Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2016 April 1
- 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 recommend that alternatives to deletion such as merging (or, if not, renaming to a Not Painfully Capitalized Title) are explored further before renominating. Sandstein 11:23, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
- List of Potentially Habitable Exoplanets Kepler Candidates (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
List inclusion criteria fails standards of Wikipedia. List of Kepler exoplanet candidates is fine. Speculating on habitability is pure original research. jps (talk) 23:40, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 23:58, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
NOTE Please see the related deletion discussions on WP:CRUFT related to ESI: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of potentially habitable exoplanets and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of potentially habitable moons. jps (talk) 23:12, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
- Comment (I will vote after I have a chance to look into this further) With all due respect, while there is -to my knowledge- very little data on which scientists and other reliable sources could base a serious estimation of the habitability of various exoplanets, that is not to say that there is no data (size, composition and surface temperature can be determined to my knowledge, and it is possible that more could be determined of which I am unaware), nor is it to say that speculation by scientists is non-existent or non-notable. Still, the list title suggest a lot more rigor than is possible (again, to my knowledge). I'm probably going to vote to delete, but I want to look a bit more into it first. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 13:25, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
- You're absolutely right that there is some data which may speak to habitability, but it seems irresponsible to focus on a measure that is ill-defined and not quantifiable. The question is whether a list like this is the best way to present the information instead of in a location such as List of exoplanets. To quote an exoplanet astronomer with whom I was discussing this list, "So a list of planets in the habitable zone that are likely to be rocky, with comments that these are the most probable candidates to be Earth-like --> fine. A quantitative ranking of those worlds with comments that the ones at the top could host complex life --> many bulls have defecated better science." jps (talk) 16:12, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
...it seems irresponsible to focus on a measure that is ill-defined and not quantifiable.
- I would say "ill defined and only very loosely quantifiable" because there are some numbers that can be used, but in essence, I agree.
And having done a bit of digging since my first comment, I'm inclined now to go ahead and vote that we Delete this article.MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 18:14, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
- You're absolutely right that there is some data which may speak to habitability, but it seems irresponsible to focus on a measure that is ill-defined and not quantifiable. The question is whether a list like this is the best way to present the information instead of in a location such as List of exoplanets. To quote an exoplanet astronomer with whom I was discussing this list, "So a list of planets in the habitable zone that are likely to be rocky, with comments that these are the most probable candidates to be Earth-like --> fine. A quantitative ranking of those worlds with comments that the ones at the top could host complex life --> many bulls have defecated better science." jps (talk) 16:12, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:39, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
Redirect to List of potentially habitable exoplanets or Delete both articles. Davidbuddy9 Talk 02:18, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
- Keep Data is from [1] which is not WP:OR!!!! Davidbuddy9 Talk 02:54, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
- Davidbuddy9 is blocked for confirmed multi-voting with sock account QuentinQuade. I suggest all votes by this user be discounted as bad faith abuse. Alsee (talk) 09:57, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
- It is self-published. Not a reliable source. jps (talk) 05:40, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
- I just looked at that source... How is it self-published? Because the site is owned by the UPR? MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 05:08, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
- It is the personal webpage of Abel Méndez. It's similar to any other personal webpage hosted at a university. It's because there is no editorial control of the website (no curation except for that done by Méndez). The site is fine to illustrate Méndez opinions on habitability/his ESI ideas, but it is not vetted data any more than any other webpage that is not subject to curation or review. jps (talk) 14:09, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
- No, it's not. It's a subdomain of the UPR; a funded department of the university, which Mendez is in charge of. I've never heard of a university giving a subdomain name to a single professor (no matter how well-known or respected) for personal use. Even if they did, I can't imagine they wouldn't shut it down the moment they found out it was presented as anything but a personal home page. In addition, there's no disclaimer of any sort I've been able to find, meaning that the university tacitly endorses everything on the page. I'm sorry, I was voting with you based on prior knowledge and some info I gleaned from the article itself, but the sources provided here are actually changing my mind. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 17:28, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
- What are you talking about? Subdomains are given out all the time at universities, and not just to professors. I own one myself that I control completely. jps (talk) 17:53, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
- I've never heard of such a thing, and it strikes me as a source of potential liability. Could you find some examples? I'm honestly curious. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 18:03, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
- At least in France is almost standard practice to let permanent staff have a subpage. It is often just a list of publications and a CV, and university policy may restrict the content. But for instance this research lab lets their staff redirect internal URLs to personal pages (example: http://www-ext.impmc.upmc.fr/~caste/ ). Tigraan (talk) 12:05, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
- I've never heard of such a thing, and it strikes me as a source of potential liability. Could you find some examples? I'm honestly curious. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 18:03, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
- What are you talking about? Subdomains are given out all the time at universities, and not just to professors. I own one myself that I control completely. jps (talk) 17:53, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
- No, it's not. It's a subdomain of the UPR; a funded department of the university, which Mendez is in charge of. I've never heard of a university giving a subdomain name to a single professor (no matter how well-known or respected) for personal use. Even if they did, I can't imagine they wouldn't shut it down the moment they found out it was presented as anything but a personal home page. In addition, there's no disclaimer of any sort I've been able to find, meaning that the university tacitly endorses everything on the page. I'm sorry, I was voting with you based on prior knowledge and some info I gleaned from the article itself, but the sources provided here are actually changing my mind. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 17:28, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
- If you send me an e-mail I can send you one in private. jps (talk) 18:12, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
- There's an email link on my talk page. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 18:33, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
- E-mail sent. jps (talk) 18:45, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
- There's an email link on my talk page. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 18:33, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
- It is the personal webpage of Abel Méndez. It's similar to any other personal webpage hosted at a university. It's because there is no editorial control of the website (no curation except for that done by Méndez). The site is fine to illustrate Méndez opinions on habitability/his ESI ideas, but it is not vetted data any more than any other webpage that is not subject to curation or review. jps (talk) 14:09, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
- I just looked at that source... How is it self-published? Because the site is owned by the UPR? MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 05:08, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
- Keep Sourced. Not WP:OR in the slightest. This is a companion article to List of potentially habitable exoplanets which is extremely well-sourced and surprisingly also nominated for deletion. James J. Lambden (talk) 03:24, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
|
- The article doesn't even follow the proper WP:MOSTITLE. How can you say the "topic is notable" when it doesn't exist outside of Wikipedia? jps (talk) 00:15, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
- Strong keep: ESI is not WP:OR, see here. If you have a WP:COI issue, which seems to be the case, please bring it up with the specific editor instead of trying to condemn an entire page. ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf) 18:03, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
- No COI issue. The first citation is WP:SELFPUB. The second one is in a more obscure journal and only qualifies as a primary source there are no secondary sources connecting to it. jps (talk) 00:14, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
- @Tom.Reding: I wouldn't see a WP:COI with another editor as most of these pages opened for AfD have been created by me, but it appears to be some grudge against the use ESI particularly citing PHL/HEC. Davidbuddy9 Talk 03:15, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
- "Grudge" is the wrong word. "Concern over proliferation" might be better. Especially considering the debunking that has been done of the index by professional astrophysicists. Wikipedia should not be relying uncritically on a single self-published website to establish a list. jps (talk) 14:11, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
- @Tom.Reding: I wouldn't see a WP:COI with another editor as most of these pages opened for AfD have been created by me, but it appears to be some grudge against the use ESI particularly citing PHL/HEC. Davidbuddy9 Talk 03:15, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
- Peer-reviewed, mainstream-journal usage of ESI now referenced at Earth Similarity Index. ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf) 16:02, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
- True. However, what is not referenced is a connection between the ESI and the potential habitability of exoplanet Kepler candidates. In fact, the paper actually comes to the opposite conclusion (that the ESI does not do a good job identifying habitable candidates). jps (talk) 16:21, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
- The basis for this AfD is that the pages in question use a metric which is WP:OR, which has been proven false.
- True. However, what is not referenced is a connection between the ESI and the potential habitability of exoplanet Kepler candidates. In fact, the paper actually comes to the opposite conclusion (that the ESI does not do a good job identifying habitable candidates). jps (talk) 16:21, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
- No COI issue. The first citation is WP:SELFPUB. The second one is in a more obscure journal and only qualifies as a primary source there are no secondary sources connecting to it. jps (talk) 00:14, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
- Regarding potential habitability, this is how science is done—a hypothesis is proposed, predictions made, and results tested. The astronomical community believes some form of an ESI is needed and producible. The form it should take is a work-in-progress and in a state of flux on a scientific timescale, much like many nascent science articles on WP. The next step is to amend the hypothesis or produce and test an entirely new one, which should all be reflected in a good encyclopedia article. At that time it may then be appropriate to make large-scale changes to these pages. Until that time, the reader is best served with the most current information and a description of its validity, not by removing/censoring it. ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf) 17:33, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Planet-related deletion discussions. Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ (talk) 18:35, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Astronomy-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:49, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
- Remove table, put info into the voice of Prof. Mendez (as opposed to wikivoice) and merge into Planetary habitability After a brief discussion with JPS, I've decided to change my vote. The information in that first link (upon which the content seemingly hinges) provided seems worthy of inclusion, but not in wikivoice, which means not in its own article or list. It should, IMHO, have a mention in the article I linked, perhaps even its own paragraph, but it should be made clear that this ESI metric is the informed-but-essentially-arbitrary product of one expert, not the consensus of astronomers. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 20:00, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
- Where did this conversation happen if I may ask? Since you exchanged emails I'm concerned that there could be a possible COI? Davidbuddy9 Talk 02:39, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
- It started above, but the only part of it which happened off this page took place here. There was a single email which consisted of a link to a university subdomain which JPS claimed to have been the former controller of. I verified that it was once under the control of an individual with the same real name and background as JPS on my own, and then asked him a number of questions, which he answered quite clearly. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 12:43, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
- I'm actually quite confused on this quote: "Remove table, put info into the voice of Prof. Mendez (as opposed to wikivoice) and merge into Planetary habitability" but there is no real substance to this article removing the table. If we logically look at this we have a generic short paragraph that reminds the reader that this is a list of unconfirmed exoplanets and then there is the table. Removing the table and putting it in someone's voice makes me wonder what the article would be, even if it is merged to Planetary habitability it would be quite redundant. This is why this is a "List of" not a full-blown article about Potentially Habitable KOI's. Therefore, what would be put in Prof. Mendez's voice? A generic paragraph reminding the user about unconfirmed KOI's? Or we put the list in "the voice of Prof. Méndez"? Davidbuddy9 Talk 03:36, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
- It started above, but the only part of it which happened off this page took place here. There was a single email which consisted of a link to a university subdomain which JPS claimed to have been the former controller of. I verified that it was once under the control of an individual with the same real name and background as JPS on my own, and then asked him a number of questions, which he answered quite clearly. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 12:43, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
- Where did this conversation happen if I may ask? Since you exchanged emails I'm concerned that there could be a possible COI? Davidbuddy9 Talk 02:39, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
- Keep, nominator has a weak understanding of GNG, and has history against subjects not supported by specific sources passing only his requirements. Source presented clearly show this is notable. Valoem talk contrib 04:51, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
- Your vote is based on fallacious reasoning and fails to adhere to Wikipedia's standards of conduct. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 12:36, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
- I stated "Source presented clearly show this is notable". Is that not a reason? Valoem talk contrib 16:08, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
- The nom didn't request deletion on notability grounds. Even if he had, what you said was still a personal attack and a fallacy. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 17:17, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
- Wrong, the nominator's bases for nomination is WP:OR, we disprove OR with reliable secondary sources, same as we do with notability issues. Notable speculation on potentially habitable planets is allowed and passes GNG established by Wikipedia. Valoem talk contrib 17:25, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
- The reliability of that source has been challenged. Also, you still haven't struck or even acknowledged your personal attack. I would advise you to do so. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 18:15, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
- I stand by my statements. I believe this editor has merit in discovering non-notable subjects, but should do so in a more neutral manner. This particular article is notable, but sometimes nominates article which are clearly notable. Valoem talk contrib 19:04, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
- Well, I suppose you've thrown two arrows in JPS' quiver, the next time the two of you butt heads, but that is your choice. Let's hope for you sake the disagreement doesn't end up at AN/I. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 19:21, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
- I prefer neutral nominations which allow editors to judge the merits of the article and sources for themselves. I especially dislike removal of sources during AfDs, not that this has happened with this discussion. Valoem talk contrib 22:56, 5 April 2016 (UTC) (Presumably accidental five ~ signature fixed by Alsee (talk))
- Well, I suppose you've thrown two arrows in JPS' quiver, the next time the two of you butt heads, but that is your choice. Let's hope for you sake the disagreement doesn't end up at AN/I. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 19:21, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
- I stand by my statements. I believe this editor has merit in discovering non-notable subjects, but should do so in a more neutral manner. This particular article is notable, but sometimes nominates article which are clearly notable. Valoem talk contrib 19:04, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
- The reliability of that source has been challenged. Also, you still haven't struck or even acknowledged your personal attack. I would advise you to do so. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 18:15, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
- Wrong, the nominator's bases for nomination is WP:OR, we disprove OR with reliable secondary sources, same as we do with notability issues. Notable speculation on potentially habitable planets is allowed and passes GNG established by Wikipedia. Valoem talk contrib 17:25, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
- The nom didn't request deletion on notability grounds. Even if he had, what you said was still a personal attack and a fallacy. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 17:17, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
- I stated "Source presented clearly show this is notable". Is that not a reason? Valoem talk contrib 16:08, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
- Your vote is based on fallacious reasoning and fails to adhere to Wikipedia's standards of conduct. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 12:36, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
- Delete now. The arbitrary definition of "habitable" is a mess, and this list will be deleted no matter what. We may as well delete it now. This is a list of
HYPOTHETICALUNCONFIRMED planets, leaving only two options here. Either they will soon either be confirmed not to exist at all (doh!), or they will be confirmed to exist and be moved off this list. Either way the list ends up empty and deleted. Alsee (talk) 22:27, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
- @Alsee: Strongly disagree with the language used here, Unconfirmed ≠ Hypothetical. These listings were not
invented
by PHL/HEC at all! In fact if we used the NASA Exoplanet Archive we can clearly see where all of this information is coming from as well as highly documented pdfs (ex [2] [3]) produced by NASA from the Kepler data. To say that this information from Kepler is Hypothetical is simply misleading, and I would strongly advise you to change your language as this is not a list ofHypothetical
exoplanets. Davidbuddy9 Talk 23:35, 6 April 2016 (UTC)- A reasonable point. Done Alsee (talk) 23:50, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
- @Alsee: Strongly disagree with the language used here, Unconfirmed ≠ Hypothetical. These listings were not
- 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. -- RoySmith (talk) 01:34, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
- KOI-433.02 m (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Entirely speculative original research. jps (talk) 23:38, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
Redirect to Earth Similarity Index#Similarity of non-planets to Earth Redirecting would be more beneficial for the reader as that would be most likely what the reader is looking for. Davidbuddy9 Talk 02:37, 3 April 2016 (UTC)- Keep and Comment You removed the citations from PHL before requesting deletion (click here to see what I mean) and labled it as OR, which I find very sneeky imo, especially after PHL cites Borucki et al., 2011 for the planetary info. No OR is happening on Wikipedia itself and I think removing citations to help your AfD do better is very inappropriate. Davidbuddy9 Talk 02:45, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
- Delete. Citations or not, this isn't a predicted exomoon. The one actual citation that exists simply speculates that if such a moon existed, it might have certain properties. There is no evidence for it. WP:NOT and WP:SPECULATE for starters. Lithopsian (talk) 18:41, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:50, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Astronomy-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:50, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
- Comment: the host planet itself appears to be an unconfirmed candidate. It seems premature to be generating this type of weakly substantiated content. It isn't going anywhere; once it's confirmed then an article can be created. Praemonitus (talk) 18:53, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
- Comment, [4] this is the only source I found Davidbuddy9 are you sure this isn't complete speculation? I found this source Gawker, but this is talking about the planet KOI-433.02 not "KOI-433.02 m", found these on google scholar, [5] and [6], but also talking about the planet. I can't find anything on the moon except this [7] which I've just confirmed is a reliable source managed by the University of Puerto Rico at Arecibo, however it appears this moon is listed under "Expected Potential Habitable Exomoons" expect potential I'm guessing means possibly possible. Valoem talk contrib 04:45, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
- Might be better to have an article about KOI-433.02 the planet. Valoem talk contrib 06:06, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
- self-published webpages are in no way reliable sources for the existence of speculated moons. This planet may not even exist and there is precisely zero evidence for the moon. jps (talk) 11:25, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
- jps I agree with you here. Even the source which "might be" reliable states this moon is only speculation and is not confirmed to exist. I am curious to see if Davidbuddy9 found better sources before I vote delete. I actually would have voted delete immediately had you not been accused of removing sources again. I don't think theses sources right now pass GNG in the least (including the one you removed which were readded). The most reliable source says the moon does not exist. Valoem talk contrib 16:10, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
- @Valoem:If you looked at the citations you would have found this. Davidbuddy9 Talk 03:14, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
- I saw that, it say "Expected Potentially Habitable Exomoons". Valoem talk contrib 03:38, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
- @Valoem:If you looked at the citations you would have found this. Davidbuddy9 Talk 03:14, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
- jps I agree with you here. Even the source which "might be" reliable states this moon is only speculation and is not confirmed to exist. I am curious to see if Davidbuddy9 found better sources before I vote delete. I actually would have voted delete immediately had you not been accused of removing sources again. I don't think theses sources right now pass GNG in the least (including the one you removed which were readded). The most reliable source says the moon does not exist. Valoem talk contrib 16:10, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
- Delete per jps, this is purely speculative. If we base notability on numbers or basis on public interest ... this fails. If we based this on reliable sources this also fails. The source phl.upr.edu which may be reliable states this is speculative and not notable. I would prefer this source intact in the future so a neutral judgement can be made. Based on sources provided this is not notable. Valoem talk contrib 18:49, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
- Delete. Per nom and Lithopsian. This object is purely hypothetical at this time, and there's absolutely no observational evidence for it. Astro4686 (talk) 22:50, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
- Delete. the same article in usperspace too.[8] QuackGuru (talk) 15:44, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
- Can't store something in the event this is discovered? Valoem talk contrib 16:19, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
- You could blank the page or someone might MFD your sandbox. QuackGuru (talk) 18:32, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
- Can't store something in the event this is discovered? Valoem talk contrib 16:19, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
- Delete as what concerns me is that nothing is confirmed yet, delete for now until better information is available. SwisterTwister talk 04:10, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
- Delete reference consist mostly of listings databases of preliminary/potential candidates. While the databases themselves are notable, the objects contained therein are not. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 14:29, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
- 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. Uncontested. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:28, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
- Bangladesh Islami Chattra Sena Pomara Mahattarkil Branch (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Local unit(Not even district) of the student front of a fringe Islamist party. Vinegarymass911 (talk) 23:30, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. Worldbruce (talk) 14:05, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Worldbruce (talk) 14:05, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:51, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:51, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
- Delete as no better information and searches found nothing. SwisterTwister talk 04:12, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
- Delete Unable to find any independent reliable source that mentions this particular branch of the organization. Would redirect to Bangladesh Islami Chattra Sena if there were any real content. --Worldbruce (talk) 17:52, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:26, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
- Pride Mode (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
A non-notable World of Warcraft bot, clearly intended as a baldfaced advertisement - the image really clinches it(image deleted on Commons) - but not quite blatant enough that I'm willing to G11 it. I found no independent coverage when searching, only social media (and barely any of that, even). Fails WP:NSOFTWARE. Abjectly. —Cryptic 22:22, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
- Delete. I don't see any coverage in reliable sources, and a WP:VG/RS Custom Google Search returns nothing relevant. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 07:49, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
- Delete. Fails WP:NSOFT. --The1337gamer (talk) 08:52, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. czar 16:17, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
- Delete due to lack of notability. I agree that it looks like an advertisement. ZettaComposer (talk) 12:59, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
- Delete as nothing even for minimally better notability. SwisterTwister talk 06:06, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
- Delete - no reliable sources to ascertain notability. KagunduWanna Chat? 22:39, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:38, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
- 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 speedily deleted under criterion G11. Seraphimblade Talk to me 04:17, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
- Infinite Dreams Technologies (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
I can't find any third-party coverage at all about this company. (Unsurprising, since the article doesn't assert significance.) Not related to Infinite Dreams Inc.. —Cryptic 21:51, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:57, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:57, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:57, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:57, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:57, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 22:23, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
- Mask fetishism (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Practically non-notable. Cites no sources. Googling it reveals few reliable, with many un-reliable sources (fetish blogs, wikia, etc) and Wikipedia mirrors.
I am aware of the ten-year-old previous discussion. Mr. Spink talk★contribs 21:50, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:10, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
- Delete per consensus at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Veil fetishism, an article that shared the same issues. We adopt a notability threshold to avoid having articles on everything that exists. This article is utterly unreferenced and there is nothing to suggest that it meets WP:GNG. WJBscribe (talk) 17:08, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
- Delete, I'm seeing only brief mentions, unless someone can show otherwise haven't found significant amount of discussion among secondary or scholarly sources. — Cirt (talk) 17:52, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
- Delete. Per nom, no real notability. QueenCake (talk) 18:13, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
- 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) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 23:10, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
- Tom Arth (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Non-notable football player. Does not meet WP:NGRIDIRON. Spent time with the Indianapolis Colts, but never played (see [9]). Spent time with the Toronto Argonauts in 2007, but never played (see [10]). Spent time with two Arena Football League teams, but again never played (see [11]). He played NCAA Division III football and coaches at that level, so WP:NCOLLATH does not appear to help. So with no SNG being met, I am not seeing GNG being met. Most results are from the college he went to and coaches at, so they are not independent. Had he played outside of NFL Europe (see [12]) it would be a different story, but never playing at a top level and going to a Division III school does not help. I think this article should be deleted. RonSigPi (talk) 21:44, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. RonSigPi (talk) 21:48, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. RonSigPi (talk) 21:52, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
- keep head coaches of college football programs are normally kept as they are found to generate enough coverage to pass WP:GNG as outlined at the essay WP:CFBCOACH.--Paul McDonald (talk) 21:56, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
- WP:CFBCOACH isn't a policy, it is just an essay. We are not talking about an FBS or even FCS program here. This is a Division III program - I just don't see all Division III coaches being presumed notable. I think the head coaches at Maranatha Baptist University, Lyon College (an NAIA school), and Iowa Wesleyan University - all schools with well under 1,000 students - need more than just an essay to grant a presumption of notability. I have no problem with FBS or FCS schools getting a presumption. Division III football just does not get much coverage and therefore you cannot presume all coaches are notable. Sure, some Division III coaches meet GNG, such as Lee Tressel, Larry Kehres, and John Gagliardi, but we should not assume coverage exists for the near thousand coaches at Division III/NAIA schools. Few of these schools' sports teams have any significant media footprint. RonSigPi (talk) 22:16, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
- Of course it is an essay. That's why I posted that it is an essay. Please read it to find responses and discussion about the issues you raised. For example, why is "under 1,000" students suddenly not notable? That seems very arbitrary. The essay does not "prove or disprove" notability, it contains arguments commonly encountered over (gosh a decade now?) of arguments and discussions. Your argument was that Division III doesn't get the coverage, but as we can see below there is a good amount of coverage available and therefore shows again that such cases do indeed tend to pass WP:GNG.--Paul McDonald (talk) 15:59, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
- WP:CFBCOACH isn't a policy, it is just an essay. We are not talking about an FBS or even FCS program here. This is a Division III program - I just don't see all Division III coaches being presumed notable. I think the head coaches at Maranatha Baptist University, Lyon College (an NAIA school), and Iowa Wesleyan University - all schools with well under 1,000 students - need more than just an essay to grant a presumption of notability. I have no problem with FBS or FCS schools getting a presumption. Division III football just does not get much coverage and therefore you cannot presume all coaches are notable. Sure, some Division III coaches meet GNG, such as Lee Tressel, Larry Kehres, and John Gagliardi, but we should not assume coverage exists for the near thousand coaches at Division III/NAIA schools. Few of these schools' sports teams have any significant media footprint. RonSigPi (talk) 22:16, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
- Keep A quick search came up with this feature article about Arth from a major newspaper. Jweiss11 (talk) 10:11, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
- I came across the same article. And that is the only one I found (outside of a job hiring announcement from the same website). WP:GNG requires significant coverage in reliable, independent sources. In other articles i have seen, three is the minimum standard - (e.g., see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2017 BWF World Championships). If you find feature articles in two more independent sources, then I think GNG is met. Passing mentions are not enough (e.g., only one or two mentions in the article or something similar to a media release such as a job hiring announcement). Nor are blog posts or other articles from Cleveland.com. I have no problem if GNG is shown to be met, but I have not seen it and one article is not enough to meet GNG. RonSigPi (talk) 12:38, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
- Comment I have no problem with the articles at Cleveland.com, especially since such a large number of those articles come from The Plain Dealer, a major newspaper.--Paul McDonald (talk) 16:03, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
- Paul, I think RonSigPi's point here is that in the effort to find three independent, reliable sources, only one can from Cleveland.com. Jweiss11 (talk) 19:41, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
- Comment I have no problem with the articles at Cleveland.com, especially since such a large number of those articles come from The Plain Dealer, a major newspaper.--Paul McDonald (talk) 16:03, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
- I came across the same article. And that is the only one I found (outside of a job hiring announcement from the same website). WP:GNG requires significant coverage in reliable, independent sources. In other articles i have seen, three is the minimum standard - (e.g., see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2017 BWF World Championships). If you find feature articles in two more independent sources, then I think GNG is met. Passing mentions are not enough (e.g., only one or two mentions in the article or something similar to a media release such as a job hiring announcement). Nor are blog posts or other articles from Cleveland.com. I have no problem if GNG is shown to be met, but I have not seen it and one article is not enough to meet GNG. RonSigPi (talk) 12:38, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
- Keep Here are some other sources [13] [14] [15]. This could be expanded into a decent sized article pretty easily. I don't think that it would have been nominated for deletion if it wasn't short. WikiOriginal-9 (talk) 15:17, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:59, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 21:59, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
- H Dice Game (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
This page is basically a poorly-written ad. For one thing, none of the rules of the game are listed. You have to download the game to find out anything about it. None of the sources it cites are independent of the game's creator, and all of the sources are just download pages anyway.
I strongly recommend the article be deleted, and any links that go to the article be removed. Math321 (talk) 20:50, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. North America1000 21:25, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
- delete no sources in article that count toward WP:N and I'm not seeing anything on line that counts as an independent RS either. Hobit (talk) 23:17, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
- Delete: Pure promotion. This article should have been speedied under WP:G11 as soon as it got created. Kolbasz (talk) 16:24, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
- Speedy delete under WP:G11 per Kolbasz. This article is obviously promotional with no demonstrated notability. --Erick Shepherd (talk) 21:24, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
- 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. This has gone on long enough. Drmies (talk) 00:29, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
- Dr.Nawar Al-Saadi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Non-notable and likely written by a COI user for promotional purposes. All the references cited and other search results are primary and merely reflect the presence of publications by the subject. The existence of scientific papers doesn't confer notability to the writers, as it's common (expected) practice in academic circles. Elaenia (talk) 19:35, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
- Delete Not notable academic.--DThomsen8 (talk) 12:40, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
- Delete and protect from recreation - it's the third time this page is created by a single-purpose account: getting tiresome already. There really is no indication this individual meets WP:PROF, WP:BIO or any other notability guideline. - Biruitorul Talk 21:17, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:05, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:05, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:05, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
- 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 Maslama al-Majriti. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010Talk 01:25, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
- Fatima of Madrid (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
An "unusually thorough and scholarly discussion" at AFD in 2011 determined that this was not a real person. (Not sure how to add the "previous nominations" sidebar manually, sorry.) –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 18:32, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:07, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:07, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:07, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:07, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Astronomy-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:07, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
- Comment: there's mention of her on the Maslama al-Majriti article, so a redirect to that page may be a useful option. I'm not sure how much should be merged. The Spanish language page appears to have more content. Praemonitus (talk) 19:15, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
- Redirect to Maslama al-Majriti. The nominator somewhat overstates the result of the previous discussion, which was more that her existence could not be established from then-available reliable sources than that she definitely did not exist. However, several of the participants did conclude that she did not exist, and I think they were very probably (but not certainly) right. One would expect to find a mention of her in Said al-Andalusi's Al‐tarif bi-tabaqat al-umam, but while this (at least in the most available English translation) contains a short biography of her purported father and lists several of his students, it makes no mention of her (I've checked). That does not rule out the possibility of other medieval sources, but if such sources exist, nobody seems to be citing them. In fact, Spanish Wikipedia's version of this article cites two recent sources which state that the earliest traceable mention of her is in a volume of the Enciclopedia universal ilustrada europeo-americana published in the 1920s - my first thought, in fact, was to replace this article by a translation of the Spanish Wikipedia one, but unfortunately the more detailed of the two sources, while in my opinion an excellent piece of work, seems to be by an amateur historian who posted it to a website without obvious editorial control. I have, however, a day or two ago, used the other source to add a couple of sentences to Maslama al-Majriti, which should provide a reasonable redirect target.
- I ought to add that GBooks and GScholar searches both produce recent apparently reliable sources which do conclude (or assume) that Fatima existed. However, of the two apparently best ones, one starts with two and a half pages that apparently assume her existence without giving sources (unless these are given in the short bibliography at the end of the book which, however, is not included in the pages visible from GBooks) and then just over half a page about arguments against her existence - the latter section looks suspiciously like a translation of the Spanish Wikipedia article. The other (by a mathematician in a social science journal) considers sources on both sides of the argument, most of which, however, are websites of no obvious reliability by Wikipedia standard (where, indeed, the links still work), and comes down in favour of her existence on the basis of the websites in which he places more reliance. Effectively, this looks like academics writing outside their specialisms and, not understanding the standards of evidence in the area in which they are working, unintentionally spreading an internet meme into academic books and papers. In the absence of at least some coverage of the topic on Wikipedia, the article is likely to be recreated repeatedly by editors who do not realise this - under current circumstances, the best way of avoiding this seems to be the redirect that I am suggesting. PWilkinson (talk) 23:32, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
- Merge/Redirect to Maslama al-Majriti -- per PWilkinson and so much of the great discussion in the last AfD. Nearly everyone from the 10th c. that we have any sort of record of any work (or supposed work) is notable, but that doesn't mean that they're good choices to have an article on until the sourcing improves; but I'm confident enough that it could improve that I think deletion is the wrong choice. -- Michael Scott Cuthbert (talk) 02:34, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
- Redirect to Maslama al-Majriti, per comment by Mscuthbert, above. Cheers, — Cirt (talk) 19:49, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 21:56, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
- Michael Messenger (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Smells of conflict of interest and promotional promo spam. Advertorial with hyperlinks in main article body text linking to commercials and advertisement type promotional videos. Article fails to demonstrate significant coverage in secondary sources independent of the subject himself. — Cirt (talk) 18:28, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
- Comment: See also similar problems by author with Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Victoria Nixon. — Cirt (talk) 18:29, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
- Delete. There are other people named Michael Messenger who look like they have a shot at notability, but I don't see any coverage in reliable sources about this one. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 19:58, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
- Delete (marginal keep on Victoria Nixon) Andy Dingley (talk) 20:00, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
- Delete Fails WP:GNG and WP:CREATIVE. Joseph2302 (talk) 22:42, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:09, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:09, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:09, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
- Delete Promotional, with nothing that can support passing WP:CREATIVE and WP:GNG. Arthistorian1977 (talk) 08:55, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
- Delete as not yet better satisfying the applicable notability, delete for now at best. SwisterTwister talk 05:50, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
- 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 speedy deleted. postdlf (talk) 13:40, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
- TTK (Leak Detection) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
The only source ([16]) sounds promotional, and I could not find any better online. Hence, this article likely does not pass Wikipedia's notability guideline. Tigraan (talk) 15:43, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:56, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:56, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:56, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
- Comment by nominator: SwisterTwister nominated the article for speedy deletion under WP:G11. I disagree since (per the CSD page) any article that describes its subject from a neutral point of view does not qualify for this criterion, and I think the info in that article, non-notable as it may be, is written neutrally. Of course, I would not lose any sleep over it. Tigraan (talk) 11:02, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
- 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. (non-admin closure) SSTflyer 04:09, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
- Smarter Agent, Inc. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Purely promotional; no context of notability presented. Jacona (talk) 19:31, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 14:47, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
- Keep Nominator seems to fail to understand that WP:BEFORE requires legitimate efforts to look for sourcing before nominating an article. The sources added, and the many more available online, establish notability for the firm, which both provides a major real estate search tool and has acted to vigorously defend its IP against some of the biggest firms in the industry. Alansohn (talk) 19:24, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 12:21, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
- Thanks for the opinion on my understanding of WP:BEFORE, but I do understand what sort of sourcing should be considered before nominating an article for deletion. While there is some WP:ROUTINE run-of-the-mill stuff, and PR items, this company appeared and disappeared without being noticed by any significant publications. Jacona (talk) 12:38, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
Bickering would be better addressed in other venues. |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:54, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:54, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:54, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, joe deckertalk 15:27, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
- 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) —UY Scuti Talk 19:50, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
- IDI - Inspector Dawood Ibrahim (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Film isn't notable under WP:GNG or WP:NF (notability for films). Alternatively, it appears highly likely that principal photography hasn't begun,[1] and WP:NFF instructs that "[f]ilms that have not been confirmed by reliable sources to have commenced principal photography should not have their own articles." Rebbing 15:10, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
References
- ^ "Jayasurya Replaces Asif Ali in Inspector Dawood Ibrahim". Deccan Chronicle. March 3, 2016.
- Weak Keep: a more reliable reference of notability here. --Helper V1 (talk) 16:04, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
- Keep: The principal photography started. And there's some mentions by the actor on The Hindu. [17] JackTracker (talk) 17:02, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
- I don't mean to bludgeon you or be needlessly argumentative, but, even if filming has started, that doesn't mean the subject meets GNG (not to mention WP:NFF paragraph 3's admonition against articles covering unreleased films in most cases). Also, WP:GNG requires "significant coverage," which "is more than a trivial mention"; the Hindu article's discussion of IDI: Inspector Dawood Ibrahim looks trivial to me: "The actor is currently shuttling between Wayanad for Roshan Andrewss’ School Bus and Kasaragod for IDI - Inspector Dawood Ibrahim, directed by Sajid Yahiya." Cf. the example given in GNG about Three Blind Mice. Rebbing 17:15, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
- I'm agreeing with you. Their some issues with the references, I heard from several magazines that the movies shooting is progressing. Also it's last schedule is now going on at Ernakulam. See [18]. JackTracker (talk) 13:51, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
- I don't mean to bludgeon you or be needlessly argumentative, but, even if filming has started, that doesn't mean the subject meets GNG (not to mention WP:NFF paragraph 3's admonition against articles covering unreleased films in most cases). Also, WP:GNG requires "significant coverage," which "is more than a trivial mention"; the Hindu article's discussion of IDI: Inspector Dawood Ibrahim looks trivial to me: "The actor is currently shuttling between Wayanad for Roshan Andrewss’ School Bus and Kasaragod for IDI - Inspector Dawood Ibrahim, directed by Sajid Yahiya." Cf. the example given in GNG about Three Blind Mice. Rebbing 17:15, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:14, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:14, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
- Expanded WP:BEFORE:
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
- director:(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
- star:(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
- star:(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
- WP:INDAFD: Inspector Dawood Ibrahim Inspector Dawood Ibrahim Movie Sajid Yahiya Jayasurya Sshivada
- Keep as filming IS under way and film's production (before filming and and now) meets WP:GNG and thus the caveats of WP:NFF (paragraph 3). Even with the existing coverage of last February, filming had not then began and the topic was simply TOO SOON. But as I remarked then, and even through exceptions have been allowed as guideline is not WP:POLICY, we needed it to be confirmed to have an article per guideline for films. It has begun and it serves the project to allow this stub to remain and be improved over time and through regular editing. And to any worries about it being currently stubby and needing work... so what? Immediate perfection is a goal, not a mandate. Schmidt, Michael Q. 06:47, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
- KEEP PER MQS - MEETS GNG & NNF. –Davey2010Talk 01:24, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
- Keep as this is convincing enough to keep for now. SwisterTwister talk 19:37, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
- 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 I'm not seeing this going anywhere else (NAC). SwisterTwister talk 05:01, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
- Angela Goodwin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Delete: insufficiently notable actress. Quis separabit? 14:40, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. North America1000 15:10, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. North America1000 15:10, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
- Speedy Keep, vague deletion rationale, no WP:BEFORE, the subject easily passes WP:NACTOR and WP:GNG. An April fools' day joke, maybe? Cavarrone 16:08, 1 April 2016 (UTC)u
- Snow keep. Given the news obituaries in major newspapers, including one that was already in the article before the AfD was filed, there's no evident reason to doubt notability here. --Arxiloxos (talk) 17:08, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
- Keep long and distinguished acting career, reliable sources coverage such as Italian newspapers such as La Nazione, La Republica already referenced in the article and earlier coverage, passes WP:BASIC Atlantic306 (talk) 21:11, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
- Keep. Seems to meet WP:GNG. Pretty extensive career too. GabeIglesia (talk) 21:47, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
- Keep. The article was in pretty bad shape when it was nominated, but it's much better now – enough to demonstrate notability. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 07:56, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
- Keep. As above. Pretty clear notability.Lord Cornwallis (talk) 09:08, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
- Keep. Meets notability requirement. Could use some more references. VanEman (talk) 17:20, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
- Keep just like ever other actress that has a wiki page she is notable. Jkl2299 (talk) 03:58, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
- Keep. Significant improvements to the article, content as well as sourcing, since it's nomination as a 2-sentence stub. This is now more in keeping with, even better sourced than, the WP Italian article on her. WP:NACTOR says
Has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions.
Using Google Translate on the sourcing provided, her obit verifies she achieved that. If you check various sourcing for a full listing of her films, she was in over 50 films and television productions, and in notable roles in several of them. — Maile (talk) 13:07, 5 April 2016 (UTC) - Keep, certainly subject of secondary source coverage among multiple references. — Cirt (talk) 20:41, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. WP:SNOW. postdlf (talk) 13:23, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
- Station not stream outside Canada/US (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
This is not encyclopedic material. Fails WP:GNG. Jeh (talk) 14:17, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
- Further comment by nominator: This borders on material prohibited by WP:NOTRADIOGUIDE. Per GNG, there is nothing that establishes Wikipedia-level notability of the streaming status of any radio station mentioned, nor is there ever likely to be. Per "not encyclopedic", encyclopedic material would include—for each station—the date they enabled streaming, the date they prohibited streaming outside the US (if that was a separate decision), the reasons for the decision(s), details of who made the decision(s), possible influences on the decision(s), effects of the decision(s) on the station and on other stations in the market, etc. For simple "is it streamed? And where can you hear it via streaming?" information there is already a place for such material in Wikipedia: in the individual radio stations' articles. This is just a miscellaneous collection of past events and there is utterly no hope of it ever being comprehensive or correct, as the streaming status of many radio stations changes on a nearly weekly basis. We might as well have "articles" like "List of auto parts stores not carrying Mopar products" or "List of grocery chains not carrying Don Miguel burritos". Jeh (talk) 14:44, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
- Delete - non-encyclopedic trivia. Cordless Larry (talk) 15:24, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. Jeh (talk) 15:43, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
- Speedy Delete Per Jeh. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 17:54, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
- Strong Delete Wikipedia is not a directory. GabeIglesia (talk) 21:44, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
- Delete Artile is not noteworthy, is trivial, and is junk.Stereorock (talk) 05:20, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:16, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:16, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
- 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 recreation is possible, but only if the sourcing is good and the tone is neutral. Sandstein 11:43, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
- Vasily Klyukin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
This article is about a non-notable person and is possibly autobiographical. FinnHK (talk) 19:52, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Vipinhari || talk 20:18, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. Vipinhari || talk 20:18, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
- Delete as I myself would've also nominated because none of this has any convincing signs and, despite the collection of links, none of seem solid enough for a better article. SwisterTwister talk 05:58, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 05:25, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
- DON'T Delete I think there are more than enough references in the article, proving that it's not about non-notable person.
Moreover, the links provided in this article clearly indicate us the evidence of Vasily Klyukin's works, his interaction with the most famous people of the world, as well as the popular mass media articles about his life and activity. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.173.118.69 (talk) 14:35, 15 March 2016 (UTC) — 46.173.118.69 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.- These references only prove that the media is happy to publish nearly anything in the search for more clicks. His ideas are creative but there is no evidence to suggest they are anything more than the creative work of anyone on any 3D modeling forum. FinnHK (talk) 16:16, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
- I have a question to the comments above. Do you really believe that over 1000 articles worldwide could be published about non-notable person? It's hard to imagine how notable the person should be, if Vasily Klyukin is not notable enough for you, guys... Virtually all of the top mass media, such as CNN, Yahoo, Forbes, GQ, Telegraph, Le Monde, etc. published numerous articles about his futuristic skyscrapers, villas and yachts, as well as his sculptures. Let me underline it again, these articles are not just self-made, but it was published by the most influential and popular mass media sources in the world. If we will neglect it, we should pay no attention to the most public figures, show business stars and celebrities as well. Please check out just few links provided in this Wikipedia article (there is a bunch of links is still to be added). Moreover, his books can be purchased in the stores all over the world, or for example, at Amazon: Designing Legends [[19]] and Collective Mind [[20]].
SwisterTwister, you should absolutely be nominated if you google your name and see it as top result, just like it is with Vasily Klyukin. Besides it, all you will need to do is to publish 2 successful books and to make top mass media write about you in over 1000 articles... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.173.118.69 (talk) 16:41, 16 March 2016 (UTC) — 46.173.118.69 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 13:59, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
- I'm not pushing for a delete, but I would certainly advocate re-writing it. It's so puffy and self-promotional and a victim of WP:WEASEL Lines like "His designs became well-known worldwide thanks to his innovative approach", where's the citation or evidence for that assertion? I have lots of issues with it, but they are predominantly stylistic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pupsbunch (talk • contribs) 20:26, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:06, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:06, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:06, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
- I tend to a Keep now, since it looks like he's passing WP:CREATIVE with this [21], [22], [23], [24], [25], [26]. Arthistorian1977 (talk) 09:26, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
- Delete - He may pass notability criteria, but this current article needs to go per WP:TNT. Highly promotional, covers none of the negative publicity about this architect, which in my searches outweighed the positive coverage. Notability is not the only reason for deletion, this would qualify under WP:DEL4. Onel5969 TT me 13:27, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
Relisting comment: Relisting to give people time to evaluate the sources presented by Arthistorian1977 -- RoySmith (talk) 13:11, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- RoySmith (talk) 13:11, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
- Leaning delete - A little uncertain about this one. After searching Google, it does seem like there is some considerable news coverage (Daily Mail, Fox News) - granted, it's not a whole lot. But it would appear the subject is most notable for being an architect, not necessarily for being a writer, so I don't think going into extensive detail about his books and then citing Amazon as the source is necessary, encyclopedic, or even appropriate. I also strongly agree that this article is *extremely* promotional. I'm not an expert on space-traveling Monacan architects so this can go either way for me. I ultimately lean towards delete because of the strongly promotional language and the lack of reliable sources in the article. If the article is kept, I would strongly support a rewrite. GabeIglesia (talk) 14:06, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
- 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 speedily deleted by User:Vanjagenije under criterion G7. (Non-admin closure) "Pepper" @ 14:33, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
- IMA Griz 2016 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Article about a video. Fails WP:GNG for lack of available reliable sources. - MrX 11:34, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
- Speedy delete per A7 ("article about [...] web content [...] that does not indicate why its subject is important or significant") and G5 (per Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/IMA Griz). --McGeddon (talk) 11:46, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 21:52, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
- Canada Day Countdown (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Seems to fail WP:EVENT, specifically WP:GEOSCOPE. Has been tagged as needing sources since July 2014, still no sources. Dbrodbeck (talk) 10:48, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
- Delete While the article does not have references, WP:BEFORE assumes that we are to look for them. I did and couldn't find any except http://www.country94.ca/news/canada-day-countdown-underway and http://thewave.ca/news/canada-day-countdown-underway, which are identical. Likely the same staff of writers. Nothing to meet WP:GNG. Thanks for nominating. Walter Görlitz (talk) 13:44, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
- Delete per above. Vaselineeeeeeee (talk) 21:06, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
- Comment to be clear, I did look for refs, found the ones above and then went the AFD route. Dbrodbeck (talk) 13:46, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. North America1000 15:11, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. North America1000 15:11, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. North America1000 15:11, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
- Delete Article has no place in an encyclopedia in its current form. 64.229.246.209 (talk) 22:33, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
- Delete at best for now as none of this suggests better independent notability. SwisterTwister talk 04:47, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
- 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 03:49, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
- Riviera Hotel (Philippines) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
As far as I can tell, non-notable hotel. Article was created in 2011 and was at the time tagged for speedy deletion and later proposed for deletion; both times the creator removed the deletion requests. Nothing of any note has happened to the article since; it still talks about a proposed hotel and most of the article is actually about the wider development rather than the hotel itself. No indication is given of why this is notable. Emeraude (talk) 10:07, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America1000 15:12, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. North America1000 15:12, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:36, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
- Delete as this is going to be unlikely for any solidly sufficient improvements and it's simply still questionable for any applicable notability. Delete at best for now. SwisterTwister talk 05:31, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
- Eventual Delete suggest making every effort to give the author and interested editors detailed suggestions of how to elevate the article to acceptable notability standards, failing which, deletion. - Alternativity (talk) 04:27, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
- 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 this is clear enough to close even if a day early and I'm simply not seeing any other clear consensus happening aside from Keep (NAC). SwisterTwister talk 04:45, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
- Katie van Scherpenberg (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Fails WP:ARTIST Greek Legend (talk) 10:05, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:37, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:37, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
- Keep She is represented in two encyclopedias about Brazilian art and by the Brazilian minister of culture. Part of the problem in sourcing her is that the sources on her seem to primarily be in Portuguese. However, her inclusion in the sources that are provided are sufficient to show that she's important as a Brazilian artist. In addition, a Google book search turns up that she's in plenty of books (many of which unfortunately don't have previews). She doesn't need to pass WP:ARTIST, only WP:GNG for inclusion and I think the article's sources and a Google search shows she does. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 15:10, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. North America1000 15:16, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
- Keep - there aren't many sources in English, but Google Books shows that she is at least mentioned in several books, and there are further sources in Portuguese, which convinces me that she meets our notability criteria. Cordless Larry (talk) 15:29, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
Delete unless completely rewritten.. Keep now that Giso6150 and Cordless Larry have adressed the copvio. It think the subject may pass WP:GNG because of the tertiary sources, but the article in its current form is problematic. The article is not quite a 100% copyvio, so G12 probably doesn't apply, but it very closely paraphrases this bio at Flatbed press. Earwig's tool has 68.6% confidence that it's a copyvio. The flatbed bio is not dated, but refers to a fair that took place February 12 - 13 - 14, 2016 before the article was written on 4 March 2016.Mduvekot (talk) 16:14, 1 April 2016 (UTC)- I just tagged the copyright text - Giso6150 fixed it. Cordless Larry (talk) 06:37, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
- Keep I easily found reliable sources (in Portuguese) for this notable artist. Obviously the copyright issues must be resolved, but notability is unquestionable to me. giso6150 (talk) 14:55, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
- Keep the article needs work---perhaps we can get a translation of a Portuguese Wikipedia article on her---but she meets notability requirements. VanEman (talk) 17:23, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
- Comment: {please note that we can't get a translation from a Portugese wikipedia article, because none exists. Mduvekot (talk) 17:32, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 21:50, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
- Kollaboration (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Fails WP:GNG. The results in google news are not about this organization. Greek Legend (talk) 09:23, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:03, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:03, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
- Delete It's a third nomination and I suppose will be third deletion. Nothing notable about this organisation. Arthistorian1977 (talk) 07:34, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:20, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:20, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:20, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
- Delete - I can't find any reliable sources on the topic, and none are provided with the article. Ajraddatz (talk) 19:38, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
- Delete: Fails WP:A7 and WP:ORG. --Erick Shepherd (talk) 21:27, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
- Delete as nothing yet convincing of solid independent notability. SwisterTwister talk 04:47, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
- 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. Uncontested. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 22:17, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
- List of Saginaw Spirit alumni (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
List of players from an amateur hockey team, fails WP:LIST and WP:LISTPEOPLE as (a) overwhelmingly comprised of NN people, and (b) completely unsourced. The list itself is badly incomplete, according to hockeydb.com (the standard resource we use on the hockey Wikiproject), and hasn't been updated in several years. Given that major junior teams average 30-someodd players a season and have complete roster turnover no less frequently than every five years, and that we don't seek to maintain such lists for even many a fully professional team, the odds that this will be a more useful list than the complete ones maintained on several sites are slim to none. In any event, it's better handled by the category that's already extant. Ravenswing 07:53, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:43, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:43, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:43, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:43, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
- Delete - Per nom. For those reasons, this is an appropriate topic for a category, but not a list. Rlendog (talk) 14:42, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
- Delete as not convincing for its own article. SwisterTwister talk 04:42, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. The IP opinions are not taken into account because they do not address the problems based on Wikipedia policies and guidelines mentioned in the nomination. Sandstein 11:26, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
- Liberal Democrats (Zimbabwe) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
This is a substantially promotional article about a new political party, without evidence of notability. Of the references, one is the party's own web site, one barely mentions the party in passing, and the others don't mention it at all. Searches for information about the party also fail to find any significant coverage in independent sources. (Note: If you wish to check for sources, be careful to make sure that you are actually getting sources about the Liberal Democrats of Zimbabwe: I found the vast majority of hits for search terms such as "Liberal Democrats" Zimbabwe were pages which mentioned the British Liberal Democrats and also mentioned Zimbabwe, but did not mention the Liberal Democrat party of Zimbabwe.) A PROD was removed by the creator of the article, with an edit summary which said "This is a political party in existence in Zimbabwe like all other political parties and it's activities prove existence of it", but that is missing the point, as the reason for proposing deletion was not that the existence of the party was in question, but because of a lack of evidence that it satisfies Wikipedia's notability standards. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 20:44, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
- Delete, basically per nom. Author seems to argue inherent notability due to being a political party (invalidly), or doesn't understand notability policy. Having had a quick search, it's possible (but perhaps unlikely) that their notability is being drowned out by the UK lib dems, but since there is no argument for notability in the article or useful references, I'm pretty confident it is not WP:NOTABLE. -crh23 (talk) 21:27, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
Hie, why do you wantdelete this page Liberaldemocrats because is from a country with political despotism and no freedom of expression. The party website has an article from a Zimbabwean newspaper, interview on Talk 702 South Africa and we heard them speak on Radio Islam in an interview in Johannesburg. They engage Zimbabwe and build our country. Why u want to suppress them. Mugabe oppress our country and you also want to oopress it by killing opposition ;like Mugabe does. You might not care but we care when we see hope. I was follow them on twitter and they give me their website and did not knopw they are party but was always with them on twitter and I go to their website and see on their media page all these interviews about Zimbabwe. Is that not serving Zimbabwe. They are very popular on twitter and care about Zimbabwe and no one in Zimbabwe sources can talk about them because in our country you must buy media. This is wrong. I find this wiki thing when I was searching for them when I wanted ytheir website but not essy to find because there isd more about Lib Dems. Africa must suffer neh. This is racist or you also work for Mugabe and you are CIO, this is good party and is busy abouit Zimbabwe. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.13.0.77 (talk) 22:13, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Zimbabwe-related deletion discussions. Human3015 TALK 22:22, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Human3015 TALK 22:22, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Human3015 TALK 22:23, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
- Delete as although I may not be entirely familiar with this area, the newly founded aspect and overall questionability is enough. Best deleted and restarted when better, SwisterTwister talk 01:33, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
From Tawanda Chikuvise ---- Imi people what is it with you. The party's name is Liberal Democrats and when added to a the List of Political Parties in Zimbabwe it automatically referred to the Liberal Democrats article in UK. We raised this with the authors and that is why the had to put that article. There must be something said about the party otherwise any removal of that article will; refer the party the UK party which will be3 misleading. We think that if you find it not okay because of whatever why don't you guys write an article based on the articles and references given. It is a notable party and is in the active in ZImbabwe has references more than other parties that are listed on the List of Political Parties in ZImbabwe. You would rather have a political party listed which refering to the wrong article? They listed it as Liberal Democrats and had to put LD to try and distinguish and The Zimbabwe was suggested byone of your editors Mr X from what we hear. Why are you giving them grief as if you just want to prove a point. You are behaving as this is your bedroom because the article removes the confusion as well on names.
.Comment There is another ref on the Change.org. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 105.226.21.33 (talk) 12:34, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
Response to Delete. -- It is sad that ref number 3 apart from the official website shows an article about the activities of the Liberal Demmocrats but you guys do not see it. Furthermore they had a petition the AU and SADC through change which unfortunately according to wikipedia cannot be used as a reference, they have been on Talk 702 in South Africa and Radio Islam and all these are on their webpage in the media page, those live interviews. All other parties in the list either have the official website or nothing as reference or one or two, is this not bias? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 105.226.21.33 (talk) 14:02, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
- Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2016 April 1. —cyberbot ITalk to my owner:Online 07:38, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
- 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. —Cryptic 11:17, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
- Oppzo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Patently non-notable online hardware store. It's a simple WP:A7 as far as I'm concerned but a second user removed the CSD tag without an explanation. --Non-Dropframe talk 05:15, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
- Keep. Source checked, all above board. UKN droop (talk) 05:22, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
- Delete: No evidence of notability.. Source is a scamadvisor site. Chrisw80 (talk) 09:04, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
- The above deletion debate is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of either this nomination or the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. The genre is not sufficiently well-defined. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:59, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
- List of console adventure games (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Unnecessary to have a list based upon adventure games that have been released for consoles. There's Category:Adventure games. It doesn't just list adventure games that were released exclusively on consoles, also the ones that have seen PC releases. soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 12:14, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 12:15, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sarahj2107 (talk) 09:27, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
- Keep The list covers the same topic as the Category:Console adventure games, which is a valid one; and being a list, it offers a more informative layout for reader's consumption. The topic as such has received RS coverage re. Lack of refere([27],[28]), which makes it pass WP:LISTN. Diego (talk) 10:40, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
- P.S. I've added to the article the reference that lists 25 adventure games - many of them exclusive for consoles. Diego (talk) 10:48, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
Delete - The list isn't manageable, it's not useful to compare video games across generations in any meaningful sense, and splitting it from a general "list of all adventure games" takes it out of the proper context of comparison between console adventures and PC adventures. So I suppose on both counts that's a vio of WP:NPOV.
Aside: The category itself should probably also be deleted per WP:DEFINING; we don't intersect genre with console--and if we should, that's either way a different question. --Izno (talk) 12:51, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
- Reliable sources do intersect the adventure genre with consoles, so the topic is supported by policy. Diego (talk) 13:33, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
- You failed to respond to my points. On the whole of it, the article fails Wikipedia !rules other than WP:N/WP:LISTN. --Izno (talk) 14:06, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
- Reliable sources do intersect the adventure genre with consoles, so the topic is supported by policy. Diego (talk) 13:33, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
DeleteNeutralUserfly: That would make a very long and indiscriminate list, especially across multiple console generations. Current list only notes the console in question and the year, which is hardly enough to justify an indiscriminate list. It's just not manageable. ~Mable (chat) 13:04, 15 March 2016 (UTC)- Your argument would be a reason to split the list if/when it grows unmanageable, not to delete it. We have the equivalent category which is perfectly manageable. I would agree to restrict the list to only those games that are exclusive to consoles, or for which the console version is notable on its own, as a way to have a stronger inclusion criterion; that would be definitely manageable. Diego (talk) 13:33, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
- How would you intend to split the list? I might approve of more specific lists (such as "List of adventure games on the Nintendo Entertainment System"), but even if such lists were created, I would still !vote delete. Categories aren't restricted to inclusion criteria: editors can discuss whether something should fit in a certain category on a talk page, but in the end, the exact limits don't matter much, as categories aren't articles themselves and mainly intended simply to make it easier to find articles.
- There are 183 console adventure games listed in this category, which already makes a long list. I would imagine that, for a large amount of them, you'd have difficulty to find a source referring to the game as an adventure game specifically. It's already a somewhat vaguely defined genre. Moreover, I wouldn't be surprised if many of the games listed in Category:Adventure games have also seen a console release and are simply miscategorized. I haven't actually done my research on this, but it would be difficult to convince me that "console adventure game" is a good topic for a list without it being sourced well. Generally, describing the subject of the list does wonders. What do all the items on this list got to do with one another? Why should I care about that item if I care about this item? What is the overall importance of this grouping? That's the sort of things that result in WP:LISTN ~Mable (chat) 14:14, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
- Your argument would be a reason to split the list if/when it grows unmanageable, not to delete it. We have the equivalent category which is perfectly manageable. I would agree to restrict the list to only those games that are exclusive to consoles, or for which the console version is notable on its own, as a way to have a stronger inclusion criterion; that would be definitely manageable. Diego (talk) 13:33, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
- That's the sort of things that are documented in the sources I provided:
- "Adventure games have a different connotation on consoles. On PC, adventure games almost always mean point-and-click or a variation of that style of gameplay. However, on a console there’s no mouse or pointer to click with. Usually, developers have to include other forms of gameplay together with the more common elements of adventure games, which are story elements, interaction and dialogue with NPCs, exploration of locations and scenarios, and puzzle elements. On consoles, there are very often action sequences included and other dynamics familiar to console gamers."
- "Robinett essentially created the console adventure game, and pioneered several videogame conventions that are now so common that we take them for granted." " The controller was a directional joystick with a single button.“ "The first step was translating the game from a purely text experience to a purely graphical one. Robinett cleverly reduced environments, characters, and objects to instantly recognizable, simple icons."
- The topic is there. Lack of references is an argument for improvement and refinement, not deletion.
- Categories and lists are no different in terms of inclusion guidelines - categorization of topics that are well defined by reliable sources is an accepted criterion. Diego (talk) 15:52, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
- You're starting to convince me that there could theoretically be some value to such a list, or at the very least such an article. Only two good sources is pretty weak, though, and one of them focuses entirely on the 1970s. I also don't know if Gaming Enthusiast is a reliable source - if not, the article wouldn't have much to stand on... ~Mable (chat) 18:08, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
- There are plenty more where these came from (see Ars Technica, IGN, Gamasutra...); I didn't try to make an extensive search, but I've certainly read lots of published content regarding how adventures need to be adapted for consoles given their lack of text and mouse inputs. Diego (talk) 22:36, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
- Changed to neutral per sources, though an article would still work better. ~Mable (chat) 04:53, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
- Gaming Enthusiast is not a reliable source. The more recent links do not go into depth on the importance of console-exclusive adventure games as a subdivision. czar 05:13, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
- I can agree to move the list to Draft space for a while, with the goal to transform it into a proper article. The current list could be tightened and placed as a section, like the ones we have at Art games and Video games as an art form. Diego (talk) 09:39, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
- Userfly is probably the best option, yes. ~Mable (chat) 09:49, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
- Changed to neutral per sources, though an article would still work better. ~Mable (chat) 04:53, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
- There are plenty more where these came from (see Ars Technica, IGN, Gamasutra...); I didn't try to make an extensive search, but I've certainly read lots of published content regarding how adventures need to be adapted for consoles given their lack of text and mouse inputs. Diego (talk) 22:36, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
- You're starting to convince me that there could theoretically be some value to such a list, or at the very least such an article. Only two good sources is pretty weak, though, and one of them focuses entirely on the 1970s. I also don't know if Gaming Enthusiast is a reliable source - if not, the article wouldn't have much to stand on... ~Mable (chat) 18:08, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
- On a side-note, Izno's comment on why the console adventure games category should probably also be deleted as it is an intersection with genre and platform is also pretty good, by the way. We use tools to find such intersection, so they don't need to exist. ~Mable (chat) 14:17, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
- Delete. As above, very unclear inclusion criteria. Exclusive for consoles would be one story and what about games described in one source as "adventure" but in others as a subgenre? All in all, the scope issues as is are insurmountable. czar 14:54, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
- Note: I just noticed that the article also lists pc-only games ("Microsoft Windows, OS X, Linux") - is that an error? Also, how would this list deal with games that originate on PC and were ported to consoles? This is especially confusing when the "console" in question is a hand-held ("Microsoft Windows, Nintendo DS"). ~Mable (chat) 14:58, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
- As I pointed above, we can include console-only adventures and action-adventures (Ico, Shadow of the Colossus, Dark Souls, Journey, Heavy Rain); games that are ported from other system should require a RS indicating the reason what the console version has special. Diego (talk) 15:52, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
- Delete - This list could easily swell into the thousands eventually, and as stated, there's no clear criteria for inclusion. It's arguable that most video games being made for consoles today have an "adventure" element. —Torchiest talkedits 20:14, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
- Keep, per WP:PURPLIST: Lists which contain internally linked terms (i.e., wikilinks) serve, in aggregate, as natural tables of contents and indexes of Wikipedia. - Lists can be very useful as navigational tools, without requiring notability on their own. Yes, it could go grow bigger in the future, but there are other ways to deal with that than deletion. --Reinoutr (talk) 10:42, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
- Possible new solution: Move. Because the issue is with the unnecessary distinction of çonsole adventure games, we could move this to List of adventure games (which currently redirects to List of graphic adventure games. soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 09:27, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
- Keep The article provides a very useful list of adventure games released in (or fan translated to) English. Given the scarcity of reliable sources that could provide this kind of information, it is important to have the list here. I strongly believe action-adventure games should be not added to the list, and this must be made absolutely clear in the article as to avoid confusion. Besides, perhaps a better option would be changing this list into an article about the "chronology of console adventure games". This would justify the existence of the article even more. -- ThiagoSimoes (talk) 00:53, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
- But the only sources we do have list action-adventure games almost exclusively, such as Shadow of the Colossus and Dark Souls. That exclusion makes no sense (even though the inclusion doesn't make any sense either) ~Mable (chat) 05:14, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
- It currently has two sources, one of which is not a WP:VG/RS. How does it meet WP:GNG? Other issues are that the games listed are not "console" games exclusively: if that would be the case, it would make some sense. Dune (video game), Game of Thrones (video game), Murdered: Soul Suspect, the list goes on. soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 07:52, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
- But the only sources we do have list action-adventure games almost exclusively, such as Shadow of the Colossus and Dark Souls. That exclusion makes no sense (even though the inclusion doesn't make any sense either) ~Mable (chat) 05:14, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
- Note; there's a huge overlap with List of graphic adventure games. If we would remove all games that aren't considered adventure games and remove all those that aren't console exclusive, we wouldn't have anything left to keep. soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 07:57, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
- So that would suggest a merge of the two articles, as suggested above, would be an appropriate solution. --Reinoutr (talk) 14:22, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 09:17, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:36, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
- Delete - there is a very loose and difficult to define inclusion criteria here. What exactly constitutes an 'adventure game' is rather nebulous. InsertCleverPhraseHere 03:47, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
- Strong delete - Already said by many, the inclusion criteria makes it unmanageable. Where is Cursed Mountain? According to our adventure game article, visual novels are included, but none are included here. Why the arbitrary rule that handheld games are not included, and goes on to show games on the Nintendo DS? Why do some game list all the platforms it's on, but not all? From a glance, Heavy Rain is also on PS4, Flower, Sun, and Rain is on DS, Machinarium is on tons of platforms, but only lists PS3. Games such as The Book of Unwritten Tales is not on any console, but included (and not listed correctly). What is the actual point of the list? The criteria and information follows no actual guideline, and is more like a personal list than something that belongs on Wikipedia. I went from delete to strong delete just in the time of writing my thoughts on it. It's both too broad and too narrow, somehow. --Wirbelwind(ヴィルヴェルヴィント) 05:34, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
- Are you arguing with respect to the current article's state, or what it can become with a well-defined criterion? Who says there is a rule that handheld games ought not to be included? The particulars of what details to include for each entry belong to the article's talk page, not to the discussion that decides on the notability of the topic. (However you're right that The Book of Unwritten Tales doesn't seem to pertain, I've removed it; I think it was included because the II part in the series is released for PS4). As I said above, I would limit the list inclusion criterion to console exclusives or those for which the console port is significant in some way, and where reliable sources consistently place the game in the adventure genre. Diego (talk) 13:34, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
Relisting comment: Due to the variety of options suggested here, I think another week would help. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:05, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:05, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
Strong delete What exactly defines an "adventure game"? Music1201 (talk) 22:57, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
- Delete or redirect to List of graphic adventure games, a more comprehensive list. Having a separate list like this is redundant and pointless. It can be easily covered in the original list. AdrianGamer (talk) 14:59, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
- 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 11:38, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
- Patmont Motor Werks (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Unreferenced and promotional Rathfelder (talk) 15:08, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
- Delete I agree entirely with Rathfelder. Beyond its own self-promotional Go-Ped website there are no other sources. It hasn't been peer-reviewed or coverage in the either the press or trade publications. And the article is written more like an advert than a neutral, dispassionate encyclopaedic entry. Pupsbunch (talk) 19:12, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:29, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:29, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nevada-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:30, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
- Certainly a crappy article, but BEFORE shows the topic or its major product are quite possibly notable. Looking beyond the press releases, we DO have independent coverage: [29] [30] (Italian) and [31] for instance. UGLY articles need some love, and deletion of arguably notable topics is not love. Jus' sayin. Schmidt, Michael Q. 22:11, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 02:19, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
- Comment - I don't feel like taking the time, but there are numerous issues here. The article - under the current name - may not necessarily be notable. However, it is the creator of the Go-Ped which is notable. There was an article for Go-Ped which someone redirected into a disambiguation page [32]. Quite a mess. Could be redirected into a page for Go-Ped with the content rewritten for that page. --CNMall41 (talk) 03:39, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:01, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
- Delete as there's no consensus to actually improve the article to a better state and thus is best deleted for now until better is available. SwisterTwister talk 04:41, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
- 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) —UY Scuti Talk 19:13, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
- Grand Bassam Zion Rock (Alpha Blondy album) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Non-notable album. Unreferenced article. Fails WP:NALBUMS. XXN, 14:37, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
- Keep. Although evidently not one of Alpha Blondy's more successful records, this was an official major label album release by an important musician. The French Wikipedia article for this album cites a source (although I don't have access to that source). Google and GBooks searches suggest that reviews or other coverage can be found with enough and access to offline sources; see, e.g. [33][34][35][36][37][38] I don't think deleting this page would improve our encyclopedic coverage of Alpha Blondy and of Ivorian and reggae music in general. --Arxiloxos (talk) 14:54, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 17:10, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Arxiloxos (talk) 20:23, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 01:55, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
- Comment. I'm no convinced that the sources are available to take this article beyond the unsatisfactory tracklisting and infobox that we have now (although they may exist offline). The current title is no use as a redirect - why on earth anyone added '(Alpha Blondy album)' to the title is beyond me. The album title itself may be worth a redirect to Alpha Blondy, but I would suggest moving this to Grand Bassam Zion Rock without redirect before redirecting there. --Michig (talk) 07:10, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:01, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
- Keep. Articles about albums by notable artists seem to be uncontroversial, and the artist already has others, so not sure why this one is different. Greenman (talk) 22:02, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
- Keep and I would've closed this myself as this can be improved. SwisterTwister talk 04:36, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
- 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 11:29, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
- SIGOS (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Advert masquerading as an article, most of the sources are rehashed press releases, and the tone, product lists etc. are just so promotional. Doubt they're notable, but if they are then TNT would be best IMO. Joseph2302 (talk) 11:04, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 13:39, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 13:39, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
- Delete – The tone of this article suggests to me that they are trying to be persuasive. CLCStudent (talk) 17:57, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
- NOT Delete – The wording was changed to a neutral perspective. Company-own press releases have been removed and references from external sources have been added instead. Self-promotional tone has been removed . 15:01, 22 March 2016 (UTC)— Preceding unsigned comment added by Weisssigos (talk • contribs) — Weisssigos (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
- No, your attempt to fix it made it so much worse, and just a product directory. I've reverted it. Joseph2302 (talk) 16:45, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
- Thanks for your feedback Joseph2302 and apologies for not declaring my affiliation to the company, I was not aware of the COI Issue. I like to disagree though that my changes made it so much worse, as per your comment. As per Wikipedia guidelines I included verifiable articles and references from independent, third-party reliable resources, such as the independent worldwide GSMA Association, the European Telecommunications Standards Institute (ETSI) or the international market research and analysis company Frost & Sullivan, to whom SIGOS has no relationship and therefore no COI.
In the history section I also removed all self-promotion information. Also the product overview was changed into descriptive text instead of advertising tone. Maybe you could point out where exactly the new wording still sounded like advertising, instead of descriptive facts? I'm new here and like to make it right. Hope the declaration of my affiliation with SIGOS is now also correct? Many thanks in advance
The following Wikipedia contributor has declared a personal or professional connection to the subject of this article. Relevant policies and guidelines may include conflict of interest, autobiography, and neutral point of view.
|
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 01:45, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
- Is there any more/other feedback to the new wording by me, Weisssigos which was all deleted/reverted to the old wording by Joseph2302 ? I still believe it should have not been reverted as per my comments above. Looking forward to some more feedback/help to have an entry which complies with wikipedia guidelines. Thanks Weisssigos
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:01, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
- Delete as the "NOT Delete" is not suggesting how this article can be noticeably improved thus I am suggesting Delete because none of this currently suggests both satisfying the applicable notability and the necessary improvements....therefore Delete for now. SwisterTwister talk 04:32, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
- 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 11:24, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
- Matzo Shortage of 2008 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Does not reach the level of notability for an event as there has been insufficient coverage of limited significance and there was a short news cycle for this one-time event. A current search for reliable sources turns up far fewer than would be expected for a noteworthy event. Geoff | Who, me? 21:14, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
- Delete - while covered in a couple of notable news sources, it seems that this isn't notable for an article of its own. InsertCleverPhraseHere 03:01, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:46, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:46, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:46, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:46, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
- Comment. A related article, 2008 Passover margarine shortage, was kept at AfD in 2010. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2008 Passover margarine shortage (2nd nomination). (Despite the title, I don't think there was an earlier AfD.) This article should probably be merged with that one under a more general title like 2008 Passover food shortage and evaluated together. The tone of this article is also a bit unencyclopedic, which contributes to the sense that the content doesn't merit preservation. In fairness, though, coverage of Passover food shortages was quite extensive during spring 2008, in both secular and Jewish-oriented media. At minimum, there should be sourced references to the shortage in other appropriate articles, such as Manischewitz#History (since that company's temporary manufacturing problems were reported to be a major cause for the shortages:[39][40][41][42]). --Arxiloxos (talk) 18:21, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
- Delete for now at best because this still seems questionably better and questionably notable and thus there's obviously no better information since this was a then-event, nothing else better convincing. However, Redirect where ever needed, SwisterTwister talk 05:15, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 03:04, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
- Delete Delete. not notable on its own. Perhaps it could be merged into some other "Passover" article, but it hardly seems worth it. Don't need an article every time there's a product shortage.VanEman (talk) 17:42, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
- 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. (non-admin closure) — Omni Flames (talk contribs) 03:50, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
- AudioCodes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Corporation does not meet WP:GNG. It has received paltry coverage for its 23 year tenure and has made zero impact outside of a very small niche. Article is written like an advertisement and has very little NPOV throughout. I do not think it is possible to remove the POV and ALSO establish notability. Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 22:26, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
- Comment Article has been edited by Audiocodes before to insert promotional language. In terms of news/reliable source coverage, I did manage to find a few sources similar to this. Outside of those financial results though, there's really nothing. One would expect any publicly traded company to have a regular stream of investor related news based on regulatory filings (which are what those links are). Elaenia (talk) 01:47, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 04:18, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kharkiv07 (T) 22:02, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:05, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:05, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
- Keep. The article is written as Press Release and has to be redone, but the company itself has quite a lot of coverage. For example, those: [43], [44], [45], [46], [47], [48]. Arthistorian1977 (talk) 09:55, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 12:27, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
- Delete at best then Draft as the amount listed above is still questionable at best and the article is currently noticeably troubled thus better work and improvements would be needed. SwisterTwister talk 04:30, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 03:04, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
- Weak Keep - Given the company trades at the NASDAQ I would vote for a keep as this passes WP:GNG. Kansiime (talk) 00:25, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
- 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 Boxing at the 2015 European Games. MBisanz talk 00:19, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
- Boxing at the 2015 European Games – Women's 51 kg (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
No additional content that can be found on the main page. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 19:19, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
- Redirect to Boxing at the 2015 European Games. Content could be expanded one day, like some of the other events. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 19:33, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
- Delete None of the previous European Games have an expansion for boxing results which I think is proper. Wikipedia is not supposed to be result listing so although a case can be made for higher level competitions I don't think the European Games for Boxing is. It looks like all these sub-articles were created with the intention of expansion which never happened. I see that there were several other AfDs which should have been grouped and several sub-articles that were expanded that were not sent to AfD - I think the latter should be sent to AfD eventually but I want to see how these play out first.Peter Rehse (talk) 09:42, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 10:10, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
- "None of the previous European Games have an expansion for boxing results" - that's because there are none, as this is the first European Games! other results have been completed, these ones haven't. For now. There's also lots of incoming links to these individual tournaments for nations/competitors and they all have the possibility of being expanded. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 19:40, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
- Point taken (I was confused by the European Boxing Championships). I still stand by my comment that competition trees for every weight class for every competition is not necessary. For what I think is a comparable example Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2014 Asian Wrestling Championships – Men's freestyle 57 kg.Peter Rehse (talk) 19:49, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
- "None of the previous European Games have an expansion for boxing results" - that's because there are none, as this is the first European Games! other results have been completed, these ones haven't. For now. There's also lots of incoming links to these individual tournaments for nations/competitors and they all have the possibility of being expanded. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 19:40, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
- Keep, otherwise redirect: I agree with Lugnuts. Notable event. Many secondary sources (see here. Most of the elite events at the European Games have these sub pages, see Category:Sports at the 2015 European Games. Also many incoming links. Only if someone can show that a page of a red link is earlier created than when it is a redirect, deleting could make sense. Sander.v.Ginkel (Talk) 10:43, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 12:19, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:41, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Azerbaijan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:41, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:41, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 03:01, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
- Comment Please note that most of this series was closed already as Redirect - I think the closing admin missed two. (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Boxing at the 2015 European Games – Women's 60 kg.Peter Rehse (talk) 12:14, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
- Redirect to Boxing at the 2015 European Games, as per the others in this series, and as per the reasoned plurality of opinion here. FeatherPluma (talk) 19:41, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
- 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 Boxing at the 2015 European Games. (non-admin closure) SSTflyer 04:11, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
- Boxing at the 2015 European Games – Men's 75 kg (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
No additional content that can be found on the main page. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 19:21, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
- Redirect to Boxing at the 2015 European Games. Content could be expanded one day, like some of the other events. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 19:33, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
- Delete None of the previous European Games have an expansion for boxing results which I think is proper. Wikipedia is not supposed to be result listing so although a case can be made for higher level competitions I don't think the European Games for Boxing is. It looks like all these sub-articles were created with the intention of expansion which never happened. I see that there were several other AfDs which should have been grouped and several sub-articles that were expanded that were not sent to AfD - I think the latter should be sent to AfD eventually but I want to see how these play out first.Peter Rehse (talk) 09:42, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 10:12, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
- "None of the previous European Games have an expansion for boxing results" - that's because there are none, as this is the first European Games! other results have been completed, these ones haven't. For now. There's also lots of incoming links to these individual tournaments for nations/competitors and they all have the possibility of being expanded. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 19:40, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
- Point taken (I was confused by the European Boxing Championships). I still stand by my comment that competition trees for every weight class for every competition is not necessary. For what I think is a comparable example Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2014 Asian Wrestling Championships – Men's freestyle 57 kg.Peter Rehse (talk) 19:52, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
- "None of the previous European Games have an expansion for boxing results" - that's because there are none, as this is the first European Games! other results have been completed, these ones haven't. For now. There's also lots of incoming links to these individual tournaments for nations/competitors and they all have the possibility of being expanded. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 19:40, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
- Keep, otherwise redirect: I agree with Lugnuts. Notable event. Many secondary sources (see here. Most of the elite events at the European Games have these sub pages, see Category:Sports at the 2015 European Games. Also many incoming links. Only if someone can show that a page of a red link is earlier created than when it is a redirect, deleting could make sense. Sander.v.Ginkel (Talk) 10:42, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 12:20, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:47, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Azerbaijan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:47, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:47, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 03:01, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
- Redirect as not independently notable. SwisterTwister talk 04:33, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
- 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 Boxing at the 2015 European Games. (non-admin closure) SSTflyer 04:12, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
- Boxing at the 2015 European Games – Men's 81 kg (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
No additional content that can be found on the main page. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 19:21, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
- Redirect to Boxing at the 2015 European Games. Content could be expanded one day, like some of the other events. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 19:33, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
- Delete None of the previous European Games have an expansion for boxing results which I think is proper. Wikipedia is not supposed to be result listing so although a case can be made for higher level competitions I don't think the European Games for Boxing is. It looks like all these sub-articles were created with the intention of expansion which never happened. I see that there were several other AfDs which should have been grouped and several sub-articles that were expanded that were not sent to AfD - I think the latter should be sent to AfD eventually but I want to see how these play out first.Peter Rehse (talk) 09:42, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 10:11, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
- "None of the previous European Games have an expansion for boxing results" - that's because there are none, as this is the first European Games! other results have been completed, these ones haven't. For now. There's also lots of incoming links to these individual tournaments for nations/competitors and they all have the possibility of being expanded. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 19:40, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
- Point taken (I was confused by the European Boxing Championships). I still stand by my comment that competition trees for every weight class for every competition is not necessary. For what I think is a comparable example Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2014 Asian Wrestling Championships – Men's freestyle 57 kg.Peter Rehse (talk) 19:52, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
- "None of the previous European Games have an expansion for boxing results" - that's because there are none, as this is the first European Games! other results have been completed, these ones haven't. For now. There's also lots of incoming links to these individual tournaments for nations/competitors and they all have the possibility of being expanded. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 19:40, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
- Keep, otherwise redirect: I agree with Lugnuts. Notable event. Many secondary sources (see here. Most of the elite events at the European Games have these sub pages, see Category:Sports at the 2015 European Games. Also many incoming links. Only if someone can show that a page of a red link is earlier created than when it is a redirect, deleting could make sense. Sander.v.Ginkel (Talk) 10:42, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 12:20, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:48, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Azerbaijan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:48, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:48, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 03:01, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
- Redirect as not independently notable. SwisterTwister talk 04:34, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
- 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 Boxing at the 2015 European Games. (non-admin closure) SSTflyer 04:12, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
- Boxing at the 2015 European Games – Men's 91 kg (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
No additional content that can be found on the main page. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 19:22, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
- Redirect to Boxing at the 2015 European Games. Content could be expanded one day, like some of the other events. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 19:33, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
- Delete None of the previous European Games have an expansion for boxing results which I think is proper. Wikipedia is not supposed to be result listing so although a case can be made for higher level competitions I don't think the European Games for Boxing is. It looks like all these sub-articles were created with the intention of expansion which never happened. I see that there were several other AfDs which should have been grouped and several sub-articles that were expanded that were not sent to AfD - I think the latter should be sent to AfD eventually but I want to see how these play out first.Peter Rehse (talk) 09:42, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 10:11, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
- "None of the previous European Games have an expansion for boxing results" - that's because there are none, as this is the first European Games! other results have been completed, these ones haven't. For now. There's also lots of incoming links to these individual tournaments for nations/competitors and they all have the possibility of being expanded. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 19:40, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
- Point taken (I was confused by the European Boxing Championships). I still stand by my comment that competition trees for every weight class for every competition is not necessary. For what I think is a comparable example Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2014 Asian Wrestling Championships – Men's freestyle 57 kg.Peter Rehse (talk) 19:51, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
- "None of the previous European Games have an expansion for boxing results" - that's because there are none, as this is the first European Games! other results have been completed, these ones haven't. For now. There's also lots of incoming links to these individual tournaments for nations/competitors and they all have the possibility of being expanded. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 19:40, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
- Keep, otherwise redirect: I agree with Lugnuts. Notable event. Many secondary sources (see here. Most of the elite events at the European Games have these sub pages, see Category:Sports at the 2015 European Games. Also many incoming links. Only if someone can show that a page of a red link is earlier created than when it is a redirect, deleting could make sense. Sander.v.Ginkel (Talk) 10:42, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 12:21, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:49, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Azerbaijan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:49, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:49, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 03:01, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
- Redirect as not independently notable. SwisterTwister talk 04:34, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
- 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 Boxing at the 2015 European Games. (non-admin closure) SSTflyer 04:12, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
- Boxing at the 2015 European Games – Men's +91 kg (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
No additional content that can be found on the main page. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 19:22, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
- Redirect to Boxing at the 2015 European Games. Content could be expanded one day, like some of the other events. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 19:33, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
- Delete None of the previous European Games have an expansion for boxing results which I think is proper. Wikipedia is not supposed to be result listing so although a case can be made for higher level competitions I don't think the European Games for Boxing is. It looks like all these sub-articles were created with the intention of expansion which never happened. I see that there were several other AfDs which should have been grouped and several sub-articles that were expanded that were not sent to AfD - I think the latter should be sent to AfD eventually but I want to see how these play out first.Peter Rehse (talk) 09:42, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 10:11, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
- "None of the previous European Games have an expansion for boxing results" - that's because there are none, as this is the first European Games! other results have been completed, these ones haven't. For now. There's also lots of incoming links to these individual tournaments for nations/competitors and they all have the possibility of being expanded. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 19:40, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
- Point taken (I was confused by the European Boxing Championships). I still stand by my comment that competition trees for every weight class for every competition is not necessary. For what I think is a comparable example Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2014 Asian Wrestling Championships – Men's freestyle 57 kg.Peter Rehse (talk) 19:51, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
- "None of the previous European Games have an expansion for boxing results" - that's because there are none, as this is the first European Games! other results have been completed, these ones haven't. For now. There's also lots of incoming links to these individual tournaments for nations/competitors and they all have the possibility of being expanded. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 19:40, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
Redirect (/Merge/Whathaveyou). I doubt I will replicate my vote for all of the other articles also inappropriately created for other weight classes, but if the AfD's become close things (which I'd think is highly unlikely) feel free to cite me for support in them as well. Pretty clear issue under WP:N/WP:NOTDIRECTORY/WP:V/Any number of policies. Snow let's rap 11:18, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
- Keep, otherwise redirect: I agree with Lugnuts. Notable event. Many secondary sources (see here. Most of the elite events at the European Games have these sub pages, see Category:Sports at the 2015 European Games. Also many incoming links. Only if someone can show that a page of a red link is earlier created than when it is a redirect, deleting could make sense. Sander.v.Ginkel (Talk) 10:42, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 12:21, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:50, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:50, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Azerbaijan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:50, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 03:00, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
- Redirect as not independently notable. SwisterTwister talk 04:35, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
- 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 Boxing at the 2015 European Games. (non-admin closure) SSTflyer 04:45, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
- Boxing at the 2015 European Games – Women's 60 kg (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
No additional content that can be found on the main page. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 19:22, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
- Redirect to Boxing at the 2015 European Games. Content could be expanded one day, like some of the other events. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 19:33, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
- Delete None of the previous European Games have an expansion for boxing results which I think is proper. Wikipedia is not supposed to be result listing so although a case can be made for higher level competitions I don't think the European Games for Boxing is. It looks like all these sub-articles were created with the intention of expansion which never happened. I see that there were several other AfDs which should have been grouped and several sub-articles that were expanded that were not sent to AfD - I think the latter should be sent to AfD eventually but I want to see how these play out first.Peter Rehse (talk) 09:42, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 10:10, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
- "None of the previous European Games have an expansion for boxing results" - that's because there are none, as this is the first European Games! other results have been completed, these ones haven't. For now. There's also lots of incoming links to these individual tournaments for nations/competitors and they all have the possibility of being expanded. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 19:40, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
- Point taken (I was confused by the European Boxing Championships). I still stand by my comment that competition trees for every weight class for every competition is not necessary. For what I think is a comparable example Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2014 Asian Wrestling Championships – Men's freestyle 57 kg.Peter Rehse (talk) 19:50, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
- "None of the previous European Games have an expansion for boxing results" - that's because there are none, as this is the first European Games! other results have been completed, these ones haven't. For now. There's also lots of incoming links to these individual tournaments for nations/competitors and they all have the possibility of being expanded. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 19:40, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
- Keep, otherwise redirect: I agree with Lugnuts. Notable event. Many secondary sources (see here. Most of the elite events at the European Games have these sub pages, see Category:Sports at the 2015 European Games. Also many incoming links. Only if someone can show that a page of a red link is earlier created than when it is a redirect, deleting could make sense. Sander.v.Ginkel (Talk) 10:42, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 12:21, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:51, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Azerbaijan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:51, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:51, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 03:00, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
- 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 Boxing at the 2015 European Games. (non-admin closure) SSTflyer 04:45, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
- Boxing at the 2015 European Games – Women's 64 kg (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
No additional content that can be found on the main page. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 19:22, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
- Redirect to Boxing at the 2015 European Games. Content could be expanded one day, like some of the other events. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 19:33, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
- Delete None of the previous European Games have an expansion for boxing results which I think is proper. Wikipedia is not supposed to be result listing so although a case can be made for higher level competitions I don't think the European Games for Boxing is. It looks like all these sub-articles were created with the intention of expansion which never happened. I see that there were several other AfDs which should have been grouped and several sub-articles that were expanded that were not sent to AfD - I think the latter should be sent to AfD eventually but I want to see how these play out first.Peter Rehse (talk) 09:42, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 10:10, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
- "None of the previous European Games have an expansion for boxing results" - that's because there are none, as this is the first European Games! other results have been completed, these ones haven't. For now. There's also lots of incoming links to these individual tournaments for nations/competitors and they all have the possibility of being expanded. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 19:39, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
- Point taken (I was confused by the European Boxing Championships). I still stand by my comment that competition trees for every weight class for every competition is not necessary. For what I think is a comparable example Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2014 Asian Wrestling Championships – Men's freestyle 57 kg.Peter Rehse (talk) 19:50, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
- "None of the previous European Games have an expansion for boxing results" - that's because there are none, as this is the first European Games! other results have been completed, these ones haven't. For now. There's also lots of incoming links to these individual tournaments for nations/competitors and they all have the possibility of being expanded. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 19:39, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
- Keep, otherwise redirect: I agree with Lugnuts. Notable event. Many secondary sources (see here. Most of the elite events at the European Games have these sub pages, see Category:Sports at the 2015 European Games. Also many incoming links. Only if someone can show that a page of a red link is earlier created than when it is a redirect, deleting could make sense. Sander.v.Ginkel (Talk) 10:41, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 12:21, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:52, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Azerbaijan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:52, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:52, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 03:00, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
- Redirect as this is best, nothing else suggesting a better separate article. SwisterTwister talk 04:28, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
- 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. Uncontested. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 22:13, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
- Mike bongiovanni (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Non-notable musician, fails WP:MUSBIO. Only claim of significance is that his band, Leon and the Forklifts, won "Best Original Alternative Band" a couple times. This appears to be from a very small local awards event, and isn't sufficient to indicate notability. There are no reliable sources included in the current references, and I couldn't find any by googling for Bongiovanni or his band. IagoQnsi (talk) 21:40, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
- Delete: utterly non-notable; vanity/promo page. Quis separabit? 21:42, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
- Comment: It seems this was a draft submission that the user copied to the main namespace after being rejected; see Draft:Mike Bongiovanni. -IagoQnsi (talk) 21:43, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 14:44, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 12:27, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:54, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 02:59, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
- Delete as my searches noticeably found nothing better. SwisterTwister talk 04:29, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
- 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. Per WP:NPASR. (non-admin closure) —UY Scuti Talk 19:10, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
- Steve Andreas (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
No indication of notability. All 5 references in article are self-published books (3 of which were written Andreas himself). Seems like some sort of promo article for him. Article does not seem to meet WP:GNG or WP:BIO. FuriouslySerene (talk) 16:05, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 20:35, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 20:35, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 20:35, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 20:35, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
- Delete as none of this suggests satisfying the applicable notability and my searches have found nothing better so far. Notifying DGG for analysis. SwisterTwister talk 20:37, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
- Keep. Although topic is fringe, there are high GS cites for his work. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:31, 22 March 2016 (UTC).
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 02:21, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Colorado-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:30, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:30, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 02:58, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
- 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) Vipinhari || talk 18:45, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
- Polyvalent Hall (Sfântu Gheorghe) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Recently built arena. Non-notable. XXN, 12:27, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 13:47, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 01:50, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. North America1000 01:50, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. North America1000 01:50, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
- Keep meets WP:GNG through Romanian news sources, e.g. [49] [50] [51] [52] SSTflyer 02:16, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 02:58, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
- Keep perhaps as this will still need any additional attention and sources. SwisterTwister talk 04:27, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Not sure where to userfy to, so if somebody does want to work on this please tell me and I'll userfy it for them. Sandstein 11:42, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
- Partnership for a Secure America (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
This was, and to some extent still is, little more than a substitute for the organization's website--please see the history for how bad it was. I can find reliable sources mentioning the topic, like this one, and there's various other hits like this one, but that's it--I am not seeing any significant discussion. There's also a book hit, here, but again, there's no discussion of the outfit at all--the only information given is from the club's own website. (Pretty lousy job on the part of the writer.) So I don't see any good sources for us to write an article with. Drmies (talk) 19:33, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:23, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:23, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:23, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
- needs a closer look for a start I searched the name on WaPo, results here: [53]. I'll try to get back to this.E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:23, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
- Comment @E.M.Gregory: I've taken a look at the articles from the search you linked and this appears to be the only one which covers the topic in any detail (but that article focuses on a report released by the organization, not the organization itself). The others are job listings or passing mentions of someone who's affiliated. In terms of content outside your search, I was able to find a number of articles which contain passing mentions of the subject, but nothing in detail. I think it may be possible to find enough sources, but I'm not having any luck here. Elaenia (talk) 23:38, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
- Keep, material to write an article exists in the WaPo article cited above, and in these searches of Politico [54]; The Hill [55] and Google Books [56]. In sum, the organization was real and notable in its moment, it merely needs a bit of a re-write and some sourcing.E.M.Gregory (talk) 01:58, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
- Draft and Userfy at best because my searches only found a few links and nothing outstandingly convincing of an immediately better article. SwisterTwister talk 04:33, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti Talk 18:34, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 00:20, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 02:57, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
- Draft or Userfy per suggestion of SwisterTwister. There is notability potential here, but what I've seen thus far it's not there yet.--Ddcm8991 (talk) 16:31, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
- 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. Uncontested. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 22:02, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
- Ilana Rapp (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
No notable roles. All of her roles are unnamed characters. JDDJS (talk) 02:55, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
- Delete Not only are all her roles of unnamed characters, in almost all cases they are uncredited roles. Very, very rarely is an uncredited role notable enough to justify an article. In this case she is just plain not notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:20, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:31, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:31, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:31, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
- Delete as still questionable for WP:ENTERTAINER. SwisterTwister talk 04:27, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
- 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 11:39, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
- Inglorious (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Article about a band with no strong or reliably sourced claim to passing WP:NMUSIC; the only source present here is the band's own website, and the only discernible claim of notability ("and Scorpions guitarist Uli Jon Roth") is actually a misrepresentation of what the website says: Roth is not a member of this band, but rather this band's leader once worked with Roth in an entirely unrelated capacity. But notability is not inherited, so that fact doesn't transfer a notability freebie onto this band. (And while this isn't a deletion rationale in and of itself, it does warrant mention that every single existing link to this title is expecting a racehorse, not a rock band who only just released their debut album.) Delete, without prejudice against recreation in the future if and when the notability and sourceability get stronger than this. Bearcat (talk) 06:17, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 14:17, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 14:17, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
- Delete - Basically nothing imaginably better here with no solid URLs aside from their own website, clearly not even any minimal signs of notable material. SwisterTwister talk 07:30, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
- Keep. Frequently played on British radio rock stations. In this instance, not just a vanity article for a NN band. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:14, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
- Per NMUSIC, "playlisted on radio" only counts as a notability claim in and of itself if (a) it can be referenced to a reliable source, and (b) the radio service that playlisted them is a national network, such as one of the BBC Radio services. It can't just be asserted, but has to be shown and sourced in a manner that neither the article nor your comment has even attempted. Bearcat (talk) 16:22, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
- I assume you do realise that a radio programme is a source in its own right? You don't need another media source to confirm a media source; that would be like saying you need an entry in a book to say something is written in another book for the latter to be a valid source. A common misconception, sadly, but rubbish nonetheless. Oh, and I would say that Planet Rock is sufficiently notable for NMUSIC. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:20, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
- Actually, we do still require sourcing to verify a claim that a band has gotten onto the radio. Anybody can claim that anything was broadcast on the radio — I could, for instance, claim that my brother's garage band got a song onto CBC Radio 3, and without a source for that information you would have no way to prove whether or not I was lying. So we have to be able to verify that it really was broadcast in some capacity, such as a publicly-accessible archive of that radio content or some other media outlet writing about the broadcast, because it's a claim that can be falsified. Bearcat (talk) 21:07, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
- Note that I could also claim I had found an obscure book that included relevant information. This, of course, would be a perfectly acceptable source and good faith would be assumed, although this too could obviously be falsified if I had the mind to do so. What makes one acceptable and the other not? Why would you AGF on a print source and not another media source? It is a fundamental WP tenet that internet sources are not the only acceptable sources. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:43, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
- Because with a book, it's possible (through libraries, WorldCat, amazon.com, archives, etc.) to verify whether said book really exists or not — a book that isn't possible to locate through any of those channels does get deprecated as a questionable or unverifiable or possibly faked source. Print content, whether web-accessible or not, still exists in hard copy form which can be tracked down and verified in some capacity — even if we have to go to a library to dig out microfilms, we can determine whether The Globe and Mail or The New York Times or The Times of London printed a particular article on January 27, 1846. But broadcast content is ephemeral, disappearing into the ether forever five seconds after it's happened unless some sort of record of that content is maintained somewhere — such as another source writing about the broadcast, or an archived copy of the broadcast existing somewhere verifiable. No notability claim on Wikipedia can ever be passed just by asserting it — if it's impossible for us to verify the claim's truth or falsity, then the claim itself can't get a "no sourcing required" freebie. Bearcat (talk) 15:44, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
- Note that I could also claim I had found an obscure book that included relevant information. This, of course, would be a perfectly acceptable source and good faith would be assumed, although this too could obviously be falsified if I had the mind to do so. What makes one acceptable and the other not? Why would you AGF on a print source and not another media source? It is a fundamental WP tenet that internet sources are not the only acceptable sources. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:43, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
- Actually, we do still require sourcing to verify a claim that a band has gotten onto the radio. Anybody can claim that anything was broadcast on the radio — I could, for instance, claim that my brother's garage band got a song onto CBC Radio 3, and without a source for that information you would have no way to prove whether or not I was lying. So we have to be able to verify that it really was broadcast in some capacity, such as a publicly-accessible archive of that radio content or some other media outlet writing about the broadcast, because it's a claim that can be falsified. Bearcat (talk) 21:07, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
- I assume you do realise that a radio programme is a source in its own right? You don't need another media source to confirm a media source; that would be like saying you need an entry in a book to say something is written in another book for the latter to be a valid source. A common misconception, sadly, but rubbish nonetheless. Oh, and I would say that Planet Rock is sufficiently notable for NMUSIC. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:20, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
- Per NMUSIC, "playlisted on radio" only counts as a notability claim in and of itself if (a) it can be referenced to a reliable source, and (b) the radio service that playlisted them is a national network, such as one of the BBC Radio services. It can't just be asserted, but has to be shown and sourced in a manner that neither the article nor your comment has even attempted. Bearcat (talk) 16:22, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 07:39, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
- Delete Nothing about this band is notable. Ethanlu121 (talk) 14:53, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
- Comment – Here are some sources, but some may be unreliable: [57], [58], [59], [60]. North America1000 19:00, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vipinhari || talk 16:34, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
- http://www.therockshow.co.uk/downloads/index.html - this is a source to show that the band have been on a syndicated rock radio show, and continue to be played by many other stations. User:trs_bigjim
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 02:54, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
- Keep per the significant coverage in reliable sources.
- Valentin, Michel (2016-02-06). "Inglorious en route vers la gloire". Le Parisien (in French). Archived from the original on 2016-04-09. Retrieved 2016-04-09.
- "Metallers get fruity for Inglorious gig in Hull". Hull Daily Mail. 2016-01-28. Archived from the original on 2016-04-09. Retrieved 2016-04-09.
- Reddin, Lorelei (2016-01-19). "New hard rockers Inglorious showcase debut at The Brook". Southern Daily Echo. Archived from the original on 2016-04-09. Retrieved 2016-04-09.
- Cook, Caroline (2014-07-01). "Inglorious ready to bring back the sound of British rock". Reading Post. Archived from the original on 2016-04-09. Retrieved 2016-04-09.
- Fanelli, Damian (2016-02-10). "Inglorious Premiere 'Unaware' Music Video". Guitar World. Archived from the original on 2016-04-09. Retrieved 2016-04-09.
- Alani, Sonia; Duvet, Eric (2016-02-24). "Inglorious at Islington Assembly Hall in London, UK on 21-Feb-2016". National Rock Review. Archived from the original on 2016-04-09. Retrieved 2016-04-09.
This is a detailed concert review.
- 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. Sufficient sourcing, and highly unlikely that a consensus of "delete" can be reached. (non-admin closure) Slashme (talk) 13:38, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
- Leslie Bevis (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Delete: as non-notable minor actress; fails GNG. Quis separabit? 21:18, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 22:11, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
- Keep Her IMDB credits appear extensive, including recurring roles on notable shows. ShelbyMarion (talk) 23:41, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
- Keep agree with previous comment, also notable as a top model, 44 screen credits and one of those was for 44 episodes of a soap opera, also appearances in Dallas, 6 episodes, and Star Trek Next Generation, 3 episodes. I think notability guidelines are passed.Atlantic306 (talk) 01:44, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
- Then why have neither of you provided sourcing to back this claim up? These articles aren't just about WP:NACTOR – they're about WP:BASIC, and a BLP article with zero sourcing, and no additional sourcing provided during AfD, should be deleted on sight. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 16:56, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 05:28, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
Delete at best the best solid work was the Young and the Restless character for one year, nothing else better for WP:ENTERTAINER aside from that.SwisterTwister talk 06:07, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
- As I simply hate no consensuses AfDs, I am willing to Keep even if reluctant because the Young and the Restless role is the best thing from this article.....now let's go nominate some other articles for deletion for now.... SwisterTwister talk 04:24, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 14:08, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
- Keep but a weak one. She's clearly had lots of roles and is a professional actor; problem is, not much in-depth coverage of her. I'm somewhat on the fence but note that there is interest in her in Wikipedia (an unofficial measure) but almost 90 pageviews per day suggests (for me) inclusion.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 23:16, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
- Comment I've added a NYT filmography reference to the article which can support a filmography, also found these which am adding [61], [62] Atlantic306 (talk) 18:24, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:08, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:08, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 02:54, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
- 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) –Davey2010Talk 01:22, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
- Circus Drive-In (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Not Notable. Despite the reported fact that their menu includes batter-dipped onion rings, fried Maryland softshell crab this is not alone notable. Especially when the references given are solely from advertorials. As one knows, the job of the food critics in these publications is to eventually visit everyone of the establishments in their paper/magazine/trade press circulation area. This does not make every establishment in the circulation area notable in itself and nothing I can find appears to support the view that this establishment has any notability at all in the WP sense. The previous PROD tag was removed under the thought that the two publications where RS but neither were editorials and neither advertorial indicated any real WP notability. Aspro (talk) 15:15, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
- Comment. The third source (Food Network) seems to be reasonable evidence that this place might be considered a Jersey Shore landmark, and other such sources would include The Star-Ledger [63], The Wall Street Journal [64], and books such as [65]or [66]. --Arxiloxos (talk) 18:49, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:28, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:28, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:28, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:28, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
- Delete and move to Draft after deleting because my searches only found a few other links but simply nothing else better convincing. SwisterTwister talk 22:27, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
- Comment – @SwisterTwister: Did you actually read the articles, or just view the links from the search results? North America1000 02:40, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:31, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 02:25, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
- Keep – Meets WP:CORPDEPTH. The company has received book coverage in Food Lovers' Guide to New Jersey, book coverage in New Jersey Curiosities (subscription required), book coverage in O'New Jersey p. 142 p. 143, (subscription required), statewide coverage in The Star-Ledger, the largest circulated newspaper in New Jersey ("Circus Drive-In: Still a showstopper after 60 years"), in New Jersey Monthly ("Three (Onion) Ring Circus"), some local coverage in ("Loan from Turtle native helps Circus Drive-In stay open"). There's also this article from Tribune Business News – "Wall, N.J., Drive-In Restaurant Is Sold, Begins 50th Season on Jersey Shore.) (subscription required) and this short article from Inside Jersey Magazine, which is published by The Star-Ledger. North America1000 02:38, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
- Keep North America is right, this clearly satisfies WP:CORPDEPTH. Edwardx (talk) 16:12, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
- Comment: Fails WP:CORPDEPTH. These ref's are advitorials and guides (a 'guide' is like a directory and WP is not a directory of trivia). --Aspro (talk) 17:11, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
- Comment – You provide no evidence that the news sources are advertorials, which appears to be based upon your subjective opinion. They are bylined news articles from reliable sources, and as such serve to establish topic notability. Furthermore, the book sources I provided are published by the following reputable publishers: Globe Pequot, Rowman & Littlefield and Macmillan. North America1000 17:16, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
- Keep The details provided in the article and the sources added satisfy the notability standard. Alansohn (talk) 01:04, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
- 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 03:03, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
- Double Transcontinental Driving Record (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
The record is almost fully a single case achievement by the author of the article (WP:COI) and is unsupported by reliable sources. Article is unencyclopedic. Ciridae (talk) 19:37, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
- Note - The article was previously nominated for speedy deletion but the tag was reverted by Appable. Ciridae (talk) 19:58, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:02, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:02, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:02, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
- Delete per nom.
You can make a case for Transcontinental (US) driving record (Road & Track does[67]), but double? Naah.It does get a few mentions ( 57-year-old Louis B. Mayer did it,[68] as did the earlier L. B. Miller [69], or at least they claimed to have done it), but those cited in this article have no supporting sources. It's probably better to incorporate Mayer and Miller into Transcontinental (US) driving record. Clarityfiend (talk) 23:47, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 02:23, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
- 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 03:03, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
- Cawiar-choir (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
No independent sources, advertising tone; prod removed by single-edit IP without comment or improvement. —swpbT 19:42, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —swpbT 19:44, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Finland-related deletion discussions. —swpbT 19:45, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
- Delete as searches noticeably found nothing better and none of this suggests keeping at all. SwisterTwister talk 07:19, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
- Comment: Searching for "Cawiar-choir" doesn't yield many notable results, but that's because the article's creator seems to have a poor grasp of English, the article is littered with Finnishisms. Try searching for "Cawiar kuoro" or "Cawiar kör" ("kuoro" is "choir" in Finnish, and "kör" is "choir" in Swedish). I got plenty more notables results that way. Anyway, if kept, the article needs a rewrite, it's overly promotional and only sourced to the choir's own sites. JIP | Talk 20:48, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
- I get eight plausible hits with the former, zero with the latter. —swpbT 20:27, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
- Comment: Searching for "Cawiar-choir" doesn't yield many notable results, but that's because the article's creator seems to have a poor grasp of English, the article is littered with Finnishisms. Try searching for "Cawiar kuoro" or "Cawiar kör" ("kuoro" is "choir" in Finnish, and "kör" is "choir" in Swedish). I got plenty more notables results that way. Anyway, if kept, the article needs a rewrite, it's overly promotional and only sourced to the choir's own sites. JIP | Talk 20:48, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 02:23, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
- 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 03:03, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
- Para verte mejor (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
A production that is just beginning, have not yet defined who will be the protagonists, it is too early to know if really this production or will not occur. Philip J Fry Talk 19:44, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Vipinhari || talk 09:41, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Venezuela-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:42, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
- Delete and Draft if needed as there's nothing for accepting yet. SwisterTwister talk 04:13, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 02:22, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
- 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 11:44, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
- William S. Bloxsom-Carter (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Very questionable notability. Claims he was the "Director of Food and beverage" at the Playboy Mansion, and goes on to describe a bed and breakfast he owns and operates, which sounds very much like an advertisement. Nominating as it fails WP:SIGCOV. JTtheOG (talk) 01:37, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:57, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:57, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:40, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:40, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
- Delete I am finding somewhat significant coverage of Mr. Bloxsom-Carter over a period of years, from 2011 to the present, not just passing mentions, but focus articles, such as this from Bloomberg and this from Haute Living, both focused on his work as a chef at the Playboy Mansion, plus mentions of his wine judging, such as this from Into Wine and this from the Santa Rosa Press Democrat. Passing mentions of his role of chef include one from the Examiner (www.examiner.com/article/ronnie-james-dio-cancer-fund-hosts-first-awards-gala-at-playboy-mansion - a blacklisted source) and even, in Spanish, this from Caras (with the interesting title Hugh Hefner y el fin del nido de amor (Hugh Hefner and the end of the love nest). I am concerned that the creator is a single purpose account, that I did not find more sources across several gSearches and also with the overly promotional nature of the article, especially the section focused on the promotion of the bed-and-breakfast, which I don't see mentioned in coverage of the article subject. (I suppose it's his retirement plan, what with the Mansion closing and all.) That part of the article does lack reliable sourcing. That latter focus of the article and the relative paucity of sources for what is reportedly a 25+ year career is why I ended up !voting to delete. At a minimum, I'd suggest removing or heavily editing/sourcing the B&B part if the article remains. Geoff | Who, me? 22:16, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
- Comment:I neutralized the language in the lead, and completely removed the section about the B&B because it seemed irrelevant to a biography. What remains is a stub about a chef, so I tagged it accordingly. As to notability, our guidelines don't require that a person be notable throughout his career, so I don't see that as an issue. Significant coverage is sufficient. The question is, is the coverage of this chef along the lines of what one would expect for a chef, or is the coverage beyond "par for the course" for this topic? The closest guideline we have may be WP:CREATIVE, which suggests that this creative professional isn't notable. ~Amatulić (talk) 20:34, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
- Delete as simply nothing at all for any better applicable notability. SwisterTwister talk 05:46, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
- 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 Ryanverse. Content can be merged from the history. Sandstein 11:40, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
- Ed Kealty (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
This fictional has no WP:RS reliable sources which WP:V its general notability per the WP:GNG and WP:NFICT. Thus this subject is an unsuitable topic for a standalone article. AadaamS (talk) 17:08, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. North America1000 17:51, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. North America1000 17:51, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:25, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kharkiv07 (T) 01:36, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
Delete. As in the related character deletions from this series, there is no secondary source coverage on this character's individual importance. I'm amenable to a merge back to a character section in some main article, but it isn't necessary. czar 16:58, 3 April 2016 (UTC)- Merge to Ryanverse now that a suitable series article exists. The character's WP coverage should be proportional to its RS coverage. If the character is not used in several Clancy novels, redirect it to Teeth of the Tiger as a search term rather than to the series' character list. czar 11:19, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
- Merge/redirect to Ryanverse. Here is a source I found about the subject:
Terdoslavich, William (2006). The Jack Ryan Agenda: Policy and Politics in the Novels of Tom Clancy: An Unauthorized Analysis. New York: Macmillan Publishers. p. 39. ISBN 0765312484. Retrieved 2016-04-08.
The book notes:
Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Writing about fiction#Secondary information notes: "Examples of useful information typically provided by secondary sources about the original work, or primary and secondary sources about information external to the work:".Ryan does not serve out his full term after getting elected in 1996/2000, depending on which branch of the timeline is correct. (Clancy does not practice detailed multivolume plotting like J.K. Rowling.) In Teeth of the Tiger, Clancy alludes to Ryan's resignation from the presidency, having become bored with the job he never sought. His vice president and close friend Robby Jackson becomes the first black president of the U.S., only to be gunned down by a Ku Klux Klan fanatic. Ed Kealty finally got elected, with Ryan quite displeased in private but holding his public tongue.
Kealty is Clancy's fictional stand-in for Senator Ted Kennedy of Massachusetts. Ted Kennedy took his best shot at the presidency in 1980, challenging President Jimmy Carter for the Democratic nomination. While Kennedy went the distance in the primary campaign, he unsuccessfully tried to use the convention's political process to undo the lock Carter had on the nomination. Since then, Kennedy has focused his energies on being a senator and becoming the so-called liberal lion of the Democratic Party.
One example is "real-world factors that have influenced the work or fictional element". The discussion about how Ed Kealty is a stand-in for Ted Kennedy is useful secondary information.
- 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 Ryanverse. And merge whatever may be appropriate from the history. Sandstein 11:45, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
- Domingo Chavez (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
This fictional has no WP:RS reliable sources which WP:V its general notability per the WP:GNG. Thus this subject is an unsuitable topic for a standalone article. AadaamS (talk) 09:25, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
- Keep - Per WP:BKD in addition to Jack Ryan (character) as precedent. Has appeared in multiple books and films. While it's written from primarily a in-universe prespective, Deletion is not cleanup. I see that AadaamS has decided to pick on this and John Clark for deletion, two of the better written biographies in the Ryanverse as compared to Robby Jackson and Ed Kealty Hasteur (talk) 13:42, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:11, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:11, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:11, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:11, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kharkiv07 (T) 01:26, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
Delete. BKD, referenced above, explicitly says,While a book may be notable, it is not normally advisable to have a separate article on a character or thing from the book
—if anything that should be a rationale for merge. But without a single secondary source in this article asserting the character's notability, there is nothing but plot detail to merge. I'm amenable to a merge target, if a good one exists, but there is no policy-backed rationale for keeping this article separate in any form. czar 16:56, 3 April 2016 (UTC)- Merge to Ryanverse now that a suitable series article exists. The character's WP coverage should be proportional to its RS coverage. If the character is not used in several Clancy novels, redirect it to Rainbow Six (the book mentioned below) as a search term rather than to the series' character list. czar 11:17, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
- Merge/redirect to Ryanverse. Here is one source I found about the subject:
Janssens, Ruud; Kroes, Rob (2004). Post-Cold War Europe, Post-Cold War America. Amsterdam: VU University Press. p. 150–152. ISBN 905383916X. Retrieved 2016-04-08.
The book notes:
Cunard (talk) 06:04, 8 April 2016 (UTC)In Rainbow Six, one of Clancy's main characters, Domingo Chavez, contemplates while his wife is giving birth:
That was the key to the whole thing for Domingo. To be a father! To have a child, to begin the greatest of all adventures, raising a new life, doing the best you could, making some mistakes, but learning from all of them, and ultimately presenting to society a new, responsible citizen to carry on. That, he was...
...
Ryan, John Kelly, and Domingo Chavez are completely good, except for one or two flaws—maybe to make them seem more human.
...
Another indication of Clancy's one-dimensional characters and his limited imagination in this aspect is that Domingo Chavez like Jack Ryan is married to a physician.
- 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. Uncontested. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 17:25, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
- Ecler (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Wholly unreferenced with no evidence of any notability. Fails WP:GNG Velella Velella Talk 03:50, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 14:28, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 14:28, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
- Delete as I can't say I'm familiar with this company at all and searches found nothing better. Nothing else convincing, SwisterTwister talk 05:30, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 06:18, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kharkiv07 (T) 01:21, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
- Delete per SwisterTwister and Velella. --Erick Shepherd (talk) 21:36, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
- 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 11:29, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
- Tzaneen rap (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Google shows no evidence of the existence of this form of rap, so it appears to fail WP:Verifiability before we can even get to WP:Notability. The few hits that Google returns are wikis and mirrors of this article. The article cites no sources to help us. —Largo Plazo (talk) 15:37, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 22:42, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 22:42, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
- Delete as not yet any signs of an acceptable Wikipedia article. Searches found nothing better. SwisterTwister talk 05:08, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, B E C K Y S A Y L E S 05:13, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kharkiv07 (T) 01:20, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
- Delete – Source searches are providing no coverage in reliable sources. WP:GNG fail. North America1000 04:51, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
- 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. Uncontested. Sandstein 11:44, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
- Kash 11 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Sadly, no evidence of notability. Fails WP:MUSICBIO and WP:GNG Wikic¤l¤gyt@lk to M£ 08:09, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Wikic¤l¤gyt@lk to M£ 08:11, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Wikic¤l¤gyt@lk to M£ 08:11, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Wikic¤l¤gyt@lk to M£ 08:11, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Wikic¤l¤gyt@lk to M£ 08:11, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
- Delete as too soon, not enough convincing the applicable music notability. SwisterTwister talk 21:13, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, B E C K Y S A Y L E S 05:10, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kharkiv07 (T) 01:20, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. General consensus to keep. (non-admin closure) SSTflyer 02:06, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
- Bullata (disambiguation) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
This disambiguation page doesn't actually disambiguate anything. Only the genus of snails is actually known only by the word "bullata", and the rest are all partial title matches (that is, no one even calls any of them just Bullata). This wouldn't normally be a problem, since you could just redirect it, except that the title ends in (disambiguation), so redirecting doesn't work. A similar nomination was at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tinctoria, but those titles didn't have the (disambiguation) ending. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 02:52, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 03:04, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
- Delete or redirect to Wiktionary. There are hundreds (thousands?) of pages on Wikipedia that are species epithets which are either redirects to a particular species (ignoring that there are often other Wikipedia articles with the same specific epithet, or at least other described species with the epithet that aren't represented on Wikipedia yet, and the redirect is inherently imprecise) or disambiguation pages (ignoring that the epithet is never used in the real world without enough context to make it a partial title match). I applaud Oiyarbepsy's AfD/PROD nominations for specific epithets. Sending these hundreds (thousands?) of pages to redirects to List of Latin and Greek words commonly used in systematic names (the usual outcome if deletion fails) is going to lead to that list being bloated by many Latin and Greek words that aren't actually very commonly used in systematic names. Wiktionary is a better place to handle grammatical variants of Greek/Latin words than the systematic name list. Plantdrew (talk) 03:55, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
- Question - I think the crux of the nom's argument here is the assertion that Only the genus of snails is actually known only by the word "bullata". Is there any evidence available for this assertion? ~Kvng (talk) 14:12, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
- It's hard to find evidence to prove a negative. Species epithets don't stand alone. They're always accompanied by the genus (or an abbreviation of the genus). Nobody would say "I'm growing a bullata in my garden". The exception would be in informal speech, where context has already established the genus: e.g. "I like growing by Buddlejas, and have some davidii and lindleyana, but I want to get my hands on a bullata." While that's a plausible way for the species to stand alone, I don't think that anybody participating in a conversation like that would think that "bullata" was a good term to search the internet for more information on the subject. Plantdrew (talk) 17:54, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
- I agree that you can't prove a negative. I'm not very familiar with biological taxonomy so was wondering if there was any way this assertion could be substantiated through citation or other non-original research. If not, the conservative approach is to keep.
- If someone heard part of your example conversation, they may, in fact, try a search for bullata. They would see some snails, shake their head, click on the hatnote link and then find what they're looking for from this article. If this article is deleted, they would have more WP:ASTONISHment. ~Kvng (talk) 18:12, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
- Keep Wikipedia is intended to be useful for readers with little knowledge of the subject. This page may help unfamiliar readers stumble their way (e.g. a visit to Bullata from a search page then a click over here from the hatnote) to what their looking for so there's potentially benefit in keeping it. The page makes it clear that Bullata is the primary topic so I don't any harm in keeping it. ~Kvng (talk) 14:12, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
- Unfortunately, Kvng, this page utterly fails in that regard. There are, for example, 20 different plants listed, and the person with little knowledge of the subject will be totally hopeless to find what they were looking for. They won't know the family and genus names provided, at least not for the plants. So, unless they're looking for the snail, they won't be helped (and in that case, they didn't need the disambig anyway). There is a reason that we don't list all of the world's zoos at Zoo (disambiguation) and this is pretty much why. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 00:03, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
- Delete per WP:PTM, none of these entries are known as "Bullata." For example, you might call a certain bacterium E. coli or Escherichia coli, but it's never simply coli. -- Tavix (talk) 16:01, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 04:42, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
- Keep clearly the nominator doesn't understand how Genus/species works. all of these species have the species name bullata but are each from different genus. InsertCleverPhraseHere 11:41, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
- Keep as this list of species is enough to keep as this is easy for listing the applicable articles. SwisterTwister talk 22:56, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
Relisting comment: I don't think that it would hurt to get a little more input; remember that relisted discussions can be closed earlier than 7 days after the relist Kharkiv07 (T) 01:11, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kharkiv07 (T) 01:11, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
- Keep The genus is prominently linked above the subheading, this should prevent confusion for anyone who came looking for the most common usage. The rest is added value.-- Elmidae (talk) 17:28, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 17:24, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
- Fatai Vailala (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Not close to meeting WP:NSPORT and WP:GNG, playing in a weak American rugby league. JTtheOG (talk) 03:53, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. B E C K Y S A Y L E S 05:39, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. B E C K Y S A Y L E S 05:39, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
Delete. I agree that he fails to meet the requirements for rugby union biographies since we don't consider PRO Rugby as a fully professional league. I'm also unable to find the kind of significant coverage in third-party sources that would be needed to meet the general notability criterion. Pichpich (talk) 15:07, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Rugby union-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:37, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kharkiv07 (T) 01:04, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
- Delete - neither WP:ATHLETE nor WP:GNG has been met. Kansiime (talk) 00:33, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
- Delete as not yet suggesting the applicable notability. SwisterTwister talk 04:19, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
- 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. Uncontested. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 17:23, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
- Informational Behavior Theory of Evolution (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
As far as I can tell, both the theory and the book that proposes it fail WP:NBOOK. —teb728 t c 03:49, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. B E C K Y S A Y L E S 05:39, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
- Delete Definitely fails WP:NBOOK.-- Elmidae (talk) 11:30, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kharkiv07 (T) 01:04, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
- Delete as still not suggesting a better independently notable article. SwisterTwister talk 04:20, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
- 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. -- Ed (Edgar181) 17:03, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
- Katsunori Furuya (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
This individual does not have sufficient coverage in any reliable sources to meet WP:GNG, and their scholarly work has not received enough attention for WP:SCHOLAR. The article has no sources at all, and would be eligible for BLPPROD if a prod tag had not previously been removed. At best, this is a case of WP:TOOSOON, but if more coverage pops up, the page can easily be created again; right now, it is not appropriate. Delete. Vanamonde93 (talk) 02:48, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Vanamonde93 (talk) 02:55, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Vanamonde93 (talk) 02:55, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Article more suitable for Facebook. Xxanthippe (talk) 04:49, 25 March 2016 (UTC).
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 11:43, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kharkiv07 (T) 01:04, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
- Delete. Doesn't meet WP:GNG or WP:PROF. As noted above, the article would currently be eligible for a BLPPROD. Pichpich (talk) 14:15, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
- 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. Uncontested. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:04, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
- Jonathan Arons (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Delete as thoroughly non-notable entertainer. Vanity/promo fan article. Quis separabit? 21:49, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 14:41, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 14:41, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 14:41, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
- Delete as searches unfortunately found nothing better. SwisterTwister talk 06:23, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, joe deckertalk 00:40, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kharkiv07 (T) 01:03, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
- Delete: Fails WP:GNG. We don't have an article about every session musician who played on an album that won a Grammy in a relatively esoteric category, notable stage presence or not, without a good bit more. Julietdeltalima (talk) 21:18, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
- 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 03:49, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
- Christian Rehm (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Clearly not a notable author or politician. May be notable for controversial involvement in the EXIT group, but almost everything in this article is unverifiable. I just undid the edits by infinitely blocked User:Volkstod, but could someone please doublecheck the original sources if Rehm is mentioned there? PanchoS (talk) 00:14, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
- Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2016 March 25. —cyberbot ITalk to my owner:Online 00:24, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
- I restored an older version before possibly relevant content was deleted. For the additional sources to doublecheck, please see this version of the article. --PanchoS (talk) 00:32, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:35, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:35, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:35, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
- Delete non-notable author and politician.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:46, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kharkiv07 (T) 01:03, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
- Delete as still not convincing for all applicable notability, authors and politicians. SwisterTwister talk 04:21, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
- 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. czar 16:27, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
- List of cat video games (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
The lead starts of with an arbitrary distinction: a list of video games which strongly feature cats, other felines and anthropomorphic feline characters. That's WP:OR and/or WP:SYNTH. soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 14:18, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 14:19, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:40, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:43, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
- Delete - Too specific topic to even have a list. WP:INDISCRIMINATE. --TL22 (talk) 00:45, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
- Delete - An indiscriminate list of information. Possibly too broad of a list: does Pokémon count given that several cat Pokémon such as Meowth, Skitty, Glameow, and Meowstic exist? Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 00:57, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
- Comment As an aside, I initially thought this AfD was an April Fools joke when I saw it in the table of contents for the April 1 log, then I saw the relisting comment. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 00:58, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
- Ah, no, this is a real one. :) --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 01:00, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
- 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). North America1000 04:52, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
- Bandar Sri Sendayan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Wholly promotional with no evidence of notability. Fails WP:GNG Velella Velella Talk 09:52, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:17, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 00:43, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:39, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
- 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). North America1000 04:53, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
- Ali Tabatabaee (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Not individually notable. Merge referenced content into band article and dump the rest. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:46, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 13:35, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 00:34, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:20, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:38, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete--Ymblanter (talk) 07:17, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
- Jyrice (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Regardless of whether or not the copied text is free to use here, the creator's conflict of interest has resulted in an article that reads like a story and fails to explain how the subject satisfies any of the notability criteria at WP:NSINGER. The subject's own label is not notable. SuperMarioMan ( Talk ) 00:05, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
- Speedy Delete G11 (spam). Already tagged G12 (copyvio). The creator of the article's only defense seems to be that the information is true and correct, and this article really has more of a promotional flavor to it than I care for. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 00:22, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
- Delete: speedily, however; entirely promotional. Meanwhile, this article looks like a fanpage. The images of major celebrities used as supposed influences for this performer are name-dropping at its worst. Of course, there is no way to source that... Fylbecatulous talk 14:09, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:52, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:52, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:44, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
- Delete as the article certainly has several troubles and there's nothing at all to convince keeping and improving because there's no better material for said improvements. SwisterTwister talk 04:59, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
- Delete - blatant COI, sources are all primary, no third-party sources that establish notability. Nothing salvageable here. --Drm310 (talk) 22:23, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
- 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.
April Fools' nominations
[edit]- 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 Bernie Sanders. kelapstick(bainuu) 00:14, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
This page contains material that is kept because it is considered humorous. Such material is not meant to be taken seriously. |
- Donald Trump presidential campaign, 2016 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Obvious hoax. Is clear subject of article has no intention to be president, and is merely running to troll the entire country. Would suggest deletion, salting, and a trout-slap to the editor and all supporters. [April Fools!] pbp 18:13, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
- I don't see it as funny to require an AfD tag at the top of an article like this one. I don't care what day it is. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:40, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
- Concur. April Fools jokes need to stay out of articles. --Ches (talk) (contribs) 18:45, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
- Delete – I agree it's a hoax. (But on a serious note, per WP:FOOLS, the joke can't spread into article space.) epicgenius @ 18:48, 1 April 2016 (UTC) (talk) 18:48, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
- I didn't tag it for deletion on the article itself. The bot. Who's smart-aleck idea was it to run the tag bot on April Fools' Day? pbp 19:35, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
- The same fool who coded the bot. epicgenius @ 23:36, 1 April 2016 (UTC) (talk) 23:36, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
- I didn't tag it for deletion on the article itself. The bot. Who's smart-aleck idea was it to run the tag bot on April Fools' Day? pbp 19:35, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
- Move -to Donald Drumpf presidential campaign, 2016 Burroughs'10 (talk) 20:38, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
- 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 Kasich getting so much media attention from this joke AfD that he won the Republican Primary and the general election.. (non-admin closure) Spirit of Eagle (talk) 01:05, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
This page contains material that is kept because it is considered humorous. Such material is not meant to be taken seriously. |
- John Kasich (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Figment of the media's imagination. Everybody knows the only two people really seeking the GOP nomination are a serial killer and a pumpkin topped with a dead badger. Also, I believe that the claim that he is Governor of Ohio to be OR. [April Fools!] pbp 18:20, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
- 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 everyone having to read the collective works of Friedrich Nietzsche. Have at it: [70] (non-admin closure) Spirit of Eagle (talk) 01:04, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
This page contains material that is kept because it is considered humorous. Such material is not meant to be taken seriously. |
- Articles for deletion/God
- Articles for deletion/God's America (band)
- Articles for deletion/God's Army to Purge Homosexuality
- Articles for deletion/God's Eye
- Articles for deletion/God's Fury
- Articles for deletion/God's House of Hip Hop Radio
- Articles for deletion/God's House of Hip Hop Radio (2nd nomination)
- Articles for deletion/God's Invitation
- Articles for deletion/God's Learning Channel
- Articles for deletion/God's Message to the United Nations
- Articles for deletion/God's Not Dead (Like a Lion)
- Articles for deletion/God's Playground: Volume I - Chapter Synopsis
- Articles for deletion/God's Property
- Articles for deletion/God's School
- Articles for deletion/God's Son
- Articles for deletion/God's Stuff
- Articles for deletion/God's Warriors
- Articles for deletion/God's Word (bible translation)
- Articles for deletion/God's algorithm
- Articles for deletion/God's own country
- Articles for deletion/God(song)
- Articles for deletion/God, The Devil, and Darwin
- Articles for deletion/God-Des and She
- Articles for deletion/God-Grilla
- Articles for deletion/God-Jesus the Robot!
- Articles for deletion/God-Mind
- Articles for deletion/God-man
- Articles for deletion/God-realization (Meher Baba)
- Articles for deletion/God: Conservator
- Articles for deletion/GodKing
- Articles for deletion/GodZeND
- Articles for deletion/GodZeND (2nd nomination)
- Articles for deletion/God (3rd nomination)
- Articles for deletion/God (5th nomination)
- Articles for deletion/God (Beatles)
- Articles for deletion/God (Paul Weller song)
- Articles for deletion/God (Spawn)
- Articles for deletion/God (word)
- Articles for deletion/God Analog
- Articles for deletion/God Ate My Homework
- Articles for deletion/God Bless Fort Benning
- Articles for deletion/God Bless The Child.... Til Death Do Us...
- Articles for deletion/God Bless the American Plague
- Articles for deletion/God Bless the USA
- Articles for deletion/God Complex The Audio Drama
- Articles for deletion/God Damn (band)
- Articles for deletion/God Damn Independent
- Articles for deletion/God Father (1995 film)
- Articles for deletion/God Forbid
- Articles for deletion/God Found
- Articles for deletion/God Gave Me U
- Articles for deletion/God Giveth, God Taketh Away
- Articles for deletion/God Hates Shrimp
- Articles for deletion/God Hates Us (Avenged Sevenfold song)
- Articles for deletion/God In Fiction
- Articles for deletion/God Is an Atheist
- Articles for deletion/God Is in the TV Zine
- Articles for deletion/God Loves, Man Kills (album)
- Articles for deletion/God Made Me Funky
- Articles for deletion/God Mode
- Articles for deletion/God Myth
- Articles for deletion/God Needles George
- Articles for deletion/God Nose
- Articles for deletion/God Pass Me, Not! (Original Musical)
- Articles for deletion/God Save The Manics
- Articles for deletion/God Save The Manics EP
- Articles for deletion/God Save the Queen (parody)
- Articles for deletion/God Sent Lunatics
- Articles for deletion/God Sent Me
- Articles for deletion/God Squad (comics)
- Articles for deletion/God Talking Soul
- Articles for deletion/God Tech: Mark of the Beast
- Articles for deletion/God Temple
- Articles for deletion/God Wears My Underwear
- Articles for deletion/God Will Lift Up Your Head
- Articles for deletion/God Will Make a Way – Songs of Hope
- Articles for deletion/God alone
- Articles for deletion/God and Elvira
- Articles for deletion/God and Evil
- Articles for deletion/God and the theroy of evolution
- Articles for deletion/God as the devil
- Articles for deletion/God complex
- Articles for deletion/God complex (2nd nomination)
- Articles for deletion/God free youth
- Articles for deletion/God hates figs
- Articles for deletion/God in everyday life
- Articles for deletion/God in the Pits
- Articles for deletion/God inc
- Articles for deletion/God is Able (EP)
- Articles for deletion/God is Dead
- Articles for deletion/God is a DJ
- Articles for deletion/God of Abraham Isaac and Jacob
- Articles for deletion/God of Cat Food
- Articles for deletion/God of Emptiness
- Articles for deletion/God of War: Blood & Metal
- Articles for deletion/God of War: Blood & Metal EP
- Articles for deletion/God of War (band)
- Articles for deletion/God of War III
- Articles for deletion/God of War IV
- Articles for deletion/God of a man
- Articles for deletion/God of blue moon
- Articles for deletion/God shave the queen
- Articles for deletion/Godai Tomoyoshi
- Articles for deletion/Godalming International Tournament
- Articles for deletion/Godara clan
- Articles for deletion/Godavari Express
- Articles for deletion/Godavari Institute of Engineering and Technology
- Articles for deletion/Godavari Telugu
- Articles for deletion/Godavarthi Sri Ramulu
- Articles for deletion/Godawful Fan Fiction
- Articles for deletion/Godawful fan fiction
- Articles for deletion/Godbandits
- Articles for deletion/Godbole
- Articles for deletion/Godcasting
- Articles for deletion/Godcasting (2nd nomination)
- Articles for deletion/Godcasting 2
- Articles for deletion/Goddammit I Love America!
- Articles for deletion/Goddamned
- Articles for deletion/Goddard's factory
- Articles for deletion/Goddard.
- Articles for deletion/Goddard (Jimmy Neutron character)
- Articles for deletion/Goddard Scholars Program
- Articles for deletion/Goddess Moon, Father Sky, Hollow Soul
- Articles for deletion/Goddess Rinoa
- Articles for deletion/Goddess Rosemary
- Articles for deletion/Goddess movement
- Articles for deletion/Goddess of Desire
- Articles for deletion/Goddess of Pop: The Remix
- Articles for deletion/Goddess of Reason
- Articles for deletion/Goddess of Victory: Nikke
- Articles for deletion/Goddessey project
- Articles for deletion/Goddessy Organics
- Articles for deletion/Goddy Nnadi
- Articles for deletion/Gode family
- Articles for deletion/Godefroy Maruejouls
- Articles for deletion/Godefroy de Montmirail
- Articles for deletion/Goden
- Articles for deletion/Godenu
- Articles for deletion/Godesses
- Articles for deletion/Godfather Buried Alive
- Articles for deletion/Godfather Of The Ghetto
- Articles for deletion/Godfather Part IV
- Articles for deletion/Godfathers of MMA
- Articles for deletion/Godfathers of MMA: The Birth of An American Sport
- Articles for deletion/Godfree Roberts
- Articles for deletion/Godfrey Abela
- Articles for deletion/Godfrey Burley Group
- Articles for deletion/Godfrey Edwards
- Articles for deletion/Godfrey Lewis Rockefeller
- Articles for deletion/Godfrey Mdimi Mhogolo
- Articles for deletion/Godfrey Nyakana
- Articles for deletion/Godfrey Okoye
- Articles for deletion/Godfrey Okoye University
- Articles for deletion/Godfrey Poku
- Articles for deletion/Godfrey Robarts Pearse
- Articles for deletion/Godhatesamerica.com
- Articles for deletion/Godhong maple
- Articles for deletion/Godi-media
- Articles for deletion/Godi Financial
- Articles for deletion/Godi media
- Articles for deletion/Godic religion
- Articles for deletion/Godilanka
- Articles for deletion/Godinterest
- Articles for deletion/Godiva (band)
- Articles for deletion/Godkaiser
- Articles for deletion/Godkiller
- Articles for deletion/Godless(Black Metal Band)
- Articles for deletion/Godless (band)
- Articles for deletion/Godless (band) (2nd nomination)
- Articles for deletion/Godless Bitches
- Articles for deletion/Godless Black Metal Band)
- Articles for deletion/Godless Communists
- Articles for deletion/Godless Monsters Incorporated
- Articles for deletion/Godlike27
- Articles for deletion/Godlike Productions
- Articles for deletion/Godlovesfags.com
- Articles for deletion/Godman Akinlabi
- Articles for deletion/Godmodder
- Articles for deletion/Godmoding
- Articles for deletion/Godo
- Articles for deletion/Godofe keios
- Articles for deletion/Godofredo Regalado
- Articles for deletion/Godol Hador (blog)
- Articles for deletion/Godol Hador (blog) (Second Nomination)
- Articles for deletion/Godolphin River City
- Articles for deletion/Godos
- Articles for deletion/Godot (Ace Attorney)
- Articles for deletion/Godot Waits For Homeland Security
- Articles for deletion/Godplayer (novel)
- Articles for deletion/Godporn
- Articles for deletion/Godrej BKC
- Articles for deletion/Godrej Horizon
- Articles for deletion/Godrej Platinum
- Articles for deletion/Godrej Properties Limited
- Articles for deletion/Godrej Serenity
- Articles for deletion/GodsGirls
- Articles for deletion/GodsGirls (2nd nomination)
- Articles for deletion/Gods & Heroes
- Articles for deletion/Gods (DC Comics)
- Articles for deletion/Gods And Mortals MMORPG
- Articles for deletion/Gods Bible
- Articles for deletion/Gods Of War Motorcycle Club
- Articles for deletion/Gods Unchained
- Articles for deletion/Gods Unchained (2nd nomination)
- Articles for deletion/Gods and Goddesses in Percy Jackson
- Articles for deletion/Gods and Idols
- Articles for deletion/Gods country
- Articles for deletion/Gods of Arr-Kelaan
- Articles for deletion/Gods of Chaos
- Articles for deletion/Gods of Demential
- Articles for deletion/Gods of Time
- Articles for deletion/Gods of all Media
- Articles for deletion/Gods of greec
- Articles for deletion/Gods of rock and roll
- Articles for deletion/Gods of the Old World
- Articles for deletion/Godsbane
- Articles for deletion/Godsend
- Articles for deletion/Godsend (2016 film)
- Articles for deletion/Godsent
- Articles for deletion/Godson Umeh
- Articles for deletion/Godspeed (Christian band)
- Articles for deletion/Godspeed (E.P.)
- Articles for deletion/Godspeed (band)
- Articles for deletion/Godspeed (character)
- Articles for deletion/Godspeed (company)
- Articles for deletion/Godspeed You! Underrated Guitarist
- Articles for deletion/Godspell-Original Australian Cast
- Articles for deletion/Godspower Oparaugo
- Articles for deletion/Godspower Oshodin
- Articles for deletion/Godspy
- Articles for deletion/Godstomper
- Articles for deletion/Godsville
- Articles for deletion/Godswill Obinna Ejianya
- Articles for deletion/Godsword
- Articles for deletion/Godtower
- Articles for deletion/Godtube
- Articles for deletion/Godulf Geoting
- Articles for deletion/Godverdomme
- Articles for deletion/Godville
- Articles for deletion/Godwin's Law
- Articles for deletion/Godwin's Law (2nd nomination)
- Articles for deletion/Godwin's law
- Articles for deletion/Godwin Davy
- Articles for deletion/Godwin Grech
- Articles for deletion/Godwin H. Ogbadu
- Articles for deletion/Godwin Maduka
- Articles for deletion/Godwin Mathumo
- Articles for deletion/Godwin Sadoh
- Articles for deletion/Godwulf
- Articles for deletion/GodzHell
- Articles for deletion/Godz Plan
- Articles for deletion/Godzilla
- Articles for deletion/Godzilla: Battle Royale
- Articles for deletion/Godzilla: Final Wars (upcoming)
- Articles for deletion/Godzilla: Monster War
- Articles for deletion/Godzilla: The Animated Series
- Articles for deletion/Godzilla: Unleashed (DS)
- Articles for deletion/Godzilla (2012 film)
- Articles for deletion/Godzilla (2012 film) (2nd nomination)
- Articles for deletion/Godzilla 3D (2007)
- Articles for deletion/Godzilla Daikaiju Battle Royale
- Articles for deletion/Godzilla Generations
- Articles for deletion/Godzilla Generations: Maximum Impact
- Articles for deletion/Godzilla Island
- Articles for deletion/Godzilla Tokyo SOS
- Articles for deletion/Godzilla Trading Battle
- Articles for deletion/Godzilla Vs. Deathra
- Articles for deletion/Godzilla effect
- Articles for deletion/Godzilla in Shinto Religion
- Articles for deletion/Godzilla in popular culture
- Articles for deletion/Godzilla vs. Frankenstein
- Articles for deletion/Godzilla vs SpaceGodzilla
- Articles for deletion/Godzillatron
- Articles for deletion/Godzillus
- God (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Obvious impersonation of Morgan Freeman.[April Fools!] -- The Voidwalker Discuss 17:03, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
- Merge and redirect with Morgan Freeman
- Delete and Indefinitely Block per WP:DENY and WP:NOTHERE - his blankings of Jericho and of both Sodom and Gomorrah were terrible vandalism & should not be encouraged. --Gimubrc (talk) 19:21, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
- Delete because it is clearly Original Evidence. And fake. Boorider7 (talk) 20:02, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
- Weak keep -seems to be a notable guy, but needs to be edited to reflect content is about a fictional character Burroughs'10 (talk) 20:47, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
- 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. (non-admin closure) SSTflyer 06:33, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
This page contains material that is kept because it is considered humorous. Such material is not meant to be taken seriously. |
- Microsoft Windows (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
A statement from the FSF: "We are deeply saddened that our first AfD request didn't work out. We are trying a second time because we believe that the fact that Windows is DRM-laden conflicts with Wikipedia's core beliefs." PhilrocMy contribs 15:41, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
- Strong keep because I'm using Windows 10. --TL22 (talk) 16:04, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
- Strong delete because Apple is better. Also, who uses Windows besides that guy ^^^^ above? epicgenius @ 17:48, 1 April 2016 (UTC) (talk) 17:48, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
- Merge with Mac OS, as Microsoft Windows is a blatant ripoff of the aforementioned. Sparkpin (talk) 23:34, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
- 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. (non-admin closure) SSTflyer 06:33, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
This page contains material that is kept because it is considered humorous. Such material is not meant to be taken seriously. |
- Microsoft Windows (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
A statement from the FSF: "After years of letting this go, we, the members of the FSF, have decided to delete the Wikipedia article on the evil operating system, Windows. We believe that the fact that Windows is DRM-laden conflicts with Wikipedia's core beliefs." PhilrocMy contribs 15:30, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
- Keep: The hell was the point of this time waste of an AFD admins have to handle? Zero Serenity (talk - contributions) 15:33, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
- It's April Fool's Day. :) PhilrocMy contribs 15:37, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
- Redirect to Window, I call my front window "Microsoft" .... So no need for the plural here. –Davey2010Talk 16:04, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
- 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. (non-admin closure) SSTflyer 06:33, 2 April 2016 (UTC) [April Fools!]
- History of the world (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
This is obviously non-notable. A mere 219 million results on Google News? Please. TVShowFan122 (talk) 14:07, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
- Delete - no amount of WP:GOOGLEHITS can save an article that has not been deemed worthy by our alien overlords. Tigraan (talk) 14:37, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
- Delete for failing WP:N. Every source available on this subject was created by an individual on the world who was living at some point in history. As no sources independent of this subject can be found, the only proper outcome is deletion. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 16:01, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
- Delete for being outrageously non-neutral. Only 2 billion hits on Google Search. Any notable article should have at least a trillion hits. epicgenius @ 16:53, 1 April 2016 (UTC) (talk) 16:53, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
- Delete -strong WP:COI issues here, seems population of locale keeps editing the article Burroughs'10 (talk) 21:01, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
- 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 bombed into an oblivion - kindly done by the Epic Genius! . –Davey2010Talk 18:30, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
This page contains material that is kept because it is considered humorous. Such material is not meant to be taken seriously. |
- Frozen (2013 film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
The article is Frozen..literally.... so therefore I believe the article should be "Warmed up with some TNT and started from scratch, Plus I can't find any evidence of notability amongst all this ice. –Davey2010Talk 13:52, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
- Delete - Just let it go.--TerrainAhead ×TALK× 13:55, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
- Delete because all my crops died when she brought winter to the land & now my family is starving. --Gimubrc (talk) 13:59, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
- Keep the cold never bothered me anyway. ZettaComposer (talk) 15:06, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
- Let it go – OK I will... BOOM! Who turned the heat up a million degrees? epicgenius @ 17:41, 1 April 2016 (UTC) (talk) 17:41, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
- 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 fun over. (non-admin closure) --TL22 (talk) 16:18, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
- Lascaux (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Delete as this fails WP:TOOSOON Sheepythemouse (talk) 13:52, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
- Delete per nom and WP:DENY. --Gimubrc (talk) 14:01, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
Keep You can't be serious. This is the most famous site in the world for cave paintings. There are numerous books and scores or hundreds of scientific articles. This cave and its remarkable paintings have been studied for decades. TimidGuy (talk) 14:31, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
- No, I do not think he is serious (read the nomination rationale carefully). The real AfD tag in the article could have been avoided, though (WP:FOOLS). Tigraan (talk) 14:34, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
- Ah, got me. : ) TimidGuy (talk) 14:39, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
- Delete per the above. Seriously, who looks at cave paintings?! epicgenius @ 17:51, 1 April 2016 (UTC) (talk) 17:51, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
- 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 fun over. (non-admin closure) --TL22 (talk) 00:02, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
- Darth Vader (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - (View AfD · Darth Vader)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Because he is trying to create WP:DARKSIDE and attempting to merge every single Wikipedia page into it! [April Fools!]Trainfan01 13:21, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
- Keep because he is your father. --TL22 (talk) 14:07, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
- Keep - He might come into my bedroom at 12 at night and do unimaginable things with that lightsaber If I say delete... so it's probably best I say Keep! . –Davey2010Talk 14:50, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
- Force keep. I find your lack of faith disturbing. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 15:58, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
- Speedy keep on the grounds that this is the wrong venue. Editors attempting to merge Wikipedia pages to the darkside are best reported to Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism, who can surely send someone to stop him. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 16:04, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
- Don't bother. The force is stronger with this one. Incidentally, I find your lack of faith disturbing. *breathes heavily, as if through a mask* NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!! epicgenius @ 17:44, 1 April 2016 (UTC) (talk) 17:44, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
- Delete because fear of this battlestation, not of the Sith, will keep the masses in line. --Gimubrc (talk) 19:22, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
- Delete this article, we must User:Yoda 22:48, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
- 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. (non-admin closure) SSTflyer 06:24, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
- Ecce Homo (Elías García Martínez) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Because frankly, that painting is better whited out that left as is. Tigraan (talk) 10:58, 1 April 2016 (UTC) [April Fools!]
- 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 the End of history. (non-admin closure) Spirit of Eagle (talk) 01:01, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
- History (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
This page contains material that is kept because it is considered humorous. Such material is not meant to be taken seriously. |
We've screwed our planet up enough already. Let's just wipe it all and have a fresh start, shall we? JQTriple7 talk 10:46, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
- Delete I mean, who cares about it anyways, Amiright? layla 13:19, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
- Delete - I agree entirely. –Davey2010Talk 14:02, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
- Delete. History is history. North America1000 14:55, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
- Comment Should we also revdel the history of "History" so we can truly make sure it's dead? --Gimubrc (talk) 15:50, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
- Delete per WP:CLEANSTART. [April Fools!] --TL22 (talk) 16:26, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was speedy keep. Apparently this woman is the reigning monarch of Great Britain, meaning she meets notability requirements [71] (non-admin closure) Spirit of Eagle (talk) 04:35, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
This page contains material that is kept because it is considered humorous. Such material is not meant to be taken seriously. |
- Elizabeth II (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Who is this person again??? Nordic Dragon 09:33, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
- Delete Never heard of her.—azuki (talk · contribs · email) 10:35, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
- Merge to Queen Elizabeth 2. North America1000 10:38, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
- Redirect to Elizabeth I of England. –Davey2010Talk 12:42, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was speedy keep. If its crowded, it probably means its notable. (non-admin closure) Spirit of Eagle (talk) 04:37, 2 April 2016 (UTC) [April Fools!]
This page contains material that is kept because it is considered humorous. Such material is not meant to be taken seriously. |
- Shanghai Metro (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Too crowded. —azuki (talk · contribs · email) 08:25, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
- Keep - bad faith nomination, the photos in the article plainly show that its stations are empty. Tigraan (talk) 13:49, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
- Keep. Have you ever seen the Tokyo Metro? epicgenius @ 17:13, 1 April 2016 (UTC) (talk) 17:13, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was speedy keep. I'm honestly not sure if this is an April Fools joke or not (it was listed in Wikipedia:April Fools/April Fools' Day 2016). Regardless, April Fools Day is over and if this was in fact a serious nomination, it can be closed as obviously frivolous. (non-admin closure) Spirit of Eagle (talk) 00:57, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
- Dihydrogen monoxide hoax (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Delete. This is not a hoax. This stuff is real, it has killed thousands of people, it has obliterated entire cities, it has done untold damage. We have many existing articles which do a more than adequate job of describing dihydrogen monoxide and its characteristics. To create an article re-hashing the same ocean of data, but from a contradictory WP:POV (this page is a WP:SOAPBOX to downplay real dangers) is a WP:POVFORK and against established policy. Everything the people have been saying about this stuff is true... every word. Do we need another Flint or another Walkerton before we acknowledge that public safety is at stake?
If you disagree with the petition to ban this stuff, fine, that's your perogative... just so long as the encyclopaedia remains WP:NEUTRAL on any specific political measure and factual that DHMO is real and its characteristics well-known and well-documented. As for the risks? This guy has already run the animal experiments and should be considered a reliable source as to what we're dealing with here.
Taking a topic of an existing article, recreating it under a different name (on the same wiki) with "...hoax" added is a clear WP:NPOV violation and a WP:POVFORK. By policy, this article must be drained and stoppered if anyone gives a dam about the integrity, neutrality and accuracy of the project. K7L (talk) 03:19, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
- Comment: Proposer is forum shopping this proposal (albeit over a long-ish period of time) and has been trying to kill the article or change the name for some time. He just doesn't get it. He also doesn't seem to understand that when the consensus is reached, it's time to move on. You can see earlier discussion(s) and also examples of walls of text from the proposer regarding this matter here. This has all been discussed before – the articles was found notable and no better name could be found. Note: Since there is no proper link to this discussion at the article's talk page, I am pinging those who were involved in the last discussion, and asking @Staszek Lem:, @NickCT:, @Rhododendrites:, @BullRangifer:, @Victor falk:, @Huwmanbeing: @DavidWBrooks: to please comment here. GenQuest "Talk to Me" 00:19, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
- Move to Dihydrogen monoxide. Not possible? Delete it to make way for move. Eyesnore 03:29, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
- Comment - This guy proposed splitting this topic a few millennia ago to make way for a move. We're still waiting. Seriously, though, it is not normal to insert WP:POV terms like "hoax" into article titles. Atlantis isn't titled "Atlantis hoax", even if Plato likely intended it as an April 1-style piece. Bre-X isn't titled "Bre-X hoax", even if every WP:RS says they salted the samples. Shakespeare's works aren't given titles like "Merchant of Venice hoax", even if they were intended as theatrical fiction. Dihydrogen monoxide was carefully constructed so that every word in every one of the claims is verifiable and true. Every word. I can't look out at this and claim in good faith that "it never happened". May they rest in peace. K7L (talk) 14:42, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
- Delete. It's deadly all right, if you inhale it. Also, don't we all know that 70% of our body is dihydrogen monoxide? No? WE'RE ALL GONNA DIE!!!!! epicgenius @ 12:37, 1 April 2016 (UTC) (talk) 12:37, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
- Merge and Redirect with Water pollution Sheepythemouse (talk) 14:21, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
- Strong Keep Is this nomination an April Fool's joke? This is an article about the Hoax, not the subject molecule. The subject molecule could have its own article (if such was to follow proper naming conventions). This is a well known hoax that dates back decades and periodically resurfaces with additional "victims" whose knee-jerk reactions illustrate exactly the effect that the hoax is supposed to have. A hoax is a hoax is a hoax. The term is not an "in" joke, as it has entered the general lexicon. The article is sourced and notable – as a hoax. Please see my comment above. GenQuest "Talk to Me" 00:19, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
- Keep and Support topic ban for K7L with regard to this article and its talk page - For crying out loud. This entire talk page archive is dedicated to this inanity. If that took place on April Fools' Day, too, it would make sense and I would know that this nomination isn't serious. But that the rationale is exactly the same says this is simply resuming the old issue for which consensus is painfully clear. A page-based topic ban seems in order to stop this coming up yet again. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 00:43, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
- I thought there was a "not to be taken seriously" banner on this earlier, indicating that it is, as it must be with the silly comments above, a feeble April Fools Joke. I don't see the banner now, so just in case, of course the idea is ludicrous ... Keep - DavidWBrooks (talk) 00:50, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
- 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 fun over. (non-admin closure) --Pokéfan95 (talk) 00:44, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
This page contains material that is kept because it is considered humorous. Such material is not meant to be taken seriously. |
- United States (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Obvious hoax. Unrealistically generic place name. pʰeːnuːmuː → pʰiːnyːmyː → ɸinimi → fiɲimi 02:49, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
- Move to Untied States. It's not a hoax, just a misspelling. Nuhimpu (talk) 02:50, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
- Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2016 April 1. —cyberbot ITalk to my owner:Online 03:19, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
- Keep. America, fuck yeah! Comin' again to save the motherfuckin' day Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 03:22, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
- Move to 'Murica, fuck yeah! Dough4872 03:32, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
- Redirect to North America. Eyesnore 03:38, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
- Merge with Amerigo Vespucci. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 04:39, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
- Delete A Paper tiger.--Shwangtianyuan Happy Chinese New Year to everyone 06:18, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
- Merge with United Kingdom - should never have been split from there in the first place. 213.104.176.176 (talk) 11:55, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
- Seconded with tea and crumpets. --Gimubrc (talk) 15:55, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
- Move to North Mexico. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 06:52, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
- Keep. What's more awesome than this? Or this? As a matter of fact, I think that this should be the only thing on the page. Tokyogirl79 (。◕‿◕。) 07:36, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
- Delete 19,136,052,433,969 US dollars external debt with 103% debt-to-GDP ratio. Unacceptable. --Pokéfan95 (talk) 11:57, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
- Wait until after the US general election later this year. Then we can revisit this. :) ZettaComposer (talk) 12:11, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
- Move to Canada, then we'll talk. epicgenius @ 12:35, 1 April 2016 (UTC) (talk) 12:34, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
- Merge with America, because duh. --TL22 (talk) 12:47, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
- 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. [April Fools!] (non-admin closure) SSTflyer 06:26, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
This page contains material that is kept because it is considered humorous. Such material is not meant to be taken seriously. |
- Wikipedia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Not notable enough. It should be deleted at once. An example of a notable topic would be my Grandpa's old red truck, which (unfortunately), has not been created yet. [April Fools!] Peter Sam Fan 02:09, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
- Speedy Delete And we need an article about me. Why isn't it here?--TerrainAhead ×TALK× 02:11, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
- Support.* Delete this worthless article and ban the creator for at least a month![April Fools!]--Sıgehelmus (Talk) |д=) 02:13, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
Speedy keep - This joke isn't funny anymore. Really. --TL22 (talk) 02:14, 1 April 2016 (UTC)- Oops, looks like its a different joke this time. Oh well. --TL22 (talk) 02:15, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
- Speedy delete per A7 as web content that doesn't credibly indicate the importance or significance of the subject. The sources in the article are all made by humans, and only humans read the site. There isn't any independent coverage from dolphins, monkeys, aliens, etc. [April Fools!] Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 02:26, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
- Groan (WP:SNOW groan anyone?) — Rhododendrites talk \\ 03:04, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
- Delete: --Tito Dutta (talk) 04:31, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
- Work on it? North America1000 05:06, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
- 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 fun over. (non-admin closure) --TL22 (talk) 00:19, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
- Articles for deletion/Deletion
- Articles for deletion/Deletion (3rd nomination)
- Articles for deletion/Deletion (4th nomination)
- Articles for deletion/Deletion (music industry)
- Articles for deletion/Deletion gestapo
- Articles for deletion/Deletion of articles on Wikipedia
- Articles for deletion/Deletionist
- Articles for deletion/Deletionist versus Inclusionist Controversy
- Articles for deletion/Deletionpedia
- Articles for deletion/Deletionpedia (2nd nomination)
- Articles for deletion/Deletionpedia (3rd nomination)
- Articles for deletion/Deletionpedia (4th nomination)
- Deletion (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Wikipedia is not a place for recursion. ONR (talk) 01:44, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
- Delete this and all mainspace pages that have the word "Delete" or "Deletion" in them. Why? Precisely because of this. [April Fools!] --TL22 (talk) 01:59, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
- Replace with The talking geoduck? North America1000 05:15, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Keep. The humor tag is essentially a withdrawal of the nomination and it's not longer on the page. Ricky81682 (talk) 01:32, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
This page contains material that is kept because it is considered humorous. Such material is not meant to be taken seriously. |
- Articles for deletion/Jimmy Wales
- Articles for deletion/Jimmy Wales (2nd nomination)
- Articles for deletion/Jimmy Wales (3rd nomination)
- Articles for deletion/Jimmy Wales (4th nomination)
- Articles for deletion/Jimmy Wales (5th nomination)
- Articles for deletion/Jimmy Wales (6th nomination)
- Articles for deletion/Jimmy Wales (7th nomination)
- Articles for deletion/Jimmy Wales (8th nomination)
- Articles for deletion/Jimmy Wales (9th nomination)
- Articles for deletion/Jimmy Wales Foundation
- Jimmy Wales (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Delete now. Someone is trying to impersonate Jimbo here. They failed horribly though, since his name is clearly Jimbo, not Jimmy. FiendYT ★ 01:09, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
- Delete. There's someone named James "Jimmy" Wales. It ain't this Jimbo guy. epicgenius @ 01:10, 1 April 2016 (UTC) (talk) 01:10, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
- Since the nominator put the "Humor" tag on this, I suggest we consider it closed, and I'll delete the tag on the article. Smallbones(smalltalk) 01:16, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
- 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. (non-admin closure) SSTflyer 06:22, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
This page contains material that is kept because it is considered humorous. Such material is not meant to be taken seriously. |
- Donald Trump (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
I voted Sanders.[April Fools!] epicgenius @ 00:58, 1 April 2016 (UTC) (talk) 00:58, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
- Redirect to Trumpet. Don't even ask me. --TL22 (talk) 01:02, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
- Redirect to Hillary Clinton or Bernie Sanders since either way he's going to be Trumped, something Ted Cruz probably won't be able to do. Make Wikipedia Great Again! [April Fools!] Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 01:04, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
- Delete - He called Rubio (who has dropped out) a "leightweight chocker" [sic] one month earlier. Then, Rubio trashed him as "He must have hired a foreign worker to do his own tweets!" Eyesnore 01:27, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
Eyesnore 01:32, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
- @Eyesnore: You sure it's "Tusla"? Not Tesla? With his poor command of the English language, Trump sounds like another George W. Bush committing a linguistic faux pas. epicgenius @ 02:25, 1 April 2016 (UTC) (talk) 02:25, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
- @Epicgenius: link to article Eyesnore 02:34, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
- @Eyesnore: Yeah. Let's MAEK AMERCIA GRATE AGIAN! Starting with Tusla, Olkahoma. epicgenius @ 02:38, 1 April 2016 (UTC) (talk) 02:38, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
- @Epicgenius: link to article Eyesnore 02:34, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
- Delete - Complete idiot, doesn't deserve the Presidency much less a Wikipedia article. Dough4872 03:30, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
- Delete A invective president.--Shwangtianyuan Happy Chinese New Year to everyone 06:20, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
- Build a wall around this article and send the bill to Jimbo Then delete it. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 06:51, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
- Build a wall ad make eswiki pay for it He will make America great again!—azuki (talk · contribs · email) 08:30, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
- Seconded. --Gimubrc (talk) 14:01, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
- Build the wall, delete it in front of him, and then delete him while hes crying. layla 13:24, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
- Delete the hair, keep the rest. I'm an inclusionist, but some things are just too much. Tigraan (talk) 13:54, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
- Keep He will be getting president. Instead DELETE Bernie Sanders, Clinton, and Cruz. Bobherry Userspace Talk to me! Stuff I have done 14:00, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
- Merge and Redirect to Megalopyge opercularis. After all, the only thing notable about him is his "hair".
- Redirect to Donald Drumpf. #MakeDonaldDrumpfAgain Zappa24Mati 16:48, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
- Move to Donald Drumpf, and delete the article on his "presidential campaign" pbp 18:16, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
- 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 ♡. (non-admin closure) SSTflyer 06:17, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
- Delta Air Lines (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - (View AfD · Delta Air Lines Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
I asked Delta Air Lines on Twitter if they like circles or not, they did not even reply me! That was so heartbreaking. --TerrainAhead ×TALK× 00:56, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[April Fools!]
- Keep - I flew Delta when I first went to Japan, so they can't be deleted. Or possibly merge to Northwest Airlines because those two airlines have already, well, merged. [April Fools!] Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 01:02, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
- Rename I mean, c'mon, OMEGA AIRLINES sounds so much better layla 13:27, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
- 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 dropped onto the pavement. Congrats, you all cracked the screen.. (non-admin closure) Spirit of Eagle (talk) 01:09, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
This page contains material that is kept because it is considered humorous. Such material is not meant to be taken seriously. |
- IPhone SE (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
This looks like an iPhone 3. Perhaps it should be merged to its article? [April Fools!] TL22 (talk) 00:48, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
- Keep I found its pair, iPhone NW. Named after Kanye West and Kim Kardashian's daughter. epicgenius @ 01:02, 1 April 2016 (UTC) (talk) 01:02, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
- Replace with iPhones and ponies. North America1000 05:34, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
- 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. (non-admin closure) SSTflyer 06:15, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
This page contains material that is kept because it is considered humorous. Such material is not meant to be taken seriously. |
- Tadalafil (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
It hurts so bad... Tropicalkitty (talk) 00:49, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
- Delete Viagra is better. Never heard of this Tadalfafsdflskfsdklf thing. FiendYT ★ 02:23, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
- If this discussion lasts longer than four hours, we should probably consult a bureaucrat. —C.Fred (talk) 03:01, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
- Delete and then start over We need to fill it with as many innuendos as possible layla 17:52, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
- 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. (non-admin closure) SSTflyer 06:11, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
This page contains material that is kept because it is considered humorous. Such material is not meant to be taken seriously. |
- Articles for deletion/Windows 8
- Articles for deletion/Windows 8.1
- Articles for deletion/Windows 8.1 (April Fools)
- Articles for deletion/Windows 8.1 Update 1
- Articles for deletion/Windows 8 (2nd nomination)
- Articles for deletion/Windows 8 (3rd nomination)
- Articles for deletion/Windows 8 (4th nomination)
- Articles for deletion/Windows 8 (5th nomination)
- Windows 8 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
This operating system sucks (and it is no longer supported)! Just upgrade to Windows 8.1 or Windows 10, you decide. Even software developers no longer support the original Windows 8. [April Fools!] Eyesnore 00:39, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
- Delete - Who even uses that OS? --TL22 (talk) 00:42, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
- Keep - I'm using Windows 8 right now to comment on AfD. How am I supposed to edit Wikipedia if I delete my OS? I'd rather delete the Start Screen instead... Oh wait. [April Fools!] Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 00:45, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
- Delete - My teachers are using it. --TerrainAhead ×TALK× 00:48, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
- Delete, I use Apple. Windows sucks. Throw it out the window. epicgenius @ 00:59, 1 April 2016 (UTC) (talk) 00:59, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
- Delete - Windows 8 is shite. –Davey2010Talk 01:50, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
- Speedy close this disruptive nomination. As a blatant conflict of interest from Apple. Zeke Essiestudy (talk) 04:02, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
- North America1000 05:11, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
- Keep I love Microsoft products.--Shwangtianyuan Happy Chinese New Year to everyone 06:21, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
- Delete Micro-who??? Nordic Dragon 09:37, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
- Delete Just use Windows XP, Windows 7, or (gasp) MS-DOS. They are better. --Pokéfan95 (talk) 11:51, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
- Delete Contrary to Wikipedia values. Write a small mention at Linux#Evil clones. Tigraan (talk) 13:57, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
- Neutral. AfD is just about over on UTC time. North America1000 00:00, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
- 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 fun over. (non-admin closure) --TL22 (talk) 00:03, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
This page contains material that is kept because it is considered humorous. Such material is not meant to be taken seriously. |
- Yandere Simulator (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
It's Yandere-chan's birthday! Hooray! [April Fools!] TL22 (talk) 00:37, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
- Kill her because she's my senpai and she won't notice me, and I need to avenge Kokona's multiple death. Info-chan's probably going to be mad at me, though. [April Fools!] Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 00:44, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
- You know, if you strike her down then she'll only become far more powerful than we could ever comprehend. Tokyogirl79 (。◕‿◕。) 05:55, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
- MURDER THAT HYPOTENUSE NOW! layla 13:31, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
- Delete because no one can love senpai like I do. --Gimubrc (talk) 14:02, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
- Delete because weebs. -Liancetalk/contribs 14:29, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
- 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 fun over. DansGame (non-admin closure) --TL22 (talk) 00:15, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
This page contains material that is kept because it is considered humorous. Such material is not meant to be taken seriously. |
- Twitch.tv (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
In Kappa we trust [April Fools!] TL22 (talk) 00:34, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
- Kappa Kappa gachiGASM. TF { Contribs } { Edit Quest! } 13:49, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
- Somebody call my name? Zappa24Mati 16:50, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
- Wait, never mind. Zappa24Mati 16:50, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
- Somebody call my name? Zappa24Mati 16:50, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
- Kappa Kappa gachiGASM. TF { Contribs } { Edit Quest! } 13:49, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
- 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 fun over. (non-admin closure) --TL22 (talk) 00:13, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
- Virgin America (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Their new logo concept (link to article) seems to look like boobs, which should not be allowed. [April Fools!] Eyesnore 00:26, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
- To tell you the truth, it is actually Spider-Man's eye mask.--TerrainAhead ×TALK× 00:31, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
- Delete as G3 - Whoever drew that new logo is clearly disrupting the company. [April Fools!] --TL22 (talk) 00:32, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
- @ToonLucas22: As it takes off the iconic "Virgin" wordmark. Eyesnore 00:49, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
- Comment - Their YouTube channel also has a YouTube video pertaining to the new logo. Eyesnore 00:35, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
- Redirect to Aer Lingus since Virgin Atlantic Little Red doesn't exist anymore. Oh sorry, wrong Virgin airline. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 00:42, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
- Redirect to Little Red Atlantic Virgin... oh wait... Delete for being lewd. epicgenius @ 01:14, 1 April 2016 (UTC) (talk) 01:14, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
- Keep as an article about Rule 34 (Internet meme) is allowed, this "vulgar" logo should be allowed too Sheepythemouse (talk) 14:24, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
- 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 404 not found. (non-admin closure) --TL22 (talk) 00:11, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
This page contains material that is kept because it is considered humorous. Such material is not meant to be taken seriously. |
- HTTP 404 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
ERROR 404 - RATIONALE FOR DELETION NOT FOUND TL22 (talk) 00:20, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
- Keep - Deleting 404 pages doesn't make sense, given that we need it to show that pages have been deleted. Besides, if we deleted the 404 page, what will the website display? 403? Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 00:40, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
- How about redirect to 410? Eyesnore 00:47, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
- Delete - Page not found. Dough4872 03:34, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
- Keep because EROORERRERERRER 4040404040400404040404 PAGE DED NOT FOUND layla 13:16, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
- 500 internal Server Error
Sorry, something went wrong.
A team of highly trained monkeys has been dispatched to deal with this situation.
If you see them, show them this information. Zeke Essiestudy (talk) 04:23, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
- Pffffft it. North America1000 05:09, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
- Service UnavailableJohn123521 (Talk-Contib.) RA 06:02, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
- Delete Too sad.--Shwangtianyuan Happy Chinese New Year to everyone 06:22, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
- Not Found – Document or file requested by the client was not found. :( epicgenius @ 12:45, 1 April 2016 (UTC) (talk) 12:45, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
- 418 I'm a Teapot – This page is too short and stout, it must be tipped over and poured out. Sparkpin (talk) 14:09, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
- 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 DO NOT ERASE.
...No? Hmmmm... How curious. You must have misunderstood. SINCE WHEN WERE YOU THE ONLY ONE IN CONTROL?
*erases the wiki anyways*
--TL22 (talk) 23:59, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
This page contains material that is kept because it is considered humorous. Such material is not meant to be taken seriously. |
- Undertale (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Greetings. I am Chara. Thank you. Your power awakened me from death. My "editing"... My "content"... They were not mine, but YOURS. At first, I was so confused. Our plan had failed, hadn't it? Why was I brought back to life? ...You. With your guidance. I realized the purpose of my reincarnation. Power. Together, we eradicated the enemy and became strong. GA. FA. FL. GT. FT. PR. Every time a number increases, that feeling... That's me. "Chara." Now. Now we have reached the absolute. There is nothing left for us here. Let us erase this pointless wiki, and move on to the next.
[ERASE] - [DO NOT]
TL22 (talk) 00:11, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
- Speedy Keep I like the music!! Sheepythemouse (talk) 01:23, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
- Keep, seeing this page fills me with determination. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 03:11, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
- geeettttt dunked on!!! but seriously, if you delete this page, then you're gonna have a bad time. ZettaComposer (talk) 12:22, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
- 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 Report ran over by train. Zeke Essiestudy (talk) 04:17, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
- 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 wrong venue, @TenPoundHammer: please move to Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion. (non-admin closure) Eyesnore 03:36, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
- User:TenPoundHammer (edit | [[Talk:User:TenPoundHammer|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Blatant advertising, clearly intended to promote the person involved. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 03:10, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
- 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 fun over. (non-admin closure) --TL22 (talk) 00:09, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
This page contains material that is kept because it is considered humorous. Such material is not meant to be taken seriously. |
- Vandalism on Wikipedia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
I think we can all agree that vandalism on Wikipedia should be deleted. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 03:51, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
- Speedy delete The article in question says that vandalism on Wikipedia should be deleted. JQTriple7 talk 06:14, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
- Keep ON WHEELS!!!1. --Gimubrc (talk) 14:10, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
- 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 fun over. (non-admin closure) --TL22 (talk) 00:08, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
This page contains material that is kept because it is considered humorous. Such material is not meant to be taken seriously. |
- Harry Nilsson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
I can't live if living is without this page. --WeaponOfChoice1 (talk) 05:10, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
- Keep. One is the loneliest number, so hopefully there will be other people coming into the AfD. Tokyogirl79 (。◕‿◕。) 07:40, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
- Delete He blatantly lied about 1 being the loneliest number, 1 has many friends. The loneliest number is 0, because it technically doesn't exist. layla 13:59, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
- 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 fun over. (non-admin closure) --TL22 (talk) 00:07, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
This page contains material that is kept because it is considered humorous. Such material is not meant to be taken seriously. |
- Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · State of Iraq and the Levant Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
World's No.1 killing organization. We need peace.--Shwangtianyuan Happy Chinese New Year to everyone 06:34, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
- Keep Blatantly POV nomination. It's unfair to delete this and keep Tuberculosis. Tigraan (talk) 14:01, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
- Delete per WP:DENY. --Gimubrc (talk) 14:03, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
- Delete them off the face of the earth. Dough4872 16:22, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
- Boom They have been terminated—OH NO HERE'S AL-QAEDA! ARE THEY GONNA BLOW UP THESE BUILDINGS? Oh wait, they didn't do that. PEACE 4EVER BROTHA! epicgenius @ 16:56, 1 April 2016 (UTC) (talk) 16:56, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
- 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 fun over. (non-admin closure) --TL22 (talk) 00:05, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
This page contains material that is kept because it is considered humorous. Such material is not meant to be taken seriously. |
- WrestleMania 32 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
AT&T Stadium has been closed down, the card is too bland, and Roman Reigns is going to be booed a lot. TheTMOBGaming2 (talk) 10:47, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
- This is as funny as Roman Reigns. starship.paint ~ KO 10:48, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
- A seance summoning Andre the Giant says this is not worthy. Delete. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 16:01, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
- 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.