you want to know what Shahak wrote about anything you have to read his words and not trust the reviews written by his enemies. While Cohn might want us to think that Shahak said that Jews worship Satan, what Shahak actually wrote is that the prayer is intended to confuse Satan so that he is distracted from his evil ways for a moment. I have no idea whether this has any basis in fact, but I do know that the idea of confusing Satan occurs in many religions. Zero^talk 00:59, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note that Werner Cohn cites the Satan comment as an exact quotation from Shahak's book.E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:34, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but Cohn removed the remainder of the sentence, which is "who likes Jewish prayers and ritual acts so much that when he is offered a few of them it keeps him busy for a while and he forgets to pester the divine Daughter". He is discussing a kabbalistic interpretation and by "daughter" he refers to this. Zero^talk 00:43, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In other words, you admit that Shahak did write that "both before and after a meal, a pious Jew.... is worshiping Satan..." but Shakak qualifies this by stipulating that such worship effectively appeases Satan. This is a falsehood, an anti-Semitic falsehood.E.M.Gregory (talk) 09:11, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It may indeed be a hoax in the sense that Shahak's misleading mis-translations and malicious, often bizarre, misinterpretations of Hebrew texts are described as falsehoods or as libel by RS. At most, this was a minor flurry created by an unreliable man notorious for his hatred of Israel and Judaism.E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:06, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note that no one appears to have taken the trouble to make a second (that is, a reliable) translation of this allegedly notable article.E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:09, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a non-notable hoax. We should not get involved in this tangential nonsense. We are not anti-Semitic-pedia. We are not a soapbox. Bearian (talk) 20:49, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations on learning how to use wikilinks. Zero^talk 00:50, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Technically, as Epson Salts argued, this could be deleted since the editor, in good faith, brokeARBPIA500#30. There is, in short, a formal flaw. The rest of the objections here are neither here nor there, except for Zero's point that it was ephemeral. Well, it apparently has had an impact throughout the Arab world, though at the time largely in Lebanon, and a good many publications cite it and comment on various aspects in the context of Israeli and neocon policy debates as they later developed. E.M. Gregory has created large numbers of articles on terror events, by showing they are mentioned over a week or a month and thus satisfy multiple sourcing and notability. By that criterion, he should vote for its retention, to be coherent policy wise. This article has been mentioned for three decades in numerous sources, eg.

Nur Masalha,Imperial Israel and the Palestinians: The Politics of Expansion, Pluto Press, 2000 pp.94-95
André G. Sleimen, “Zionizing the Middle East: Rumours of the ‘Kissinger Plan’ in Lebanon, 1973-1982,” in Michael Butter, Maurus Reinkowski (eds.), Conspiracy Theories in the United States and the Middle East: A Comparative Approach, Walter de Gruyter, 2014 pp.76-99 pp.94-95
(3) Noam Chomsky Fateful Triangle: The United States, Israel, and the Palestiniansm. South End Press 1999 p.456
(4) Jean-François Legrain, ‘The Shiite Peril in Palestine:Between Phobias and Propaganda,’ in Brigitte Maréchal, ‎Sami Zemni, ‎Sabrina Mervin (eds), The Dynamics of Sunni-Shia Relationships: Doctrine, Transnationalism, Intellectuals and the Media, Hurst Publishers 2013 pp.41-59 pp.48,266 n.19
(5) Muhammad Idrees Ahmad, The Road to Iraq: The Making of a Neoconservative War, Edinburgh University Press, 2014 p.83
(6) Ilan Peleg, ’The Legacy of Begin and Beginism for the Israeli Political System,’ in Gregory S. Mahler (ed) Israel After Begin, SUNY Press, 2012 pp.19-49 p.43
(7) Richard Labévière Dollars for Terror: The United States and Islam, Algora Publishing, 2000 p.206
(8) William W Haddad, ‘Israeli Occupation Policy in Lebanon, the West Bank, and Gaza,‘ in James Browne, William Paul Snyder (eds.), The Regionalization of Warfare: The Falkland/Malvinas Islands, Lebanon, and the Iran-Iraq Conflict, Transaction Publishers, 1985 pp.96-116. p.104
(9) Mordechai Nisan, Minorities in the Middle East: A History of Struggle and Self-Expression, McFarland & Company 2002 pp,275f, p.332 notes 14,15

In terms of pure policy, it probably should be deleted per Epson Salts. In terms of the fact that it has reverberations, being cited at the time by the Wall Street Journal, being echoed by Joseph Kraft, perhaps reflecting or influencing Ariel Sharon's approach to the region, and references to it perdures in the scholarly literature, I agree with Roland's estimation that we need an article on it. Nishidani (talk) 17:09, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I don't think it is practical to delete the article per WP:ARBPIA3#50/300, because the topic it self is notable and someone will just recreate the article. I assume the creator now understands that he can no longer edit this article until he reaches the 30/500 requirement. One might say, that this is not a complete violation, beucase he only mainly translated the article

With that said, I think the current state of the article is awfull. The article was translated from the French Wikipedia, but there are some problems with the French article. As it seems, the French article was created by an IP user, but expanded by an alledged pro-Palestinian, who wrote many sections, with no sources, except for one source he added, referring to an anti-Zionist radical Islamist preacher in Switzerland. The unsourced sections he added seem to have a lot of support for the theory and as mentioned before, mostly unsourced. While sources were added to this article, still there are many unsourced sentences, which seems to display a very strong POV here and makes it look more like an essay rather than an encycloped article. The article should be completely re-written and all of its POV and unsourced content should be removed immidiately.--Bolter21 (talk to me) 22:51, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Point taken. If no one objects, I will rewrite it this afternoon according to a dozen different sources and show how it would look were it wikified. It should only take an hour, and then people can judge whether it's irretrievable or not.Nishidani (talk) 07:05, 1 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 09:50, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

IEEE Transactions on Emerging Topics in Computational Intelligence[edit]

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

Article PRODded with reason "Non-notable new journal. Not a single article published yet (first issue expected to be published in 2017!!) Not indexed in any selective databases, no independent sources. Does not meet WP:NJournals or WP:GNG. Article creation way too soon." Article dePRODded by DGG with reason "Alll IEEE transactions turn out to be notable. They are the core literature of the subject". This is a rare case where I disagree with DGG. This journal does not really even exist yet, the first articles are expected to be published in 2017. It's categorized as "Publications established in 2016", for the sole reason that it would be too weird to categorize something as "Publications to be established next year"... There is no way of knowing whether this journal will actually come into being or whether it will actually turn out to become "core literature of the subject". Therefore, PROD reason still stands. Hence: Delete. Randykitty (talk) 21:44, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Question. Randykitty, is there any existing IEEE transactions that you would not consider notable? If they all are, and this is like the many others, then it's a reasonable induction that doesn't require guesswork. I suppose it might get renamed, but if so we can change the title. DGG ( talk ) 00:58, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I don't know. I haven't gone through our category of IEEE journals (nor do I know that we actually have articles on each and every IEEE journal. However, even assuming that every IEEE journal published up till now has become notable, that is not a guarantee that this will become notable, too. Likely, sure. Certain? No. The argument that this one is notable because other journals of the same publisher are notable is a prime case of WP:INHERITED. The journal doesn't even exist yet! --Randykitty (talk) 04:42, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect or delete I endorsed the proposed deletion for this article, but think that both Randykitty and DGG make good points. I agree with DGG that IEEE Transactions are core journals in electrical engineering. It doesn't take much of a crystal ball to believe that this journal will eventually become notable. But at the same time, while there is minimal secondary sourcing for the journal announcement [4], I have found no independent RS for the journal itself. A compromise might be to keep a placeholder redirect to a short mention of the journal announcement at the associated Society article, IEEE Computational Intelligence Society#Publications. Otherwise, there just isn't the independent sourcing available, either in the indexes or generally, to support a standalone article at this time. --Mark viking (talk) 03:07, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 23:01, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete In Wikipedia's voice, we learn here that this journal is "opening doors to a plethora of exciting opportunities". At Wikipedia, we don't have to guess about the future, we can wait for it. Given that there are no sources, this is a worthless article, that must be rewritten once sources are available, so there is nothing lost by deletion. There is even a BLP problem by referring to a living person without an inline citation. Fails WP:DEL7 with WP:IAR added as WP:V is a core content policy, and WP:DEL14 for what Wikipedia is not. Unscintillating (talk) 02:31, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academic journals-related deletion discussions. Randykitty (talk) 08:25, 26 September 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. —SpacemanSpiff 06:40, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Rape of a live-in partner[edit]

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

Basically a rehash of a newspaper article. A sad story but WP:NOTNEWSPAPER. Yintan 21:16, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There is only one source for the events related in this article, and even assuming true these events do not possess the requisite notability for inclusion in an encyclopedia. Since both of the parties referred to are minors, it is unlikely that they will ever be identified or that further publicity will emerge to indicate how the case was resolved. In effect, this article is of no more value to the enclopedia's readers than a story in a tabloid newspaper. Lastly, the title does not describe the article, since the article does not discuss the phenomenon (which has occurred and will occur in the future throughout the world), only a specific case reported in one Indian newspaper. General Ization ^Talk 22:34, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Retain It is strange that (1) the parents of a minor girl allow her to stay away from home for a year, with or without knowing that she is having a live in relationship . (2) The girl endures such trouble for one year before deciding to return home. It is a strange phenomenon considering Indian social norms, and hence these events do possess the requisite notability for inclusion in an encyclopedia. Since police and POCSO are roped in, the outcome of the case will give insight into the changes occuring in Indian society. So this article's value to the enclopedia's readers is more than the value of a story in a tabloid newspaper. It is premature to say whether further publicity will emerge to indicate how the case was resolved. There is only one source for the events related in this article, but Deccan Chronicle is a reputed newspaper and less likely to publish false news. Allsfasle (talk) 12:01, 24 September 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Allsfasle (talk • contribs) 11:42, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Don't see how an ordinary crime should get its own article, and even if it should, then the title needs to be changed. AlphaBetaGamma^{DeltaEpsilonZeta} 13:42, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 23:03, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 23:03, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 23:03, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: WP:NOTNEWS. Anup [Talk] 18:56, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:TNT. Even if everything is true, the page itself is a mess. Bearian (talk) 20:51, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: WP:NOTNEWSPAPER. Pratyush (talk) 16:58, 30 September 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) 08:19, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Eta Phi Zeta (sorority)[edit]

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

While I'm usually reluctant to delete articles about fraternities or sororities that exist at multiple universities, this article has zero sources, and I can't find any reliable independent sources myself, so it's not clear that the subject is considered notable under WP:ORG. I have taken into consideration the fact that this sorority is active only in Puerto Rico and have searched for sources using the search term "sororidad" in place of "sorority" along with "Eta Phi Zeta", but I have still only found references in social media at best. Metropolitan90 (talk) 21:15, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Puerto Rico-related deletion discussions. Metropolitan90 (talk) 21:20, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Metropolitan90 (talk) 21:20, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No significant coverage found. Fails GNG and ORG. — Preceding unsigned comment added by James Allison (talk • contribs)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:25, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per DEL8 for lack of notability under the relevant guidelines (GNG or ORG). I couldn't find anything, even trivial coverage in questionable sources (discounting unquestionably unreliable social media sources). The closest I came up with was a document commemorating the fortieth anniversary of a Eta Phi Zeta in North Carolina, but that appears to be unrelated. Rebb ing 20:54, 28 September 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 Yawn. ...yawn.... (non-admin closure) Lourdes 01:38, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Chasmology[edit]

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

As I already said elsewhere [5] unlike e.g. endocrinology, which is a vast and ramified field in which work hundreds of thousands of researchers and specialist practitioners, "chasmology" is a neologism, coined by this guy Walusinski, not in the OED and producing ten (count 'em -- ten!) hits on Gscholar [6] -- one of which is a typo. There's no recognized "science of yawning", and absolutely nothing in this article that wouldn't be completely at home in the yawning article. E Eng 20:38, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Neologism, and all content could easily be included in article on yawning. Neutrality^talk 21:08, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to yawning. Yintan 21:31, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 23:09, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

redirect to yawning; neologism. Jytdog (talk) 23:58, 25 September 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 already deleted by Jimfbleak. Discussion is now moot. Deor (talk) 16:11, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Aifan Shahran[edit]

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

Article on a nonnotable 17-year-old person, apparently an autobiography. I tagged for an A7 speedy deletion, but the tag was removed by an IP, who may well be the article's creator (and subject). Deor (talk) 18:41, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable WP:AUTOBIO; simply here for WP:SOAPBOX intent. --Drm310 (talk) 18:51, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete He does not seem to meet the notability criteria for Entertainers. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(✉) 19:23, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No sources have been provided other than the subject's own website and social media pages. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 20:46, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Utterly non-notable. Yintan 21:33, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:44, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Miss Glam India 2016[edit]

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

Delete. Poorly sourced article about this year's running of a beauty pageant of unclear notability; there isn't even an main overview article about the pageant to justify separate articles about each annual iteration of it yet. And for referencing, what we have here is a Facebook post, the primary source webpage of a related pageant and a WordPress blog -- exactly none of which are reliable sources that can confer notability. I would ordinarily have speedied this, but this is actually a followup recreation after an earlier version was speedied for not making a credible claim of notability. As always, Wikipedia is not a free platform to write Facebook-sourced articles about every single thing that existed at all -- reliable source coverage, making a credible claim of notability that would satisfy WP:NEVENT, is required for an article to become earned. Bearcat (talk) 17:01, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Beauty pageants-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 23:14, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 23:14, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:40, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable pageant....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 14:29, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:GNG. Anup [Talk] 19:05, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not notable enough to justify an article for a competition in a given year.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:21, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete since Miss Glam India does not exits; no reason to have an article on a specific year for a series that may not be notable itself. Sources are clearly insufficient to meet GNG. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:24, 27 September 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 Sustainable Development Goals. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:36, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ending poverty in all its forms everywhere[edit]

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

Because this goal is already well explained on the Sustainable Development Goals page already and we don't need to create a separate page for each one of the goals, also the title is unwieldy, so due to these factors, i recommend this article for deletion. --RuleTheWiki (talk) 16:50, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The more common formulation of this goal uses "end" rather than "ending":

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

86.17.222.157 (talk) 17:19, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 23:28, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 23:28, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Sustainable Development Goals. This is a slogan, and Wikipedia does not permit WP:PROMOTION, however wholly commendable the cause. Oh, and by the way, Ending poverty would in any case be a more appropriate title, eliminating the tautological repetitions – eliminating something necessarily requires that it be removed in all its forms, everywhere (otherwise it wouldn't be eliminated). Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 23:52, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Done. --RuleTheWiki (talk) 08:37, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge - it's already covered, yet additional sources and notes could improve the article. Bearian (talk) 20:53, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Userfy. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:34, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Book (film)[edit]

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

This is premature. The film is in production (though it's not clear in which state exactly) and there are simply no references discussing it. Also note that the username of the creator suggests a possible conflict of interest. Finally, it's not clear if the film's title is "The Book" or "The Black Book". Pichpich (talk) 16:56, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Question... I literally started working on this 5 to 6 minutes before you flagged it. The Film title is the Black Book, however there is a redirect for that to an earlier film and as I am new and not sure how to put that change up, modified things so I can still move forward. As for the premature nature of the article, we are already filming and are close to finishing. I have seen several other films in progress on here. I didn't realize, with the amount of Personal bio pages on here that it would be a conflict of interest. Topherchambers (talk) 16:13, 23 September 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Topherjchambers (talk • contribs) [reply]

Userfy if User:Topherjchambers wants to save the content in his userspace. The film is not yet established as notable under WP:NFF, but maybe it will be notable when it is released. If the film is actually going to be titled The Black Book rather than just The Book, the proper title for the article would be The Black Book (2017 film) per Wikipedia:Naming conventions (films). But that would only apply if the film is notable enough to warrant an article at all. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 20:52, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy, with the caveat that even when this film is complete it may not meet Notability guidelines for films or General notability guidelines. The creator is reminded that Wikipedia is not for promotion, self- or otherwise, and subjects only warrant encyclopedia articles when they have already received significant third-party attention. --Animalparty! (talk) 23:31, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 23:30, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. self-written vanity page, promotional and nn Jimfbleak (talk) 05:45, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Harish pandey[edit]

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

Doesn't have the depth of coverage to meet WP:BIO. All references have merely a passing mention of him; he is not the subject of any. Drm310 (talk) 16:13, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 07:45, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mohit Ul Alam[edit]

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

Non notable. Sources are very very poor, which includes blogs, and personal website. Mar11 (talk) 18:02, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:49, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:49, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep as a Vice Chancellor of a notable major university is by far enough for WP:PROF, the school's website is sufficient for this; to not as a convincing extent but still acceptable, he's also listed at WorldCat, so this can at least be trimmed and improved as needed. SwisterTwister talk 21:15, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete Per WP:Academic and WP:Creative guidelines the article does not pass notability. ~ Moheen ^(talk) 09:33, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep per SwisterTwister. Vinegarymass911 (talk) 15:02, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment He is not a prominent academic in Bangladesh and nor a chancellor of the University. @SwisterTwister:, @Vinegarymass911: please read Academics criteria and Creative criteria mindfully. Even he also failed to pass the WP:GNG. Article have no independent sources to claim notability. The most of the part is Copyvio from his own website. Fully promotional content, as I see there are included the book price also! ~ Moheen ^(talk) 05:16, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- I think you probably need to read up on what a vice-chancellor in Commonwealth universities actually is! He's the actual head of the university; the chancellor is purely a ceremonial role. Having said that, it is a pretty small university, so I'm not sure he meets the criteria. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:37, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SST flyer 03:35, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep per SwisterTwister. Chase (talk) 03:41, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I followed up on User:Moheen Reeyad comments about the references and they are suspect at best. There are several WP:SBS sources, several that simply mention him in very brief passing, and this article, which I would say provides the most description of Alam, but it is hard to say whether or not it could be considered an rs. The article does not meet WP:V based on the current sources and the page should be deleted. Comatmebro User talk:Comatmebro 03:48, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - The applicable basis here is WP:PROF considering that is the listed occupation and if there at least exists a source (in this case, the school website, and regardless of whatever anyone thinks of a source, if it still confirms the facts) it is enough to suggest he is in fact the university chancellor, thus certainly notable and acceptable. As for the Speedy Delete, that would not be applicable in this case. SwisterTwister talk 22:58, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SST flyer 16:01, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep according to the criteria #6 of WP:PROF, 6. The person has held a highest-level elected or appointed administrative post at a major academic institution or major academic society.. Ibrahim Husain Meraj (talk)
Delete Vice Chancellor of Jatiya Kabi Kazi Nazrul Islam University, a new, small university (established 2006, 3464 students). Does not sound like "a major academic institution" to me. BigGuy88 (talk) 04:22, 1 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) 08:33, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

JM Family Enterprises[edit]

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

No apparent notability. No references. Tagged since 2014 for multiple issues. Nowa (talk) 15:48, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 23:32, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete as this is advertising in that it begins with advertising its services, going to PR business awards and then finally listing everything else about the company's business, none of that is an article....it's an advertising business listing. SwisterTwister talk 19:49, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or add references from reliable and independent media. As it currently contains no references, there is no evidence of notability provided.Newtonslaw40 (talk) 13:27, 30 September 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. Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 23:09, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Empires (video game)[edit]

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

Non-notable mod with no substantive independent sourcing, by non-notable modder. Guy (Help!) 15:46, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

delete restored from PROD, but without actual sourcing being added. The one RS doesn't mention the topic - David Gerard (talk) 18:25, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
A reference to https://www.gamingonlinux.com/articles/empires-a-source-sdk-hybrid-of-fps-and-strategy-looks-like-its-coming-to-linux.6545 was added today. Thexa4 (talk) 14:28, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:41, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- no indications of notability or significance. The above link is not RS. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:03, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unless author or editors can add sources ASAP from reliable / independent media (ideally national/international) to support notability, article should be deleted as no support for notability whatsoever. I've completed a quick google search, and nothing of note turns up that might support notability. Newtonslaw40 (talk) 16:05, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 11:13, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ramsay Wood[edit]

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

Flowery advert for non notable writer. Lacks coverage about Wood in independent reliable sources. Sourcing is mostly by him, associated with him or about the older tales he translated. Much of this article is about those tales and not about Wood himself. Other parts appear to be original synthesis. duffbeerforme (talk) 09:48, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 10:52, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

comment the article is not good, particularly for a BLP - but the guy's legit famous and is all over Google, GNews and GScholar. I'd be quite surprised if the sources don't exist. (This isn't a "keep" as yet.) - David Gerard (talk) 17:30, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:49, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 19:49, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Per WP:NEXIST. Google News does in fact pop up sources, per David Gerard, and Google Scholar does deem to cite him, or even discuss him, which is more than enough to establish notability. Fieari (talk) 00:26, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That is a complete misrepresentation of WP:NEXIST and is more akin to WP:GOOGLEHITS. "Google News does in fact pop up sources". What sources? "Google Scholar does deem to cite him". Um no. It does list some articles/books. The most cited of these hits a huge 6. "or even discuss him". Where does it discuss him (or anyone). duffbeerforme (talk) 12:00, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist, hopefully. SST flyer 15:46, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SST flyer 15:46, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete although my google search did turn up a few reports in the news, they did not seem to be providing anything of note or even writing about the subject of this article but just that they were attending a different event. I do not see passing WP:GNG or any other notability measure. I would change my position if sources were shown or were more clear to me.--Paul McDonald (talk) 19:33, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. on the basis of the WorldCat search [7] which shows the very extensive holdings of his principal book. There is furthermore significant critical attention, including by Doris Lessing. DGG ( talk ) 19:55, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The holdings does suggest he is notable however I'd suggest some TNT for all the promo and original research. On Lessing. The person employed to write the books intro is not independent, that and the are both connected through Afghan Relief. duffbeerforme (talk) 07:10, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Sandstein 09:51, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

XNUMBERS[edit]

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

The subject does not establishes its notability as required by WP:N. Codename Lisa (talk) 09:17, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:04, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:04, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:NEXIST. Google scholar has quite a few references to this software, in that many scholarly works apparently rely on it. That alone would make it notable, and something that a researcher would want to learn more about. Going further, one of the scholarly articles [8] goes in depth about how this software is used and why it is useful... this published peer-reviewed academic paper doesn't just use the software, but is ABOUT the software. This firmly establishes notability. Fieari (talk) 03:45, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Fieari: Hi. :)

Unfortunately, you have been mislead by false positives.

Please take another look at Google Scholar results. Here is a sample that appears in many results (boldface is original):

... F 2 120 12.90 by 38.35 a' DISCUSSION F 7 120 3.19 c 7.56 c xNumbers followed by different
letters are significantly ... XNumbers followed by different letters are significantly Indications
are that factors for resistance to disease that different (P = 0.05). ...

If you read the source, however, you see this:

^x Numbers followed by different letters are significantly different (P=0.05)

Google has mistakenly parsed "^x Numbers" as "xNumbers". (Sorry.)

Of course you did find one good source, but that alone does not indicate notability.

Best regards,

Codename Lisa (talk) 09:05, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Lisa! Thank you for the clarification, although I was actually able to tell the difference in my earlier post. Allow me to clarify-- if you do a google scholar search for "XNUMBERS" excel, you will find a large number of articles that specifically refer to this excel addin package. Either simply using it, or discussing it. Some additional examples, from this search:

Low cost environment for rapid prototyping of control algorithms for mechatronic plants based on Microsoft Office Excel application - A feedback system dynamic response analysis by root locus method using Excel spreadsheet and XNumbers add in package.

The Quantitative Structure–Retention Relationship (QSRR) analysis of some centrally acting antihypertensives and diuretics - Single and multilinear regression models were devel- oped for the dataset by use of the MicrosoftExcel 2000/ Regression Data Analysis and Multi-precision Floating Point Computation for Excel (XNUMBERS.XLA-Ver. 4.7 – 2006)

Design and QSAR study of analogs of α-tocopherol with enhanced antiproliferative activity against human breast adenocarcinoma cells - Single and multivariable linear regression models were developed for the data set by use of the Microsoft-Excel 2000/Regression Data Analysis and Multi-precision Floating Point Computation for Excel (XNUMBERS.XLA-Ver.4.7-2006).

Application of experimental design method in optimization of glucose-based surfactant production process - [6] Volpi L. (2007) XNUMBERS ver. 5.6. Multi-precision Floating Point Computation for Excel.

I know, not all of these are discussing XNUMBERS itself... but the fact that they are using XNUMBERS, and citing XNUMBERS, I believe establishes notability, as someone doing research on any one of these papers (and there are many many more I did not link) would want to know what XNUMBERS is, how reliable it is, how it works, and so forth, in order to aid in verifying the other research. There are sufficient sources for us to be able to accurately write the article, some primary, some secondary, and I firmly believe that notability is established. Fieari (talk) 23:47, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 19:52, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Fieari - I think they make a good case for sufficient demonstrable coverage and notability. The screenshots could go, though - that's just padding of no interest. -- Elmidae (talk · contribs) 20:13, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ Pls see below: Original comment: per the sources presented by Fieari; I believe this is borderline, but passable. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:44, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'm sorry but per GNG, significant coverage in reliable secondary sources (independent of the subject) is required. This falls far short of GNG. The references in google scholar only show that the plug in exists (See WP:ITEXISTS) but it doesn't demonstrate notability. We do not keep articles about software simply because they exist WP:NOTDIR. I would be glad if someone can show me some reliable secondary sources which demonstrate notability, but I have certainly not been able to find them. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 14:02, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 (talk) 14:03, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SST flyer 15:46, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete on second thoughts I cannot locate sufficient sources to meet GNG, and Google scholar citations are insufficient in demonstrating individual notability. K.e.coffman (talk) 23:18, 24 September 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. Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 23:08, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comfibook[edit]

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

Nothing serious or serious to be a part of Wikipedia. Definitely not notable to be here. Light2021 (talk) 15:32, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:13, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – Fails WP:N. Finding zero coverage in reliable sources. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:14, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I am finding no evidence of notability. AllyD (talk) 07:48, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not finding any significant coverage, not even a Crunchbase or AngelList entry, which would usually at least have possible pointers to coverage. -- 1Wiki8........................... (talk) 17:31, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No third-party sources to establish notability of this garbage-ware. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 23:25, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:PROMO; only advertorial. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:45, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Consensus is that the subject does not meet Wikipedia's notability standards. Of note is that cursory source searches demonstrate that iDubbbzTV also does not appear to have received any significant coverage (e.g. Gnews search, Gbooks search, Highbeam search), so a page move to this name is not warranted at this time. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:05, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ian Carter (entertainer)[edit]

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

BLP of a YouTube content creator. While the YouTube channel iDubbbzTV has a lot of subscribers and views, there is actually very little written about it in reliable sources, and even less about its creator. None of the sources currently in the article mentions his name at all, and they all fall into one of three categories: a) trivial mentions of iDubbbzTV, b) primary sources for iDubbbzTV, or c) sources not mentioning iDubbbzTV or Carter at all. When I searched for more sources per WP:BEFORE I did find this which seems to confirm Carter's name and connection to the channel, but that's not a reliable source and it's certainly not significant coverage of him. bonadea contributions talk 15:14, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. bonadea contributions talk 15:21, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. bonadea contributions talk 15:21, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Move to iDubbbzTV or something and remove the BLP content. I think the channel is big enough to warrant an entertainment page, but I fully agree that Carter himself is not independently notable. Jergling (talk) 15:35, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:25, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable YouTube personality.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:50, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It unfortunately does not matter how 'big' a channel is, (even on YouTube itself the subscriber metric is largely considered unreliable,) there really isn't enough evidence of outside notability for edups or his channel to warrant an article at this point. Tpdwkouaa (talk) 15:33, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:PROMO; a self-cited vanity page. No indications of notability or significance. K.e.coffman (talk) 23:32, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Move to Wikipedia:Wikipedia article traffic. There is no consensus on whether the mainspace-to-WPspace redirect should be created or not, so I'll leave it for now and ask people to contest its existence at WP:RFD Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:32, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia article traffic[edit]

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

Previously, I deleted OR and poorly sourced material in this article. The scant remaining material is unsourced, and also appears to be OR. Better treatments of this topic include WP:STAT, WP:ATJ, and WP:MILE.

However, the page has averaged 15 views per day over the past three months. Would it be inappropriate to convert it to a disambig page (or redirect) that points to the WP namespace? Should we just delete? Ringbang (talk) 14:33, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Move to Wikipedia:Wikipedia article traffic and delete the cross-namespace redirect left behind. KATMAKROFAN (talk) 14:45, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Despite being a co-writer of the WP:TOP25 and Signpost Traffic Report, and a popular 2013 Special Report on Wikipedia traffic, I never knew this article existed. Some form of it may be appropriate with a Wikipedia-prefix, unless we have sources.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 23:27, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Milowent: WP:Article traffic jumps is the most likely place. Each of the article's seven graphs (which are screenshots of stats.grok.se) illustrates a temporary traffic jump. Since Chelyabinsk meteor is the only one that's already documented on WP:ATJ, we could confirm the stats, add any to the list that are deemed historically relevant, and write blurbs for them. But do we ever redirect from mainspace to WP? —Ringbang (talk) 03:02, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Ringbang: I like that suggestion, and there is some precedent for it, e.g., List of online newspaper archives was redirected to Wikipedia:List of online newspaper archives a few years ago.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 10:16, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, great. If there are no objections, I can take-on that task. —Ringbang (talk) 00:40, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:26, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:26, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Move as suggested to wikispace. Bearian (talk) 20:54, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete per A7 and G4. The article has been speedily deleted, so I have decided to close this as an uncontroversial speedy delete. (non-admin closure) Optakeover^(U)(T)(C) 01:34, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Syed Mohi uddin Ahmad Al- Hasani Wal Hussaini Ajmeri[edit]

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

Initially tagged this with PROD, but the creator attempted to include a references section that pointed to this source, which I believe does not meet WP:RS. I'm unable to find any sources other than perhaps unreliable primary sources for the topic. — Andy W. (talk · ctb) 14:32, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — Andy W. (talk · ctb) 14:41, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Provided sources are self-published and not reliable. These Indian religious articles are always challenging to evaluate, because of inconsistent English spellings and, frankly, the sheer volume of sources that don't meet the project's reliability standards. That said, I'm pretty confident in saying this fails any notability standard, and may indeed be an outright hoax. Searches for "Mohiuddin Ahmad" reveal a lot of clearly unrelated people. Searches for Sufi "saint by birth" provide plenty about Qutbuddin Bakhtiar Kaki and Syed Shah Afzal Biabani, the two historical figures to whom that phrase is generally applied, but nothing suggestive of the current topic. Furthermore, additional digging suggests that the content here is, shall we say, extremely similar to the content from the repeatedly-deleted Syed Mohi ud Din Ahmad Jillani. I'm not able to determine if the same editor is responsible for creating both articles, but the two articles are unquestionably related. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 20:55, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
(WP:G4 speedy?) delete: I am quite confident that this is the same subject as the one AfDed here, considering that the current article mentions that "He belongs to 'Gillani' family of 'Syeds'." I additionally agree with Squeamish Ossifrage's determination that this yet-another-local-South-Asian-Muslim saint fails WP:GNG. --HyperGaruda (talk) 11:36, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as per A7 and G4. Also I have tagged the article for speedy deletion already. Optakeover^(U)(T)(C) 12:45, 24 September 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. Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 23:08, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

SKP Pro Audio[edit]

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

Meets neither WP:GNG nor WP:ORG. Google finds fewer than 100 instances, all of them product descriptions, "for sale" listings, and problem reports. Largoplazo (talk) 14:08, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - As per nom. No refs for notability in the article and I too can find no good sources . All searches yield are advertisements and product listings Velella ^{Velella Talk} 16:02, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 23:39, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and Salt as this was deleted once before as advertising this month, and this is so blatant, it could be speedied again. None of it is anything else but advertising the company and its services, there's no actual "encyclopedia" information. SwisterTwister talk 19:50, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unless references supporting notability can be found and added to support the article. The article contains some insightful facts about the company, it's history, etc. But no indication of notability unfortunately. Some grammar issue also need to be addressed should it not be deleted. Newtonslaw40 (talk) 16:16, 30 September 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. Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 23:08, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

VsTortoise[edit]

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

This is a TortoiseSVN plug in for Microsoft Visual Studio. I don't see any indication that it was ever a popular plug in. There is also hardly any coverage in reliable sources. I consider software as products and this doesn't satisfy WP:NCORP. -- Lemongirl942 (talk) 13:36, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 (talk) 13:36, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 (talk) 13:36, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 (talk) 13:36, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As already has been said this is just a small SVN plug-in for a developer framework. No indication of notability. It fails WP:NSOFTWARE and WP:GNG. This tool has/had 0 coverage anywhere, except for a few blogs with install instructions and some download links. It also seems to be still in beta. According to its github page it seems to be abandoned since January 2015. It has been created by a single-purpose account. It should therefore be deleted. Dead Mary (talk) 19:43, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not even worth a redirect, as Dead Mary notes - David Gerard (talk) 12:38, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - don't see any notability in the article. AlphaBetaGamma^{DeltaEpsilonZeta} 13:46, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - yup, not close to notability, nothing of substance to merge. W Nowicki (talk) 22:55, 29 September 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. (non-admin closure) Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 00:24, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

JGI Group[edit]

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

WP:CORP: parent company of a notable university does not inherit notability. No independent sources given; Google search only turns up sources covering JGI Group in reference to Jain University. Separate article not warranted. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 13:07, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Jain University, as nominator. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 13:08, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 23:41, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 23:41, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 23:41, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Ivanvector: WP:AFD is not correct venue to discuss/propose a redirect or merge. I would suggest you to withdraw the nomination and open a discussion on article's talk page and go by consensus achieved there. By nominating an article for deletion, nominator is supposed to have already cast their !vote as delete and thus is not allowed !vote twice. They are however free to add as many comments they want. Anup [Talk] 07:16, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Anupmehra: thanks, I appreciate your note. But think about it: why would I close this four-day-old thread just to start the same discussion on another page? Anyone watching that page has already been notified about this thread by an entry in their watchlist and the big red notice on the article referring here. And more people can see it here anyway. I realize that proposing a redirect through AfD is not the right way to do things, but the thought occurred to me after having already completed the nomination. It is a valid outcome for an AfD discussion, and there's little reason why the nominator can't be the one to suggest that course of action. What I'm saying here is I'm quite sure that you're right, but I see no good reason to do as you suggest other than just for the sake of bureaucracy, and that's not a good enough reason to do most things. In fact in most cases it's a bad reason to do anything. Respectfully, I think it's best to let this run its course, as much of a mess as it is. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 17:20, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well, someone should have notified you long before. It appears like you are not proposing an article for deletion at articles for deletion venue. While an afd can be closed as non-consensus due to lack of participation (as it seems to be the case here); if you have left a message on talk page and no one showed up, you could still go ahead and do a bold redirect/merge. It could have been turned into a redirect by now had you followed the proper procedure. Bureaucratic methods tend to make simpler things complex, I was suggesting otherwise.

You do not set a course of action for Afd. It is predetermined, i.e. to evaluate notability, and one has to argue either against or in support of it (it mostly results in either keep or delete. Sometimes middle path is adopted as redirect or merge but I believe that was never a purpose of afd). The big red notice is not really an ideal method to attract attention of interested editors.

An individual notable subject can have more than one articles, and two or more subjects notable in themselves (but closely related) could have only one. There is a sharp difference between these two (afd and redirect/merge) discussion types and are not really the same. It is all right if you do not want to withdraw, but you must struck your double !vote. And yes, if you plan on continuing this discussion, move it to either yours or mine or this afd's talk page. Anup [Talk] 21:46, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You are being unexpectedly pedantic, and I admit that your latest comment confuses me, but since it does not seem to be a comment on this topic but merely trying to lecture me again, I'll assume that it's of no consequence. But do not accuse me of double-!voting again. I have explained my rationale both generally and to you directly; no double-!vote has occurred. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 00:21, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn. There doesn't seem to be any interest in discussing this topic, and this is attracting an unexpected level of drama of the "you're doing things differently and I don't like it" variety, and that rarely ends without butthurt and even more rarely results in any benefit to the encyclopedia. Thus, I'm out. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 00:24, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was No consensus. I cannot see any other outcome for this discussion, which has already been open for 6 weeks (!). I will note that those users arguing for keeping this have said that the problems with original research can be fixed; therefore, if these problems prove intractable, the WP:TNT argument will be more persuasive. Vanamonde (talk) 04:32, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Timeline of popular Internet services[edit]

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

Non-neutral by definition. damiens.rf 18:54, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As an indication of how non-neutral this is I note that Baidu, which must be either the most popular Internet service or very close to being so, doesn't even get a mention. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 20:40, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- ? This is Wikipedia. It's not a static document. If something is missing, add it. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 14:39, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - Note that I didn't preface my comment with a bolded "delete", because I wasn't offering this as a reason for deletion. It was more shorthand for a sense that the content of the article doesn't match the title, so if this is kept a decision needs to be made about whether it should be edited so that the content matches the title, which would involve adding stuff about extremely popular services such as Baidu and Yandex, or whether it should be renamed to a title that reflects the content, something like Timeline of popular Internet services in anglophone countries. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 10:28, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    - @86.17.222.157: These services were simply missing until now. Crucial information is missing on many articles so please just go ahead and add it. If you're asking for a reason why they've been missing until now it's probably because most of the page's editors are from anglophone countries. --Fixuture (talk) 19:13, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:54, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:54, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:54, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:56, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Not quite sure I understand the nomination. Are you saying that if it were renamed to be e.g. Timeline of websites in Alexa's top 100, it would be a workable list? In other words, I presume the problem is the "popular" part? Thing is -- and this is another aspect to this discussion -- there's already a timeline like this built into History of the Internet as "Examples of popular Internet services". So I guess the first question is whether that's problematic (I suspect there's a reasonable way to set inclusion criteria), and second is whether it should have its own stand-alone timeline. I'm not sure. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 14:39, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as OR and unclear criteria for inclusion -- i.e. who determines which service was popular? Besides, History of the Internet already provides a similar timeline, so this is redundant. K.e.coffman (talk) 23:07, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - please create a new talk page entry about establishing specific inclusion criteria if you think that's needed here instead of an AfD: notability of the topic and public interest is pretty high - there's no reason to delete the article. --Fixuture (talk) 19:13, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- @Fixuture: Not to try to change your mind, but since it's relevant to the deletion discussion, how would you work the criteria for inclusion? (I.e. what's "popular"?) — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 19:22, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - @Rhododendrites: That would be the matter of that talk page entry - I'd suggest something like "Internet services with over 20 million monthly (or registered?) users" (at one point in their lifetime; reliably sourced). --Fixuture (talk) 19:34, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    - @Fixuture: I think it would be possible to do, but the ability to create such an inclusion criteria is relevant to deletion. For example, saying "20 million" defines it with WP:OR. It would have to be based on reliably sourced definitions of "popular"... and sources don't agree on that sort of thing. That's why I floated the idea of reframing it in more specific terms (I used Alexa, but anything with a clear bar that doesn't require OR would work). I've not yet looked to see what they used in the history of the Internet article... — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 19:38, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      - @Rhododendrites: Well then I'd say at worst case it would be needed to have it moved - e.g. to "Timeline of Internet services with over 20 million monthly users" or so. But that's very inconvenient - instead the lead could simply state the inclusion criteria. --Fixuture (talk) 20:04, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    - Update: Oh, hm. From the looks of it, there was no real discussion about that outline. It was added here in 2011, a few entries were added between then and 2013, when it was split off to Template:Internet history timeline. Damiens.rf tagged it as pov yesterday, but otherwise I'm not seeing much by way of discussion, so who knows. As an aside, Damiens, part of the usage guidelines for the pov template requires opening a discussion section the tag points to. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 19:51, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 19:42, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 20:30, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I agree that this is inherently original research. Who defines what's popular? How do you decide whether it should be restricted to the Alexa top 10 or 50 or 100? If all aspects of original research were removed, it would end up being a duplication of history of the internet, as above. I just don't see any way for this to survive. Either way, it's breaking policy. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 04:52, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment @NinjaRobotPirate:

Who defines what's popular? How do you decide whether it should be restricted to the Alexa top 10 or 50 or 100?

Per discussion. Just not here but on the page's talk page.

If all aspects of original research were removed, it would end up being a duplication of history of the internet

How that? The history of the Internet is a history of the infrastructure, technology and general usage and not the specific content and services on it.

I just don't see any way for this to survive. Either way, it's breaking policy.

I don't agree on that. At worst case the name of the article would need to be changed. But imo that's nitpicking / inconvenient.

--Fixuture (talk) 17:58, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Per Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2016 September 22 SST flyer 12:50, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SST flyer 12:50, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOT#OR. This is patent original research. There is no way to decide what is "popular" without a ~~bit~~ lot of OR. I see this list as totally unencyclopeadic and considering that the information already exists in other forms, I will go with a delete. No point in wasting time to find out a criteria for inclusion. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 13:01, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Lemongirl942: There are multiple ways how "popular" can be bound to specific inclusion criteria for this article. Also one could rename the article, removing "popular". In what other forms does this information exist in the extent & openness of the article in subject? I think a timeline of the content & services on the Internet is very useful and important info.--Fixuture (talk) 19:13, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"Popular" is an unencyclopaedic word with no clear definitions. If someone can find a scholarly definition of "popular Internet service" I would be glad to keep the article. But I doubt anyone has ever found something like that in the entire history of Wikipedia and . If we define it ourselves, it will be OR. Basically I don't see any way this is useful for an encyclopaedia. There is no way to solve this by "editing" either. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 03:11, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Per my comments above. I was looking for an indication this could be salvaged, but nobody has suggested a way to do so here or on the talk page where I opened a discussion. I'll open the same discussion at history of the Internet and would not be opposed to it being spun off in the future if an appropriate inclusion criteria can be determined. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 14:59, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Rhododendrites: Well it hasn't been long since you started the discussion. Also the suggestions you made there seem good enough - why not use one or multiple of them? I'm wondering why you'd vote delete despite having made useful suggestions for the inclusion criteria. --Fixuture (talk) 19:13, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Fixuture: The point of that thread is to figure out what the list was to be based on (after the discussion was initially closed as no consensus). I didn't have a good answer -- all of those I listed are problematic in various ways -- and nobody suggested something better. I've now opened a similar thread at Talk:History of the Internet. If it can be worked out for the purpose of that sidebar, then I wouldn't be opposed to a stand-aloen article in the future. For now, however, we have a pile of OR and no inclusion criteria. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 19:18, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete, or maybe WP:TNT. I think the concept is a valid basis for an article, and History of the Internet is such a broad topic (and long article), this could easily be spun off as a useful an interesting article on its own. But, as several people have pointed out, the inclusion criteria are are ill-defined. For example, the current article leaves one with the impression that Coursera, Vine, and Tinder were the three most important things to happen on the Internet in 2012. Were they? I don't know, but I'd like to have some better way to determine that. -- RoySmith (talk) 16:04, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@RoySmith:

For example, the current article leaves one with the impression that Coursera, Vine, and Tinder were the three most important things to happen on the Internet in 2012. Were they?

Why do they leave you with that impression? The article is just about new services not about everything happening on the Internet. The list is incomplete but more or less these are the three most important new services/websites that were initiated in 2012.

But, as several people have pointed out, the inclusion criteria are are ill-defined.

As said earlier, the inclusion criteria can still get defined better on the talk page.

--Fixuture (talk) 19:13, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep this boils down to two issues: 1) WP:OR and 2) the content of the article. To me, the OR argument doesn't hold water because all of this information is searchable and retrievable through various sources. I find it highly unlikely that individual editors are using this as the source of their original research. As for the content of the article, those are all editing issues and not deletion issues. Therefore, I say we keep it.--Paul McDonald (talk) 19:41, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- ?? What "information" are you talking about that's searchable and retrievable through various sources? The existence of websites with these names? What exactly determines inclusion here, and where can we "search and retrieve" information about that sense of "popular"? If there's no clear inclusion criteria, then it's WP:OR by definition. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 20:08, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Based on your comment, I don't believe you have a grasp on what WP:OR covers. Not having a clear inclusion criteria has nothing to do with Original Research. Not having a clear inclusion criteria covers decisions about specific content of the topic. This is a deletion review where we discuss the deletion or retention of the entire article, not the specific contents of the article.--Paul McDonald (talk) 22:17, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - Of course it does, when a title includes a word like "popular" that requires editors to apply their own interpretation. Not having a clear inclusion criteria means editors apply their own subjective interpretations when determining what should be on the list. The content of a list (the items it includes) is subject to WP:OR, WP:NPOV, WP:V, etc. and therefore inclusion criteria "should be unambiguous, objective, and supported by reliable sources." When an editor decides for him/herself what "popular" means rather than basing it on a clear inclusion criteria (one that is unambiguous, objective, and supported by reliable sources), that's original research. It's possible for a list to have no clear inclusion criteria and not have obvious OR problems, sure, but not when the title of the list includes a word like "popular", because without defining that term with reliable sources, editors must use original research in order to add to the list. Whether it be going by one's own personal definition of "popular" or choosing for themselves a sourced definition. At the most basic level, you could say that if every entry were sourced to something calling it "popular", then sure, you could say there's no OR -- it would just be utterly indiscriminate in its inconsistency. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 22:58, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    - Editing can solve that issue. It's not a deletion issue.--Paul McDonald (talk) 02:55, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      - Editing cannot solve this issue. The issue is that there is no unambiguous definition of the word popular. If the material in the article is valuable, the article can always be userfied/draftified. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 18:35, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        Selecting a different wording (Top 5 Internet Services by year, History of Internet Services, etc.) would solve that and word selection is indeed "editing" --Paul McDonald (talk) 11:58, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        "Top 5" according to whom? --damiens.rf 12:17, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        oh this is just speculation here but maybe the "top 5" according to search engine rank or ranked by revenue or customer count or service footprint by any one of a number of third party reliable sources that provide ongoing industry reviews. Or maybe not "top 5" but some other measure that is specific. In any event, that is word selection which is decidedly an editing issue.--Paul McDonald (talk) 13:53, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It's a summary, not OR. We are capable of determining by discussion what items should be included in such a list. Summaries suchas this are an appropriate and accepted type of article. DGG ( talk ) 20:36, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- @DGG: what is it summarizing? We have a list of companies united by them being "popular", with the list duplicated in an article sidebar and a stand alone timeline, neither of which have ever defined "popular" or set criteria for what qualifies as "popular" — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 20:59, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:57, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Perhaps it would be better to change the title of the article, and refocus. It is more a collection of services that acquired most of the market share in their own area, and that has been changing over time. Neutrality of this topic is going to be always an issue, but it is nevertheless a useful article. If necessary discuss inclusion criteria on the talk page.--Micru (talk) 10:09, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- I have no objection to changing the title and being more specific in its criteria. In order to successfully do that we should close the AFD as keep so enthusiastic editors can discuss and edit.--Paul McDonald (talk) 13:57, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - You (and some other editors above) are basically saying "Keep, as long as we change its title and its contents.". Mindblowing.--damiens.rf 14:13, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    - Not exactly. I'm saying to keep it first. Then if consensus wants to change the title that's one avenue to a final solution.--19:59, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
Keep - Even if it is OR, it is still useful information. Maybe the title should be changed to Timeline of Internet services so that way we don't get arguments about what is "popular". Swordman97 ^{talk to me} 16:31, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:NOT#OR is a policy. As for your second suggestion, if we convert it to a timeline of all internet services, it would become a directory listing. This is not allowed per WP:NOTDIR. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 16:39, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - Since this is not original research, it doesn't matter.--Paul McDonald (talk) 18:31, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – don't we have enough of these already? Between the Timeline of web browsers, List of Internet pioneers, more specific articles like List of virtual communities with more than 100 million users, History of blogging, and history of webcomics, and categories like Category:Internet properties by year of establishment‎, I'd want to see a pretty well-established list here or none at all. The topic ("internet services") is incredibly general. This timeline includes technologies, websites, and web applications, without distinction. "Popular" is even vaguer. Was Keenspot popular enough to be listed? The service was influential and used by many people, but I think everyone here would agree it doesn't even come near the likes of Yahoo!. How about Outlook.com? Used by millions, but so are plenty of other services. Honestly, I don't think this list can serve any purpose other than being a popularity contest. Can I add Marktplaats.nl? It's used by millions of people, so that counts as popular, right? ~Mable (chat) 19:44, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment @Maplestrip: None of these captures what this list is about. Category:Internet properties by year of establishment‎ includes every Internet property and not just the popular ones and the other articles are about specific types of Internet services. It's supposed to be that general - especially as there are new types of Internet websites/services/... getting established (innovation and novelties per year is a main point of the article). For the definition of "popular" please see the previous discussion - let's decide upon inclusion criteria on its talk page. Keenspot seems to have been several orders of magnitude beneath the other items of the list in terms of popularity - it may have been used by many people interested in webcomics which aren't that many. I think this list has been going fine until now so why should that change just now...and there is the issue of the missing inclusion criteria - but that's not a point for deleting the article but instead requires us to simply define some on the talk page. --Fixuture (talk) 20:15, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - I'm not just worried about the lack of inclusion criteria, however, but I am also audited about the actual scope. Are there even sources specifically listing or discussing major "Internet services"? If so, what sources would list web browsers and websites side-by-side? The vagueness of "internet services" worries me a lot. I would prefer a timeline of popular Internet technologies and a timeline of popular websites. I'm sure we already have a list of best-sold mobile apps (I'm on mobile right now, so checking is hard) (EDIT: like this?). These kind of things are much better defined and result in a meaningful collection of items. ~Mable (chat) 21:27, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    - I'm not concerned. Bing News Search turns up many listings.--Paul McDonald (talk) 21:43, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      - Huh, seems like Bing only gives regional articles, so all I see is unrelated Dutch stuff. A Google News search using the same query also doesn't give anything useful. Could you link some of these articles directly? ~Mable (chat) 09:03, 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:28, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The show broadway group[edit]

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

I'm skeptical of the validity of this article. The group won "The Music Award": What is "The Music Award"? It was "nominated" for best jazz single at the Akademia Music Awards: Artists "nominate" themselves for these "awards"—for a fee—according to this. And these "awards", which seem to consist of their hosting a web page for your group, are given out every month. I guess it's what you'd call a vanity award service.

"TOP 20 world's best jazz musicians", according to whom? The author wrote "a 16th place in world ranking"; the source, from which these several sentences were otherwise copied, says 62nd. Either way, world ranking according to whom? And the group certainly doesn't pass WP:GNG. No applicable coverage. Largoplazo (talk) 11:25, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 11:38, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 11:38, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 11:38, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, Largos rationale is sound--Jac16888 ^Talk 19:24, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: fails WP:GNG and WP:NBAND. I smell a huge amount of WP:PROMO here: the references in the text are to "The Akademia" - this is the organization that gave the group their "music award", and which states on its home page that its business is helping promote new acts, so it's a marketing agency. The one in-line reference is to a blog site for "mrgorbunoff": a bit of googling brings up Igor Gorbunoff, whose social media accounts are full of references and links promoting the Akademia and the Show Broadway Group, and almost nothing else. Oh, and "Mrgorbunoff" just happens to be the username of the editor who created the article. Richard3120 (talk) 22:25, 23 September 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. NeilN ^{talk to me} 01:41, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Trump plant theory[edit]

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

This page is the lone survivor of the three articles dedicated to "conspiracy theories" of the 2016 U.S. presidential elections. Similar to AfD: Conspiracy theories of the United States presidential election, 2016 and Afd: Hillary Clinton brain damage rumor, this article should be likewise deleted as content deemed inadequate for inclusion in Trump's presidential campaign article, and per WP:NOTNEWS. Content very similar to what's in the article was deleted as part of the Conspiracy theories article, and I don't see a reason to keep it in a stand-alone article. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:59, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:07, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 19:32, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:00, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep At first, I thought I agreed with the notion that "if the content isn't on the campaign page, then it should't have it's own article." If it's not notable enough for the campaign's page, why should it get it's own page? But with as many reliable sources (BBC, The Washington Post, CNN, etc.) cited, and my remembrance of this theory being more prominent in the media than the other two mentioned theories that have already been deleted, I don't believe this specific theory should be wiped from Wiki entirely. Comatmebro User talk:Comatmebro 03:24, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -- sources also include Tampa Bay Times and Gawker. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:44, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment So those cancel each other out? I don't think that's how it works... Comatmebro User talk:Comatmebro 03:51, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I was just pointing out that the sources indicate typical "news cycle driven" chatter, rather in-depth academic analysis. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:06, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Understood. Cheers Comatmebro User talk:Comatmebro 04:56, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Full confession: I had not even heard of this one until I happened on it at AFD. At a glance, my first impulse was to keep, because the sources looked strong and because it is often useful to keep and debunk even patently absurd rumors (i.e., Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories). Then, not least because I had never heard of this one, I clicked on some of the more reputable sources, like The Hill and the Washington Post, reading them made it clear that while this was floated, it was never taken seriously; journalists wrote it up dismissively and "tongue in cheek." It soon disappeared. Fails WP:GNG.E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:48, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I think this is a valid subject for an article since this supposed strategy has been talked about for over a year, when Trump was running in the Republican primaries. Whether the article will stand the test of time, I'm not sure but I think it is valuable right now, in 2016. 198.0.45.11 (talk) 23:18, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep passes GNG, good sourcing DarjeelingTea (talk) 02:45, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Just like the conspiracy theory and brain damage articles. Sources are weak are unserious. Passing the incredibly low bar of gng does not make nonsense into encyclopedia content. Reywas92^Talk 19:27, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep for now Interesting article. We should wait until after the election to see if the theory is true. ZN3ukct (talk) 18:57, 20 September 2016 (UTC)~~ --Struck !vote of blocked sock. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 19:01, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -- anybody really thinks that Trump is a plant? :-) Or was that sarcasm? K.e.coffman (talk) 05:07, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@K.e.coffman: --- never doubt the accuracy of twenty-twenty hindsight :-) Steve Quinn (talk) 06:37, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This conspiracy theory is only interesting in context of the ongoing election. WP:RECENTSIM and WP:NOTNEWS apply. Not an encyclopedic subject. My very best wishes (talk) 04:57, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete NOTNEWS, RECENTISM, and due the previously mentioned, it fails GNG. Although this "rumor" is quite entertaining, it has not managed to outlast the news cycles that originally carried it. Also, as mentioned above, it was never taken seriously and therefore does not demonstrate the durability of other more well known fringe theories. Steve Quinn (talk) 06:26, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Yet another WP:FRINGE, semi-jocular "theory." It's very obvious speculation, and we needn't treat every piece of speculation - no matter how intriguing and/or well-covered - to its own article. For instance, the Cruz-Oswald slur (remember that?), the "OMG Clinton wore an earpiece" nonsense, and all of the rest do not need their own articles, even though they've certainly generated sourcing. With every twist and turn of the campaigns, more of this sort of thing will come up. GAB^gab 00:29, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – Highly discussed subject, covered in several reliable media sources. MB298 (talk) 01:43, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 07:38, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete An encyclopedia is not a place for conspiracy theories - such articles are inherently POV by their very existence. Nwlaw63 (talk) 13:09, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Conspiracy theories There's plenty of em. ZN3ukct (talk) 16:56, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, fringe theory at best. Wikipedia is not a newspaper and it is not a tabloid, either. Kierzek (talk) 13:55, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: future generations would be amused to read about this, but most likely only in the context of an article section that discussed all notable kooky theories of this election. Including the theory that Trump is a legitimate candidate for President of the United States of America.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 23:30, 23 September 2016 (UTC)--Milowent • ^hasspoken 23:30, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Even if we say something passes GNG (and I'm not necessarily saying that's the case here), that doesn't automatically mean it should have a stand-alone article. There are hundreds of individual aspects of individual campaigns, incidents involving individual candidates, etc. that, taken on their own, could be viewed as notable. But we don't have to take them on their own. Wikipedia is WP:NOTNEWS and doesn't need to cover all of them separately, irrespective of WP:WEIGHT/relative significance to the larger topic of which they are a part. It's possible this could be included in a campaign/election-related article, but the existence of sources about an aspect of those subjects that gets a bit of superficial attention in the news doesn't necessitate an article. There's some coverage -- but what's certainly not established is lasting significance outside the campaign/candidacy. I would support deleting the lot of stand-alone "controversy", "conspiracy", etc. articles that have no life outside of 2016 election/campaign/candidacy coverage until after the election, when we can see what has lasting significance. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 18:55, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 21:39, 27 September 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 Interstate 93. We have 2 each for merge, redirect or delete. This makes redirect the most consensual option, as it allows to merge any material that has consensus from the history, or conversely to separately RfD the redirect. Sandstein 09:49, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Methuen rotary reconstruction (2010s)[edit]

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

Should be merged into I93 Anmccaff (talk) 17:57, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:04, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:04, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Methuen rotary may or may not be notable, but surely any content about its reconstruction should be covered in the same place as the junction itself? 86.17.222.157 (talk) 21:27, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I agree to merge this into I93. While the notability of the rotary intersection may be contentious, the project itself is noteworthy as a capital outlay, as is its associated political dealings Tylr00 (talk) 15:37, 1 September 2016 (UTC)Tylr00[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 02:36, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As non-notable. I'd support a merge if there were any substantial content to merge, but there isn't. Smartyllama (talk) 17:35, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 19:38, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. Nordic Nightfury 06:48, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nordic Nightfury 06:48, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect - Nothing to really merge. Just make it a redirect. Redirects are WP:CHEAP. Fieari (talk) 07:07, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No sources and I don't know what the article is about.--Paul McDonald (talk) 17:37, 23 September 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. Also salted. Sam Walton (talk) 17:01, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Streetrunner[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/StreetRunner

Articles for deletion/Streetrunner (2nd nomination)

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

Procedural nomination as a rejected WP:G4 speedy deletion candidate. Main concern in prior discussion was failing the general notability guideline and the notability guideline for music producers.

I have no argument for keep/delete, but it's likely worth discussing here. Appable (talk) 06:32, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 11:42, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 11:42, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

~~Redirect~~ Delete ~~to The Marshall Mathers LP 2~~ & Salt - The article was created by a paid editor (In all fairness to them they did put a template on the tp stating it) but in my eyes articles should be created by anyone who simply wants to create something ... not by someone paid to get the article up and not by someone who knows the subject, That aside they've gained some notability for producing The Marshall Mathers LP 2 (& the songs for it) but other than that the rest of the sources are Grammy awards/lists (again for working on the album), There's nothing out there that says "Yes this person has done something else that's gained notability", I wonder if it's a BLP1E case but could be entirely wrong on that, Either way they've only got some notability for working on album & that's it ..... So IMHO it's better off ~~redirected~~ deleted & perhaps salted. –Davey2010^Talk 12:39, 23 September 2016 (UTC)(Updated: 12:16, 29 September 2016 (UTC))[reply]
Keep. (I created the article - I was paid and disclosed that on the talk page). To address the above, Streetrunner is not only notable for producing a track on Eminem's The Marshall Mathers LP 2. Over the past decade, he has produced many tracks for Lil Wayne and numerous other major rappers, including 2 Chainz, Ludacris, Rick Ross, Fat Joe, Nicki Minaj, LL Cool J, Birdman and Royce da 5'9". Two albums he has worked on have won Grammy awards. Some of the singles he has produced are pretty big, such as Nicki Minaj's "Roman in Moscow" and Lil Wayne and Big Sean's "My Homies Still" (which went platinum). Simply put, the guy is notable in the hip hop world. There is press from Vibe, XXL, HipHopDX and MTV News. I feel the previous page on Streetrunner was deleted primarily because it was very poorly written, so here I have created one that is sourced and well-written and demonstrates his notability as a hip hop producer.--Bernie44 (talk) 14:11, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Page move comment - I've moved this to 2nd nom to make it less confusing as unfortunately the system didn't pick up on the lowercase "r" so to make it less confusing I've moved it., Thanks, –Davey2010^Talk 22:03, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete: per WP:CSD#G4 with WP:SALT. Toddst1 (talk) 22:06, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy was declined so it's not really applicable now, Cheers, –Davey2010^Talk 22:15, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable record producer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:35, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and Salt as this is enough, there is literally nothing else different and nor should there be, since this was deleted a month ago; persistent actions like of clear advertising, is what causes damages and it's unacceptable. SwisterTwister talk 05:59, 29 September 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. SOFTDELETE per low participation herein. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:40, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Leo Justi[edit]

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

No evidence of WP:Notability TheKaphox (talk) 23:16, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2016 September 9. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 23:34, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 04:54, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 04:54, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable DJ.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:23, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:22, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:05, 23 September 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 Lists of Transformers characters. Sandstein 19:32, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Iguanus[edit]

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

This article fails to establish notability. The one reception source in the article is too trivial on its own. TTN (talk) 22:30, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 22:30, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The sources that are there aren't actually that terrible, but they aren't sufficient to support an article. They'd be very useful to help source a list entry or two, though. Josh Milburn (talk) 18:43, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:22, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect - Not notable enough to stand on its own, but notable within the fiction. Since the character has appeared in multiple stories, redirecting to Lists of Transformers characters will be the best way to help a user find the specific Iguanus they're looking for. Argento Surfer (talk) 16:10, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:05, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of Transformers characters. per Argento Surfer. TonyBallioni (talk) 06:14, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Hear me out. I would typically agree that the sources for this would not merit a full article, and would be better suited for inclusion on a list. However, that said, this article is full of pertinent, encyclopedic, useful information, and is simply too much to merge into the list. Showing comparisons and contrasts between different versions of the character across different franchises is valid... so the usual argument that these kinds of sources don't provide enough information to sustain their own article is clearly wrong in this particular case. I would vote to merge/redirect, except that once done, I'd see a perfectly valid argument for splitting it back out to its own article! In summary, I think that it's met the criteria for inclusion within Wikipedia SOMEWHERE, and that there is enough reliably sourced information to merit its own article. So, keep. Fieari (talk) 06:47, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The only sourced information is that toys of this character exist. The bulk of it, which is the part I assume you're describing as pertinent, encyclopedic, and useful, is all unsourced plot material. Adding primary sources to this won't help prove notability. I agree that this is information that people may want. I disagree that Wikipedia is the place for it rather than, say, the Transfomers Wikia. Argento Surfer (talk) 12:28, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I agree here. The information is useful, but the question is if Wikipedia is the correct place for it. Looks too much like WP:PLOT for me. TonyBallioni (talk) 16:57, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of Transformers characters; not independently notable. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:09, 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:26, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Natalia Ghilascu[edit]

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

Aside from one interview that isn't really quotable, I'm really not seeing anything in the way of significant coverage in independent sources. There are some passing mentions, and then there are websites of organizations, or blurbs written by entities affiliated with the subject, and things of that nature. So as far as I can tell, the subject fails WP:BASIC. - Biruitorul ^Talk 19:23, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Moldova-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 15:39, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 15:39, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 15:39, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:24, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable journalist.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:10, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:04, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete seems like a really wonderful person, but nothing notable yet. TonyBallioni (talk) 06:16, 23 September 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) Lourdes 01:29, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dmitry Kawarga[edit]

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

Considerably lacking evidence of notability, mostly primary sources, appears to be promotional article created in several languages (the others are about this quality too). Not much on the web (except "Dmitry Kawarga is a mysterious artist, who never appears neither in photos nor on video") and zero GNews. A week at PROD did not turn up any improvement in sourcing. Previously CSDed, then recreated at Kawarga; SALTing for both may be appropriate, this is a BLP. David Gerard (talk) 07:44, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. David Gerard (talk) 07:45, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. David Gerard (talk) 07:46, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:02, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I have filled out the details of the BBC and Süddeutsche Zeitung references which were already there but unclear, and added a Washington Post article as another. However as yet I am undecided as to whether there is enough to meet the rather onerous WP:ARTIST criteria, or whether the controversy about the Yeltsin sculpture sits under WP:BLP1E. AllyD (talk) 15:38, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:26, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- using the Cyrillic name I was able to locate this rather substantial article in the Russian version of Popular Mechanics magazine. This publication is licensed by English language magazine so appears to be RS: Dmitry Kawarga and biogenic sculpture. There's probably more out there. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:15, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:04, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

~~Comment / Weak~~ Keep -- I feel unqualified to search for and review Russian language sources. I'd be willing to give the benefit of the doubt, given what K.e.coffman found, above, but is there any way we could summon some Russian/English bilinguists to do a better search? I'd prefer if two articles could be found, not just one. Fieari (talk) 06:51, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment on additional sources:

Here's a bit more in English, where he sometimes appears as Kavarga: Black Beast
He also has an entry at the web site of the apparently prestigious Kandinsky Prize: Dmitry Kawarga. He was not a winner though. But this is a by-lined bio sketch.

Kawarga appears to be widely exhibited in Russia. Here's a profile from Erarta, "Russia's largest private museum of contemporary art": link (in English). According to the museum's web site, his works are in a permanent collection there.

K.e.coffman (talk) 07:10, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Changing my !vote from "weak keep" to "keep". Thank you for the sources, those are plenty to establish notability. Fieari (talk) 07:43, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, clearly meets WP:NARTIST with his works included in permanent collections at several substantial museums. I also found consistent coverage in Dialogue of Arts, the publication of the Moscow Museum of Modern Art, which seems to show interest beyond the "Yeltsin sculpture" coverage: link (in Russian). K.e.coffman (talk) 23:32, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There are 20+ publications in mainstream newspapers, RFE/RL, etc. about him on corresponding page in ruwiki ru:Каварга,_Дмитрий_Викторович#.D0.9F.D1.83.D0.B1.D0.BB.D0.B8.D0.BA.D0.B0.D1.86.D0.B8.D0.B8. However, this is all in Russian and was not used for referencing on this page. My very best wishes (talk) 15:15, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep His art is featured in many museums, and I just added an English language source that includes a photo of one of his works at the largest museum of contemporary art in Russia.Timtempleton (talk) 22:12, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. WP:NPASR per low participation herein. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:37, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Blackbirds (Norwegian band)[edit]

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

Does not seem to have enough media attention, popularity, and Certifications to be considered notable per the notability guidelines in WP:BAND. Wasabi,the,one (talk) 02:07, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. MorbidEntree - _{(Talk to me! (っ◕‿◕)っ♥)}(please reply using ((ping))) 03:12, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. MorbidEntree - _{(Talk to me! (っ◕‿◕)っ♥)}(please reply using ((ping))) 03:15, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: If the claims in the article can be verified, they pass point 10 and 11 in WP:BAND. They have been in rotation in Norways largest radio station (NPR) as well as lot of other radio stations throughout the country (passes point 11). They also may pass point 10, because apparently they provied music for some major Norwegian shows at least once according to the article. Dead Mary (talk) 15:16, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: There is a prior AfD for this article at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Blackbirds. Yngvadottir (talk) 17:53, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:28, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:03, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -- I reached out to WikiProject Norway link; hopefully they can help. K.e.coffman (talk) 23:23, 28 September 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 as a week has not suggested anything else (NAC). SwisterTwister talk 00:32, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

John Alagía[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Non-notable living person. First AfD was closed as no consensus. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 02:22, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 02:55, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:58, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:03, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Reported on in reliable sources. Previous AfD brought up huffington post, for instance, which describes him as "a legend". Google news pops up Guitar Girl Magazine, which confirms 3x Grammy Nominations. Google news goes on to bring up over a hundred mentions in various sources. Most of these mentions are brief, in articles talking about other things, but pretty much every single mention also discusses, at least for a sentence or two, the fact that John Alagia is a notable person for a variety of reasons. On the weight of these numerous references, I will !vote keep. Fieari (talk) 07:04, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Poor sources in this case seem to indicate a lack of freely available news. He's notable in the way film directors are, but there's apparently no IMDB for music producers. He is credited on the WP articles for several famous albums, which is sufficient if those articles are cited. Jergling (talk) 15:46, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. While most producers are not notable, this person seems to make the grade, based on the sources that show he's been nominated for 3 Grammys. Bearian (talk) 20:43, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. WP:OTHERSTUFF is not a reason for keeping anything. Given that nobody has indicated that sources indicating notability exist, the delete argument carries the day. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:25, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Bhanot (Brahmin)[edit]

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

This is a recreation of an article that was deleted via PROD earlier this year. It is still unsourced and still appears to fail WP:GNG. Sitush (talk) 06:32, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 12:02, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 12:02, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This article certainly needs improvement and sources. However, Bhanot is a known caste group in Northern India. There are many other caste groups that have wiki pages. Specifically for this page, the author seems to be differentiating Bhanot Rajputs from Bhanot Brahmins. At the worst, put in Drafts of the author, but not delete. ChunnuBhai (talk) 14:45, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mere existence is not an acceptable criteria per WP:GNG. As for Bhanot Rajputs, well, I've struggled to source that over the last few months and suspect I will refer it to AfD also in due course. And just because there are articles about some caste groups does not justify keeping this one. - Sitush (talk) 15:57, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:03, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I'm not seeing a thing that would hint notability for topic under discussion. It simply fails WP:GNG. One keep !vote above seems to arise from WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS and thus doesn't seem to be a valid argument. Anup [Talk] 16:53, 30 September 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) 08:24, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Rubika Liyaquat[edit]

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

Delete. Fails WP:JOURNALIST. Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 07:17, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 12:01, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 12:01, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 12:01, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete run of the mill journalist who seems to lack coverage for her work.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:08, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:02, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Fails WP:JOURNALIST and WP:GNG. Anup [Talk] 17:00, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. postdlf (talk) 15:00, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

IWRG Máscara vs. Máscara (August 2016)[edit]

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

WP:NOTNEWS. No evidence that this event has any enduring notability and has received coverage beyond the routine "this will happen" announcement beforehand and "this is what happened" reports immediately afterwards. Fram (talk) 11:03, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 12:01, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 12:01, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:18, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Not-"NOTNEWS" here. MPJ-DK 14:59, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Hi article creator, any evidence for your claim? Fram (talk) 07:18, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:02, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per the result of the IWRG Máscara vs. Máscara (September 2016) AfD, as well as the other three Lucha events that recent were brought to AfD but kept. I'm not sure how WP:NOTNEWS applies. Passes WP:SIGCOV requirements.LM2000 (talk) 02:01, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- The September one had a lot more sources, and one that billed it as "the most important of its type for this company in the last few years". There is nothing comparable for this article, all we have is "it happened". All we have here is a database (cagematch), and one website bringing a report of the evening. Fails SIGCOV by a very wide margin. How would NOTNEWS not apply? See also WP:SUSTAINED. Fram (talk) 06:46, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I've dropped a neutral note at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#WP:NOTNEWS and AfD to get more input here. Fram (talk) 06:50, 30 September 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 00:00, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Abadawn[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Not seeing coverage sufficient to pass WP:MUSBIO. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 13:46, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 13:47, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:40, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:01, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Artist has no coverage in third party independent sources (or any at all). Sources in the article are self published or non-RS (and even there its just database entries or a passing mention). He fails WP:GNG, there is nothing on him out there. He generally has low reception, his tracks have only few views in streaming services. He is not aired in a notable station or something related. His albums are self-published. He fails WP:MUSBIO/WP:ENTERTAINER in all points. Article was deleted in the past, but has been recreated with a single purpose account. Should therefore be deleted again, as nothing has changed since the last AFD. Dead Mary (talk) 08:52, 23 September 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) 08:21, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Shana B. Peterson[edit]

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

Non-notable person. Brianga (talk) 19:27, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:57, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:57, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:00, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NACTOR. Roles are not in major productions. agtx 23:20, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete when your best known role is in a commercial you are very rarely notable, and when all your roles in film are in films that are not notable notability is almost certainly not there.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:27, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Sandstein 09:52, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mounif Salem Moussa[edit]

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

Unsourced BLP, non-notable. KATMAKROFAN (talk) 17:04, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have no opinion as yet about the disposition of this article, but must note that a deletion nomination seven minutes after creation when the creator is still clearly working on it is disruptive, and many editors would just give up on Wikipedia in those circumstances. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 19:17, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lebanon-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:10, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:10, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:10, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:46, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 19:40, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, pending evidence of non-trivial coverage from reliable publications. Regards, Yamaguchi先生 (talk) 20:02, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and I planned to comment earlier, there's certainly still nothing for WP:AUTHOR or WP:PROF. SwisterTwister talk 23:00, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Worldcat Entry here. Gonna look up more later. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 11:10, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Given the Worldcat holdings, likely to be a notable author. Many major universities have his books. This is an instance where our own cultural bias prevents us from checkingfurther, butthere is a biography written about him. DGG ( talk ) 03:42, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Seems like a closer analysis is needed here. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 05:59, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 05:59, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wikipedia is not a free web hosting service for a resume.--Paul McDonald (talk) 17:39, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Tentative keep -- I found this snippet Anthologie: recueil de morceaux choisis d'œuvres de poètes libanais, describing the subject as a professor of letters and his works are apparently included as part of the anthology. I suspect more sources would be available in Arabic as the subject was a full-time professor and published author. There is apparently a 100+ page book written about the subject: Mounīf Moussa un poete du Liban by Jamale Otayek Roucoz. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:14, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per DGG and K.e.coffman, also ar:منيف سالم موسى - which is a new page there and tagged that it needs work, but does have more info. Smmurphy^(Talk) 20:31, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:05, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Feeding Fingers[edit]

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

Fails WP:N, there's no hint of notability. Also concerned at the edit history of this and Justin Curfman, there may be WP:COI as well. Hiding T 14:45, 8 September 2016 (UTC) Hiding T 14:45, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:39, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete there's a whole cluster of articles on this band which also show to fail notability - David Gerard (talk) 13:39, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 19:53, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. David Gerard (talk) 17:59, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 05:54, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I can't find independent, reliable sources which discuss the topic. Well-written, but obviously promotional. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 20:41, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:PROMO; strictly a vanity page. Does not meet WP:NBAND and COI editing is definitely a concern as neutrality of this article would have to be watched closely. Keeping such promotional articles on insignificant subjects is not in the best interest of the project. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:33, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as the information is simply expected, but the sources are now a serious concern because that's why is supported and supplied by everywhere, and they are honestly not at all convincing, everything else suggests there's nothing for a convincing article, and therefore, it has the essence of suggesting there would not be meaningful improvements. SwisterTwister talk 06:42, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Was improved during discussion, making earlier opinions perhaps obsolete. Sandstein 09:52, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Rosoła Street, Warsaw[edit]

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

Nothing in this article persuades me that this is anyting other than a very dull stretch of tarmac. Wikipedia is not a sreet directory. TheLongTone (talk) 15:49, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:00, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:00, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:03, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, non-notable street. — Kpalion^(talk) 09:42, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 19:55, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete concur with nom, nothing in the article really suggests any notability. MB 21:15, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete per nom and above. There isn't any reason as to why this should be kept, that I can see. Its just a random street in a capital city. Nordic Nightfury 07:03, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nominator....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 18:24, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as failing WP:GEOROAD but ping User:Halibutt for his view. --Hanyangprofessor2 (talk) 02:08, 19 September 2016 (UTC) (alt for --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:41, 19 September 2016 (UTC))[reply]
Keep and improve. First of all, it's one of three main arteries of the borough of Ursynów. Secondly, numerous notable buildings are located along its' course, including the Warsaw University of Life Sciences campus and the Natolin Palace. And there's plenty of book sources to expand the article with. As such the topic seems definitely notable to me, it's not clear from the current version of the article though. //Halibu tt 08:29, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Halibutt, can you expand the article from these "book sources"? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 05:53, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 05:53, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Jo-Jo Eumerus:, I don't have the time to do much more ATM, but check the article now. //Halibu tt 15:33, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Withdraw nomination: article is much improved & imo makes a reasonable case for notability.TheLongTone (talk) 14:20, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep in light of above. !Delete vote withdrawn. Nordic Nightfury 13:50, 27 September 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. A clear consensus for deletion has arisen in this discussion. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:02, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Megan Conte[edit]

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

Prod removed by an IP with no comment, no changes to article, and virtually no other edit history. As I said in the Prod, playing on a university team is not notable, being the first non-American to score for a particular college team is not notable (and the cited source does not support this), and having played all of one international senior and one international junior game is not notable. Only sources in article are the university team's webpage. No significant coverage of her found in other sources. Fails WP:NCOLLATH. Fails WP:GNG. Meters (talk) 01:33, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:N MordeKyle (talk) 02:03, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:NCOLLATH. Though the fact that East Carolina is recruiting non-Americans is actually pretty interesting, but that doesn't have anything to do with notability. TonyBallioni (talk) 02:55, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Actually that fact is notable enough to warrant an article. See Wikipedia policies.--Izudrunkizuhadenough (talk) 03:00, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

— Note to closing admin: Izudrunkizuhadenough (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this AfD.

No offense to the Pirates, but while their fans may be rabid they are at best a regional collegiate sports power, and women's soccer isn't exactly a huge sport there. If we were talking about the first internationally recruited quarterback at Ohio State, I would be much more open to discussing whether that made them notable (and it probably would because I'm guessing there would be significant coverage in many major national publications.) I'm just not convinced in this case. TonyBallioni (talk) 01:38, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, no Wikipedia policy makes that a notable fact in and of itself, if reliable source coverage isn't there to get her over WP:GNG for it. Bearcat (talk) 15:13, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - All arguments made above check out. Non-notable in general, and fails WP:NCOLLATH in specific. Fieari (talk) 04:46, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Blythwood (talk) 05:14, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete scoring a goal in women's soccer on the US college level is not enough to make one notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:19, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 23:44, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 23:44, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:NCOLLATH and WP:GNG. Even if she did play against Nigeria, I find no evidence that it was with Canada, so she also does not meet WP:NFOOTY. — Jkudlick • t • c • s 02:21, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Good point. Canada Soccer shows that Canada's full women's team has not played Nigeria in a Tier 1 match since 2011 (Dresden, GER FIFA Women's World Cup). Since Conte is in first year university she is too young to have played on that team. The Canadian U17 team played Nigeria in 2012 (FIFA U-17 Women's World Cup) but even if she were on that team I don't think it would qualify. The Canadian U20 team has not played Nigeria since 2006. http://canadasoccer.com/index.php?t=schedule&genderId=0&seasonKeyword=&tid=all&opponentTeamKeyword=Nigeria&venueKeyword=&month=0&year=All Meters (talk) 02:53, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, does not meet WP:GNG, a gsearch brings up a couple of non useable pages like facebook, twitter, did find this - Vaughan's Megan Conte awarded full Division One scholarship , but its not enough. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:07, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. — Jkudlick • t • c • s 06:39, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. — Jkudlick • t • c • s 06:41, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 07:01, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Being the first non-American member of a college-level sports team ever to score a goal for her team is not, in and of itself, a reason why a person gets permanent coverage in an encyclopedia — and that's especially true when the only reference for that claim is the team's own self-published website about itself. Had she gotten media coverage for the distinction, then there might be a valid WP:GNG claim depending on how much coverage there was about it, but even then it would still quite possibly just make her a WP:BLP1E if there wasn't also significant media coverage about her beyond that context alone. And WP:NCOLLATH does not support an automatic notability freebie for international recruits just because they're international students and not American citizens, either. Bearcat (talk) 15:11, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:GNGRniterjr (talk) 18:22, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails NFOOTY as has not played senior international football nor played in a fully professional league. No indication of any collage award to satisfy NCOLLATH. No indication that subject has garnered significant reliable coverage for any other achievements to satisfy either NHSPHSATH or wider GNG. Fenix down (talk) 08:00, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:NFOOTY, WP:NCOLLATH, WP:NHSPHSATH and WP:GNG. - Yellow Dingo (talk) 10:55, 28 September 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.