Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2016 August 10

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

Media Organisations Biography Society Web Games Science Arts Places Indiscern. Not-Sorted

< 9 August	11 August >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was speedy keep. Withdrawn by nominator, as this was made official after the nomination. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 23:19, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

--~Peter Dzubay (talk) 21:21, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Revolution Radio

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

See [1]. There's speculation this may be the next album title, but it's just rumors. Nothing's been announced. WP:NOTCRYSTAL. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 23:05, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The album has officially been announced. - Katanin (talk) 14:44, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. As mentioned. made official. Joseph507357 (talk) 14:47, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Withdrawn as now official. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 16:32, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, this is a new official album.QuintusPetillius (talk) 17:20, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as the article meets the notability guidelines as it has received significant coverage. ~Peter Dzubay (talk) 21:21, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 00:39, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nick Pepitone

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

Non-notable former college baseball player. Did not play professionally. Fails WP:GNG and WP:BASE/N. Has been tagged for notability since 2011. Article creation was the only edit made by User:Nickpepidouche, so make of that what you will. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:56, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:56, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:57, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable baseball player.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:25, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete subject lacks sufficient coverage to pass GNG. Lepricavark (talk) 10:44, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - does not meet any notability criteria. Rlendog (talk) 14:24, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 00:39, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Lucas Karl Stone

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

Unreferenced biography of a living person written in a promotional manner. Notability appears to be lacking. Tazerdadog (talk) 22:52, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable businessman. I find it hard to believe this is other than a hoax without sources.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:23, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - allegedly a kid who started a business, but is an unsourced BLP that can't be verified. This is almost certainly a teenager's autobiography, based on what I see in the history. A brief online search shows that I'm probably right. Bearian (talk) 15:06, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, come on!, "Between 2014 and 2016, his wealth doubled(?) from GBP £600,497 to more than GBP £19,576,493.", why wasn't this speedied?, its obviously a hoax, created by a spa with coi - Lucas.stone00, i'm not even bothering to add this to any afd lists, oh and a gsearch brings up this article, facebook and linkrfIn, thats it. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:46, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:51, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:51, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:51, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete -- unsourced BLP. Could be a hoax. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:45, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 00:39, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Andi Murra

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

Clearly fails WP:GNG. I couldn't find any reliable secondary sources to establish this person (as well as the 'Quest Crew Style' group) as notable at all. Also fails WP:BAND and WP:ENT. I was borderline on tagging for A7, but I thought that an AFD would be a better and safer choice. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 22:34, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete' non-notable dancer and cheoreographer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:18, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Subject lacks coverage in reliable sources. Search results pull up RS not directly related to him. Meatsgains (talk) 00:59, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Dance-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:30, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albania-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:30, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:51, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:51, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 00:39, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Slickdeals

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

Non notable. Not a single one of the refs is a RS for notability -- either unreliable sites on the web, or an item from Prnewswire, which is just what it says, a place that publishes press releases. DGG ( talk ) 21:51, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- entirely promotional article; I cannot find any substantial RS coverage that would justify an encyclopedia entry. A possibility of COI / SPA editing. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:31, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as entirely, nothing close to minimally convincing. SwisterTwister talk 05:37, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:24, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:52, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Moved to Draft:Dwen Gyimah. I have deleted the resulting redirect. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 12:57, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dwen Gyimah

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:GNGACTOR. Sources in article are all self-published. Exemplo347 (talk) 21:23, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Sources in articles are not self publishes. All links and sources have proof tracks. IMDB does not allow anything on there website without it being researched and having the departments of the films contacted to prove accuracy. Date of birth and name has also been provided via wokocommons photo of birth certificate, social media links has been referenced under references, filmography has been directly taken from IMDB Biography. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hanna Mania300 (talk • contribs) 21:57, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

Comment - Please read WP:UGC - IMDB is specifically mentioned as an example of an unreliable source. Exemplo347 (talk) 22:00, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Understood, IMDB references may be deleted from references, contacting the relevant film departments may help?, Social media status proof has also been provided, so has full birth details included, date of birth, full legal name, and birth place, Theatre school link has also been provided. If a problem then an email to the theatre school website to prove his relevant training there can be used if needing further proof. Public interview references and modelling line links have also been provided — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hanna Mania300 (talk • contribs) 22:04, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I posted the following comment on the Talk page of your article: "The nomination was based on a failure to meet Wikipedia's General Notability Guidelines (WP:GNG and WP:GNGACTOR). The sources you have provided are not considered "reliable" - I suggest you read Wikipedia's guide to Identifying Reliable Sources (located here) - if you are unable to provide sources that meet these guidelines, that is usually a good indication that the subject of an article is not considered Notable. Please note that I have personally attempted to find reliable sources (not Self-Published sources such as Facebook, IMDB etc.) for this article and failed, leading to this nomination." Exemplo347 (talk) 22:09, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - so many references for social media and very little of any worth in establishing notability. It feels as though maybe notability should be there, but searches reveal nothing more. Velella ^{Velella Talk} 22:12, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, sources provided in the article are mostly social media, and I was unable to find any significant coverage in independent, reliable sources to pass the GNG benchmark. GAB^gab 22:21, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The number of sources that aren't social media related is greater than the ones which are. Basic examples repeatedly given are the persons proof of age, name and birth also I apologize as I am accidently deleting things as I'm new to wipedia talk, further discussion of evidence is basic proof contact of the theatre school, film departments etc which can all be contacted in relations of providing proof, this artist is not supremely famous but this is a fact page not a page ranking on popularity, hence why further links and references aren't provided, LINKED IN has been provided so has public interviews all provided, basic investigations had been done myskef before moving the article to the live page, DIRECT LINKS to contactable pages has been provided making it valid for the reviewer to use the email addresses associated with the article references links to contact. -Also adding on , if the reviewer agrees to edit the article based on what they have researched and departments that they have contacted then I will agree for the article to be kept by edited by the reviewer to finish of accuracy if accuracy is seen as not finished — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hanna Mania300 (talk • contribs) 22:27, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have examined every single source in this article. None of them are Independent, Reliable Sources Exemplo347 (talk) 22:37, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree, a reliable source added was the person drama acadamy website, an article of him in a public interview, wikicommons photographic evidence of his proof of birth, age and nationality. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hanna Mania300 (talk • contribs) 22:40, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Have you examined WP:RS like I suggested? (Also, please stop adding "Keep" to every single one of your comments - it's destroying the layout of the discussion) Exemplo347 (talk) 22:46, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I will examine it but you keep adding delete to everything even if it is my comment! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hanna Mania300 (talk • contribs) 22:49, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Each instance of Delete that you see in this discussion has been added by a separate Wikipedia Editor, not myself. Exemplo347 (talk) 22:53, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Per WP:GNG. My search found no secondary reliable sources that are independent of the subject and that cover the article subject primarily. The only sources found do not qualify as references to establish GNG, and the article contains none either. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 22:50, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep — Preceding unsigned comment added by 149.254.180.44 (talk) 23:31, 10 August 2016 (UTC) I have searched the name up, it looks like its probably the excess of fame that is regarding notabilty, what the article speaks of looks to have confirmation through the other eferenced links to be honest so there is a fair point on that, however looking at the film credits it looks like they range from medium sized roles to small roles, which again looks as though its the lack of excess work that brings the page into deletion discussion. But its a fair point that the article does speak from a fair point of view that only regards facts — Preceding unsigned comment added by 149.254.180.44 (talk) 23:29, 10 August 2016 (UTC) [reply]

Striking out votes by possibly logged out user. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 23:57, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Zero notability per WP:NACTOR: no significant roles in any of the shows listed (even IMDb says "extra" for most of the roles). No reliable sources found to satisfy WP:GNG. Just another extra trying to market himself. clpo13_(talk) 23:41, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep Yep agreed, his Imdb has about 4 extra roles, but looking at the dates, they seem to fall behind the main actor role he had on one of his credits, its looking like the extra roles were from previous years and the lead roles are modern. Also wikepedia rules clearly state that an article must not be reviewed on the fame of a person but the hard facts provided. Im confused as we have both read the imdb site but i have managed to read it properly and gain the correct facts — Preceding unsigned comment added by 149.254.180.44 (talk) 23:53, 10 August 2016 (UTC) [reply]

Striking out votes by possibly logged out user. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 23:54, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Reading and closing these AfDs would be a lot less painful if people would just stick to debating the merits of the article. -- RoySmith (talk) 16:24, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

2002–03 Hereford United F.C. season

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

As per the decisions at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2016–17 Woking F.C. season, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2009–10 Grays Athletic F.C. season and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2016–17 Torquay United F.C. season, articles for teams playing in a non-fully professional league have been deleted as non-notbale, unless they otherwise pass the general notability guidelines. None of these Hereford or Dagenham and Redbridge seasons appear to do so - note in particular that under reliable source policy, notability needs to be shown beyond general news reporting - none these articles show this. Note that I have listed these as what I consider to be 'low-hanging fruit' - there is a separate discussion to be had for articles on seasons in which these clubs won promotion. Super Nintendo Chalmers (talk) 09:54, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages because they cover the Conference National seasons with articles for these two clubs, excluding the years in which they got promoted:

Super Nintendo Chalmers (talk) 10:02, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Yellow Dingo (talk) 10:05, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Yellow Dingo (talk) 10:05, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Yellow Dingo (talk) 10:05, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all. There is longstanding consensus at AfD that only clubs that play in a WP:FPL get season articles per WP:NSEASONS. All these articles fail WP:NSEASONS as well as WP:GNG. - Yellow Dingo (talk) 10:07, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all. There is longstanding discussion at AfD that professional clubs that play in nation-wide professional league get season articles per WP:NSEASONS. All these articles pass WP:NSEASONS. In addition in the recent decision at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2010–11 AFC Wimbledon season the bundling of different teams in the same discussion created issues, and there appears to be some consensus that they should be treated separately (1 discussion for Hereford, one more for Dagenham). Nfitz (talk) 22:57, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

With regards to bundling - that wasn't a consensus, that was a closer's comments. This is very different from 2010-11 AFC Wimb: that bundled 11 clubs together, this bundles 2, with articles from a few seasons, of clubs in similar situations. Super Nintendo Chalmers (talk) 08:18, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all per the aforementioned consensus (see these previous AfDs: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12). Nfitz is well aware of this consensus as he has been involved in several of the debates, but unfortunately chooses to lie and mislead other editors with claims like those made above. Number 5 7 23:06, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Lie? No lie's here. Perhaps an error, and if so I'll apologize; but that's not a lie. But violating WP:AGF is a far worse WikiSin. Please apologize for violating one of the basic tenents of the project. Nfitz (talk) 23:17, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. Re-read and made minor edit to previous comment. Sorry, rushing too fast. I'm far more disturbed by the quick rush to WP:AGF! I'm going to have to go to WP:ANI if that continues. Nfitz (talk) 23:25, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The reworded claim makes no sense, but the claim that they pass NSEASONS remains untrue as shown by the list of cited AfDs. And as I've told you several times previously in other discussions, any GF you had was lost several years ago when you started behaving problematically around football-related deletion (some background here). You do not start with a clean track record any time a new discussion starts – given your track record, I do not believe for one second that it wasn't a deliberate error or attempt to mislead other participants or the closing admin. Number 5 7 07:36, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Can I suggest that Neither @Number 57: nor @Nfitz: make any further posts on this page? You've both made your points. This isn't a call for a ban - you can both chose to ignore me if you want, but it's more of a friendly request

I'd said I'd stay out of this, but I realise, I've left this comment unaddressed. My comment is clear, there are some old discussions, including at AFD, where the assumption was that the cut-off was the 5th tier not the 4th tier. WP:NSEASONS simply says Articles can be created on individual seasons of teams in top professional leagues. Is this league professional - yes. Is it a top league - yes, it's national. The article meets WP:NSEASONS. Perhaps my earlier statement didn't fully sum up my thoughts. Nfitz (talk) 03:19, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The question for other editors is to decide whether there is an inherent notability of season articles for professional clubs in the Conference (now 'National League) of English football, which is a non-fully professional fifth tier league. My belief, given previous approaches on Wikipedia, is that they're not, unless they otherwise meat the general notability guidelines. Nfitz clearly believes that they are. Let's let more editors respond. I follow up by suggesting that whatever the outcome, we should go to both or either WP:NSEASONS or Wikipedia:WikiProject Football to establish a clearer consensus. Super Nintendo Chalmers (talk) 08:24, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No problem at all, dealing with this is getting extremely tedious. Number 5 7 11:17, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, I'll stay out of the discussion as well, if N57 does as well. I'm tired of dealing with editors who should have been banned years ago, for frequently violating WP:AGF. I've never in my life tried to deceive or mislead other participants or the closing admin! I'm shocked that another editor would follow a WP:AGF violation with a WP:AGF violation! Nfitz (talk) 16:56, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, could you explain your logic as to why Hereford's is up for nomination as oppose to Gateshead, AFC Wimbledon and Newport County of the same season - who were all playing levels below? I really don't understand the selective nature of this AfD. And let's avoid using lazy cop outs like WP:OTHERSTUFF. --Jimbo^[online] 21:14, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2010–11 AFC Wimbledon season, there is precedent for season articles to be discussed individually. Mattythewhite (talk) 22:13, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Jimbo online: and @Mattythewhite: - please note your two comments together! I chose these articles as a compromise between flooding the AfD with debates (and/or the rather slow process of listing all articles seperatly) and the suggestion at the AFC Wimbledon debate that we don't combine too many together. I didn't read the closing admin's comments as a suggestion that all future seasons should be listed separately (perhaps @Deryck Chan: might like to comment if that was his intention); rather, his closure was a comment on that specific listing, but also a warning against listing too many articles together. I chose these seasons quite deliberately as both D&R and Hereford are clubs who have competed in the Football League since promotion from the Conference, and were fully professional for these seasons: this was a clear point of contention at the AFC Wimbledon debate. I saw the clubs and seasons listed as roughly comparable, and they cover a similar timeframe. I note that no-one so far has made any comments which suggest any one of these seasons stands out from the others --Super Nintendo Chalmers (talk) 08:37, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Deryck C. 20:37, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all They're about seasons involving a non fully-professional league, so not enough to pass WP:NSEASONS. Joseph2302 21:55, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all - the fifth tier of English football is nowhere near, the "top professional league" level required by WP:NSEASONS. A review of the WP:FOOTY Deletion archive will show clear consensus that for English football the cut off point at which clubs are deemed notable enough for individual seasons is the fourth tier as that is also the lowest tier that consensus holds is fully professional. Fenix down (talk) 16:02, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - note that Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2016–17 Dagenham & Redbridge F.C. season has just closed as delete. Super Nintendo Chalmers (talk) 19:27, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all - no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 18:13, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all these teams competed at a level where their coverage will see them pass WP:GNG. Difficult to go into detail in a bundled discussion, but I suppose that's the idea. Mattythewhite (talk) 23:33, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Mattythewhite:I resent that last comment. These articles were very carefully curated to fit together, as I've twice explained, and you've not responded to. I ask that you presume good faith here; this was a deliberately and carefully chosen set of articles. Super Nintendo Chalmers (talk) 19:16, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your explanation made little sense. The Wimbledon AFC called out listing different teams like this, and you just did the same again, simply to save yourself the effort. The articles have been here for years, it's not like there is any rush to get rid of them. Nfitz (talk) 00:12, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not really sure I see the issue with bundling these specific articles, they are all inherent WP:NOTSTATS failures. @Mattythewhite: can you perhaps show GNG by adding some sourced prose to at least one of the articles? Fenix down (talk) 08:20, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Saying that my explanation made little sense is different from claiming that I was doing this to manipulate - I've no problem with disagreement :)! As I've explained, my judgment was that listing 2 teams together was very different from listing 10 teams together. I wanted to bundle because I wanted this discussion to allow editors to comment on this category of articles broadly, rather than to get too stuck on the specifics of one club; and yes, I was looking to save effort - I don't see a problem in that. I didn't read the closure of the Wimbledon deletion debate to see it as a rejection on bundling full-stop - I saw it as a legitimate response to a debate which clearly brought too many clubs together. For this deletion discussion, I chose 2 teams who both spent periods of time in the Conference in the early 2000s, before being promoted to the football league. This is because at the Wimbledon debate, there was a clear question over whether to treat clubs which have spent a period of time in the Football League differently to those which have never been promoted beyond the conference (contrast Gateshead and these two teams). I carefully looked at the seasons and saw no claims to notability in any of them; as noted, I very specifically didn't chose the seasons in which these teams were promoted, as I recognize that these seasons are potentially notable and will need a more thorough discussion. Super Nintendo Chalmers (talk) 09:07, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete First, one of my pet peeves is the word "clearly" Nothing is clear, including this discussion. But given all of the above (and I've read all of it), and despite the fact that I am not intimately familiar with the subject-specific notability guidelines for sports seasons (I've always found the subject-specific guidelines to be somewhat contrived and a convenient way of skirting WP:GNG), I am not seeing sufficient argument or evidence that this particular season warrants a standalone article. (And as a quick aside to the warring parties: we go have an essay called Wikipedia:Don't remind others of past misdeeds which comes to my mind. @Nfitz:, @Number 57:. Just sayin', boys.) KDS4444 (talk) 05:58, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The seventh tier is not a fully professional league, meaning for example no players from the club would pass WP:NFOOTY (unless they previously playes in a different club at a much higher level). I do not see any evidence that the articles pass WP:GNG. Thus, I do not see why they should be kept. All needed info can be merged into the articles about the club and about the division.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:47, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- @Ymblanter:, the articles in question relate to teams playing at the fifth tier, not seventh........ -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:01, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  Indeed, you are right, thanks for correcting me. It does not change my argument though.--Ymblanter (talk) 08:16, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. needs more sources, but there is sufficient coverage from my searches on Google for there to be an article on this topic. (non-admin closure) jcc (tea and biscuits) 14:51, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Threat actor

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

Non-notable. Ethanlu121 (talk) 20:35, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Don't think WP:NOTDICTIONARY applies here. Subject is covered extensively in reliable sources. Meatsgains (talk) 22:09, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Needs more content, but more than just a definition. Margalob (talk) 15:42, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:12, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:12, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:12, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The article needs expansions and improvements not deletion. WP:NOTDICTIONARY does not apply in my opinion.BabbaQ (talk) 16:37, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- Used frequently in both anti-terrorism and cyber security areas; many instances in Google books. Can be expanded, but I don't think it's worth deleting. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:20, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Three long sentences is a stub. It is more than a DICDEF. Bearian (talk) 14:53, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to St. James-Assiniboia School Division. MelanieN (talk) 02:01, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

École Golden Gate Middle School

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

School that should be merged/redirect to the relevant school district, per WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES and the notice on the article since 2008. Joseph2302 19:57, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Joseph2302 19:58, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Joseph2302 19:58, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Joseph2302 19:58, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If you're proposing a merge, Joseph2302, that doesn't require an AfD discussion. See Wikipedia:Merging. Cordless Larry (talk) 08:10, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

But a delete and redirect does, and that's a viable option. Joseph2302 09:15, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Joseph2302: Does it? Can't you just convert the entire article into a redirect with the text #REDIRECT[[relevant school district's name]]? If the original author or some other editor then undid this edit you would have a case for a WP:RfC, but not for a full deletion discussion. Unless I am missing something, which I sometimes am. That aside, I do not think the article on this school makes a convincing case for bona fide notability, and would support either a Delete OR a Merge outcome. KDS4444 (talk) 10:44, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well I'm not entirely sure what school district it is in, so don't know where the correct redirect is. Joseph2302 17:02, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Joseph2302: The second sentence of the article indicates that it is the St. James-Assiniboia School Division. Graham (talk) 18:13, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect - the normal procedure is to blank and redirect. This can be done by any established editor and there is no need to overload our backlogged AfD system with it.Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 12:39, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to St. James-Assiniboia School Division. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:11, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Miss Alaska. czar 02:35, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Blair Chenoweth

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

compared to some of these state Miss USA winners I have seen, Chenoweth actually has a lot of sources, and more information. However nothing really suggests notability. We learned she danced with the Radio City Rockets, and with a dance troupe in Las Vegas. She is now a dance instructor in Alaska. None of this is performance at a level to make someone a notable entertainer, and thus none of it will make her notable. John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:12, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:55, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:55, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:55, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Alaska-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:55, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Miss Alaska; valid search term, and the subject is listed there. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:50, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 18:57, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Redirect as above. No sources found.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 20:09, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:BIO1E and a minor one at that; not independently notable. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:30, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Jujutacular (talk) 00:56, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Steve Neuhaus

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

Fails WP:NPOL. He is a county level politician and has only received local coverage of his election typical of every such politician. Nothing else to establish notability. I do not consider the fact that he is the youngest person to hold his office in his county significant. MB 03:40, 23 July 2016 (UTC) MB 03:40, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:40, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:40, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete does not meet the notability requirements for politicians.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:54, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. County government is not a level of office that confers an automatic WP:NPOL pass just because the officeholder exists, the sourcing here is not strong or non-local enough to lift him above the norm — and since every political body in existence will always have its own youngest-ever member (as well as the lingering possibility of that member being outyouthed again in the future), that does not count as a valid claim of special notability for a politician who doesn't otherwise pass NPOL or GNG. Bearcat (talk) 21:41, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Pinging participants of the previous AfD for further input: Enos733, Bearian, Carrite
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Deryck C. 13:17, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Notability is not temporary — this has already been run through AfD with a Keep result. In essence, the New York system of county government is based upon elected unitary executives. This individual is essentially the elected equivalent of a mayor of a city of 375,000 people. Carrite (talk) 16:20, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - County government does not confer an automatic WP:NPOL pass. While I cannot find a non-local source (NY Times, etc.), in this case, there are a significant number of independent sources that feature him, his life, his political beliefs (as opposed to a quote, or one [or two] campaign-related stories). Enos733 (talk) 21:15, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per my statement in the first AfD. He's a major political leader of a large suburban/exurban county in the New York City metropolitan area. Bearian (talk) 01:15, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Every county-level officeholder who exists at all can always claim to be a major political leader in their own local area. It's not a statement that gets a person into Wikipedia because claimed — a person gets into Wikipedia for it only when they can be properly sourced as being significantly more notable than the thousands of other people around the United States who hold comparable positions. But nothing here shows or sources that at all; the amount of sourcing shown here isn't even slightly greater than the amount of sourceability that every county-level politician always gets in the local media. Bearcat (talk) 14:25, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 18:57, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Meets WP:BASIC, including recent Times Herald-Record articles about him making too much money. The Steve 06:47, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Casey Dienel. There's not strictly a consensus to merge, but I'm going with that partly because it seems like a reasonable middle ground, partly because of WP:ATD, and partly because the sole person arguing to keep has stated they are OK with the merge. -- RoySmith (talk) 23:20, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wind-Up Canary

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

Fails NALBUMS across the board. Not a notable album. Also, reviews linked in the infobox are unavailable and/or linked to self-published websites (but not by the artist herself).

These do not meet the criteria for reliable sources and independent coverage. Also this was an article changed to a redirect in 2014 [2]. It was then changed back to an article in July 2016 [3].Steve Quinn (talk) 05:13, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:54, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:54, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Reviews linked in the infobox are not unavailable, as a cursory Google search indicates; the Popmatters article was moved to [4], and the Pitchfork article to [5]. Neither of these is selfpublished, nor is AMG. There is thus significant coverage of the album, and even if there weren't, this would be the wrong venue for dealing with the problem, as a better solution would be merging content with a discography page. Chubbles (talk) 09:02, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability and no reliable sources. Deb (talk) 12:35, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The three sources already identified, plus e.g. NPR covering the album, constitute multiple third-party coverage of the sort that would ordinarily hurdle WP:NALBUMS. Pitchfork, PopMatters, Allmusic, and NPR...that's a fairly solid roster of media attention. Chubbles (talk) 17:10, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- There is only one source named in the article. If you think it can be fixed, please go ahead and fix it. Deb (talk) 18:59, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - I believe, very strongly, that WP:NOTCLEANUP is a good guideline, and I welcome editors who think exhaustive sourcing of articles is a valuable use of their time to go ahead and fix it. The current state of the article is not a rationale for deletion. Chubbles (talk) 07:51, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    - Fine - I'll just redirect it until someone is prepared to spend time creating a referenced article. Deb (talk) 14:34, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      - The article is not unreferenced - it has four references already, with a couple of broken links; these are easy to fix. Unilateral redirection, which is like a "pocket deletion", is not justified, especially not when AfD is ongoing. Chubbles (talk) 17:00, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        Reviews in themselves are not evidence of notability. Deb (talk) 10:19, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Sam Sailor ^Talk! 10:59, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Independent reviews are exactly what WP:NALBUMS has in mind in its first bullet point. Chubbles (talk) 17:46, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 18:54, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to Casey Dienel. Honestly people, if your favourite not-very famous singer with 7 whole paragraphs of bio puts out an album, just put all the info there. And all you procedure-mad wikipedians who love sending things to AFD - redirects are so easy, everyone can do them. Song -> Album -> Singer. No stupid template, no two weeks of trolling for comments, just redirect. The Steve 07:15, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

While I maintain that the album is itself independently notable, I am not, in principle, opposed, here or in general, to seeing albums merged into discography pages. But this too often ends up as just lazily redirecting the article without moving any content. If the article is merged, not merely redirected, this is reasonable. Nevertheless, AfD is not and was never the proper venue for deciding that. Chubbles (talk) 14:55, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Thesteve: I am still chuckling thanks to your comment. I agree with your take - a merge or redirect and merge would have saved time and would be one less AfD. Thanks. ----Steve Quinn (talk) 03:24, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Chubbles: I see that you said merging to a discography (article) would have worked best, yet it was you who resurrected this article from a redirect. Wasn't it possible for you to merge this into a discography or the artist's biography article in the first place? ---Steve Quinn (talk) 03:32, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Also, before I AfD any article I always do due diligence and do google searches, news searches, and newspaper searches. I really was not satisfied with the coverage I discovered - but a merge would be acceptable to me. Also, it is not necessary to make discovered sources more significant than they really are. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 03:37, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Whether things have separate articles or not is very, very, very important to some Wikipedians, and seems to dominate a lot of decision-making on the site, to the exclusion of other alternatives at times. In this case, I was concerned primarily about the removal of encyclopedic content. If it is deleted, or redirected (and thus hidden from view) without merge, valuable and worthwhile content is then hidden from users. I don't care if the content is on the White Hinterland page or in a stand-alone article...but ultimately, I'm not trying to convince you that what matters is placating me in some compromise; I'm trying to convince you that the removal of content is not in the best interest of the users, because the information about the album is encyclopedic. I'm happy for the article to stand alone, and I don't think there is sufficient reason that it shouldn't...but if it were presented as part of a larger discography page instead, that's six of one, half-a-dozen of the other. I just wish everyone else saw it that way. Chubbles (talk) 14:54, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. MBisanz ^talk 00:56, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Giona Terzo Ortenzi

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

Sporter still active on junior level. No indication of wide spread name or fame. The Banner talk 18:33, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Here are the notability guidelines: WP:NSKATE. Hergilei (talk) 19:01, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:33, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:33, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable ice dancer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:21, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- He is notable according to Wiki's guidelines. He qualified for the free skate at the World Junior Championships (and finished in the top ten).Hergilei (talk) 05:08, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - Who did decide about "NSKATE", the world wide community or a local, limited wikiproject? The Banner talk 17:58, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    - Those guidelines were included in Wikipedia:Notability (sports), so they must have received the approval of the wider community. Hergilei (talk) 18:22, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Yes, from what I can tell, the subject did compete in the free skate at the World Junior Figure Skating Championships and therefore meets WP:NSKATE. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:46, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 04:03, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 18:50, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. czar 02:53, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ben Padnos

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

Fails WP:N. Last AfD resulted in a delete ( see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Ben_Padnos ) and the page was recreated by User:Benpadnos, the subject himself. CerealKillerYum (talk) 02:13, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This businessman is still not notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:05, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:26, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:26, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:26, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 18:50, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- in view of prior AfD and dodgy editing. Moreover, there's no indication of notability and sources are insufficient. K.e.coffman (talk) 19:18, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. czar 02:55, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Arvind A. Raichur

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails WP:N. Page was created by SPA. CerealKillerYum (talk) 02:09, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Raichur is a non-notable lawyer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:04, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:39, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:39, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 18:50, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- all coverage is either press releases / primary sources; moreover they are about subject's ventures (Attorneylocate.com and others). No indication of independent notability. K.e.coffman (talk) 19:15, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:ANYBIO.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 15:04, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 08:29, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mary T. McDowell

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

Examining this and my searches have simply found trivial mentions and nothing actually suggestive of her own substance for independent notability. SwisterTwister talk 00:10, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 00:10, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:06, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:06, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notable business executive in charge of important divisions at global firms. In-depth references such as this one, awards. Easily meets WP:GNG.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 00:35, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: The linked article is titled "Nokia Development Chief Weighs In On Start-Ups, Global Markets" -- this is about the subject's opinions, and is a trivial mention. K.e.coffman (talk) 18:39, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:08, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- a micro-stub of an article with a case of WP:Overcite: "American telecommunications executive. At Nokia, she oversaw new product development,[6][1][7][8] and was in charge of its mobile phones,[9][10][11] as well as strategy.[12][13]" Possibly redirect to Nokia? Otherwise, a non-remarkable business executive with not enough notability to sustain an encyclopedia article. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:43, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nonsense. The subject clearly meets the general notability guideline which says If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article and clearly McDowell meets this with 15+ sources including in-depth treatment from the Wall Street Journal. Too many citations is a reason to delete an article? Nonsense -- WP:Overcite is only an essay, not an official guideline.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 13:25, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The topic of "Mary T. McDowell" has not received significant coverage in reliable sources. Yes, she is mentioned in the press, especially as it relates to her role at Nokia or new corporate initiatives, for which she's clearly a spokesperson, but this does not tell us much about the subject herself. Just getting press mentions because of her role does not necessitate creating an encyclopedia article. K.e.coffman (talk) 19:18, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ I'm afraid, per Tomwsulcer. (Yes, the one arguing Keep, strangely enough.) If that Wall Street Journal article is the most indepth source we have on her, we don't have any indepth sources. That Wall Street Journal article is not in depth coverage, it's a few paragraphs on what she said in one speech, it's not really about her as such, it's about what she said once. If there are actual indepth sources that cover her life, her career, something like that, I'd be glad to change my opinion. --GRuban (talk) 18:32, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There are more sources: in-depth here, in-depth here, in-depth here, being the focus of a short article here, ~~getting serious attention in a book here,~~ getting several paragraphs worth of attention in the Financial Times, being the main subject of this article -- many more sources. At current count, there are over 20 references, GRuban. Subject clearly meets the WP:GNG.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 19:44, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The new sources are either interviews or about the products the company launched. The "book" appears to be self-published. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:09, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You're right about the book -- Ari Hakkarainen was a Nokia employee (so I struck out that line above). Still, your reasoning is unclear -- that since the articles are "either interviews or about the products the company launched" that somehow this makes the sources invalid? What would a source have to say to satisfy you -- something about Mary McDowell's personal life, where she attended school, her opinions about politics, her views on global warming? That's absurd -- she is a business executive -- she markets phones -- that's what she does -- that is what the media reports -- that is what is interesting. Her name is prominently in the headline of many articles in reliable publications, her photo too, of course the articles are not about HER personally but about WHAT SHE DOES and what she does is indeed notable. The general notability guideline says If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article.... She meets the guideline easily. To me, this is one more instance of a pervasive anti-business agenda bias here in Wikipedia; one can see it at work here if one checks this list of infoboxes of persons -- there are infoboxes for NASCAR drivers and poker players and comics book creators but none for businesspeople.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 11:19, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Those sources are better, but still not great; only the CNet one is more than a few short paragraphs, and I can't see the Financial Times one. I'll strike my Delete opinion, but I'm not changing to a Keep yet. Honestly, I tried looking through the sources in the article but they are very very skimpy. The ones I looked at mentioned her in a list of five others, or in a passing sentence or three. --GRuban (talk) 13:47, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 18:50, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -- even CNet is not convincing. For example, the article states: "McDowell, who will report to Chief Technology Officer Shane Robison, is part of the company's office of strategy and technology, which manages acquisitions, divestitures and minority investments." (red link mine) -- if the CTO is not notable, perhaps all the people reporting to him are not notable yet either? I don't think this is anti-business agenda; it's more of a pro-WP:N one. :-) K.e.coffman (talk) 03:34, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Not all of the references are substantial and not all are Reliable Sources, but I found the Cnet and Register articles by themselves to be enough to meet the requirement of significant coverage from multiple independent reliable sources. Even the minor stories suggest that this is someone who is high profile in the industry. --MelanieN (talk) 02:18, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep agree with MelanieN (talk) here - there's articles that make her the subject, and they're from reliable sources. Bolstered by the multiple mentions in many other articles, I feel the subject meets general notability requirements. CrispyGlover (talk) 03:15, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Per MelanieN and Tomwsulcer. While my initial impression was "puff piece," there is coverage of her criticisms of her industry and other things that take this beyoned the usual corporate blah-blah-bio. Though not all references support WP:N, there are enough independent sources to meet the standard of "significant" coverage... GNG met. Montanabw^(talk) 15:59, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. czar 02:56, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Malik M.Ali Awan

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

Promotional bio of non-notable political figure. Not a single one of the references are usable. DGG ( talk ) 00:18, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:05, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:05, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington, D.C.-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:05, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I am not sure on his notability, but it appears that his grandfathers and probably his father are notable, yet if we have articles on them they are not in the form of names used in this article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:48, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and start articles later if needed for the notable politicians, this man himself is certainly not notable however. SwisterTwister talk 03:54, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:08, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 18:50, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- appears to be a minor consultant with an entirely promotional Wikipedia article, possibly created by a SPA / COI editor. Searching for sources does not turn up anything. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:52, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NPOL and WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 03:59, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) — Sam Sailor 00:01, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

John Wesley's House & Methodist Museum

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

Not much out there detailing the museum and confirming notability. Meatsgains (talk) 18:48, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Leaning keep - This building is a Grade 1 listed building (confirmation), and per WP:MAPOUTCOMES, buildings of such historical interest are usually considered notable. There is the question of whether Wesley's London house deserves an article of its own, or whether it should be merged into the article about Wesley's Chapel next door. Both are Grade 1 listed in their own right. Altamel (talk) 19:15, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:OUTCOMES. We usually keep "listed" buildings, especially ones that are open to the public and have real historical value, as this obviously does.John Wesley co-founded ~~ISIS~~ Methodism. Bearian (talk) 14:56, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge (changed from "Keep") ~~Museums are notable. John Wesley is notable. Registered historic sites are notable.~~ Thanks, editor Qwfp, for finding other longstanding article, to which this obviously should be merged. It did not make sense that the topic was not already covered. This still should not have been AFD'd. Merging does not require AFD. The new article topic was obviously very important IMO. -do ncr am 02:28, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 16:00, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 16:00, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Museums and libraries-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 16:00, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 16:00, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, meets WP:GEOFEAT as a grade 1 listed building as highlighted by Altamel above. Coolabahapple (talk) 16:17, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Why on earth are we AfDing an article that looks like this that was created less than a week ago? Where the talk page is still a red link? Also, per all the above. Jclemens (talk) 17:33, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Wesley's Chapel, as that already briefly covers John Wesley's House and Museum of Methodism, which both currently redirect there. The House is next door to the Chapel and was built at the same time, and the Museum is in the crypt of the Chapel, so it seems unnatural division to have one article on the Chapel and one on the House+Museum. Qwfp (talk) 18:52, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Naturally a Grade I listed building is (separately) notable. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:44, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Grade I listed buildings are generally notable enough to sustain articles. This is no exception. Mjroots (talk) 18:31, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Neighborhoods of West Lafayette, Indiana. MBisanz ^talk 00:57, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Barbarry Heights

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

Unsourced article about a neighborhood in West Lafayette, Indiana; I do not think that this fits Wikipedia's guidelines becuase it is not notable. Evking22 (talk) 02:40, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Indiana-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:46, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, WP:GEOLAND states that neighbourhoods like this are "considered on a case-by-case basis in accordance with the GNG," and in this case, it simply isn't notable. Suggest we merge to West Lafayette, Indiana. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:32, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, warning humor alert - "But hang on, didn't i see {insert name of famous person} drive through there once? .. maybe, but WP:NOTINHERITED .. oh, that's right", not in itself notable so Merge to West Lafayette, Indiana. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:13, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:07, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Neighborhoods of West Lafayette, Indiana. For what it's worth, the neighborhood is spelled Bar Barry Heights by the government, and the article seems to be sourced from here. "Pepper" @ 04:01, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 18:48, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Casey Dienel. czar 02:57, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Phylactery Factory

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

Appears to fail NALBUMS across the board. Reviews linked in infobox area are not available and/or linked to self published websites that do not meet the criteria for reliable sources and independent coverage. Steve Quinn (talk) 05:30, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:51, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:51, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:04, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 18:44, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

REDIRECT to Casey Dienel. The Steve 07:33, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment as the nominator I agree with redirect (that would have been so much simpler). ---Steve Quinn (talk) 03:42, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Sandstein 20:12, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Katherine C. Hughes

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

PR-like and IMDb-PR-agent like article as my PROD was removed without actually taking care of the concerns, albeit at least adding a few sources; still, nothing is actually comparably better once looking at the IMDb list and seeing none of this is actually convincing of her own notability at all. SwisterTwister talk 06:45, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 15:08, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:01, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is WP:TOOSOON. Fails GNG and WP:ENT. The most substantial role is a supporting role and all others are guest apprearances. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 11:53, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 18:44, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (a weak one) Usually 120 pageviews a day correlates with notability. She is getting lots of acting work, and a mention in the Hollywood Reporter and lots of Getty photos but nothing much in-depth yet, but the volume of her work suggests she's here to stay. So a weak keep.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 22:03, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Even as an entertainer, she would not be notable, as actually significant works would be needed, not simply guest star characters and other trivial works, and it seems to be the case here of not having enough substantial work, thus the article still would not be convincing. SwisterTwister talk 22:24, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Reported views is absolutely not a measure for notability... The question is whether sourcing exists, not whether clicks exist. czar 02:58, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep She has named roles in multiple shows and a starring role in the film based on a popular Young Adult novel. Passes NACTOR. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 18:59, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Umm, NACTOR requires "significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows". Named role doesn't mean significant. Also that role in Me and Earl and the Dying Girl (film) is definitely not a starring role. It's a supporting character at best. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 01:12, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: As per WP:NACD, I've overturned this non-admin close in my capacity as an uninvolved administrator. This comment by the closer explicitly states that he closed based on (a) quantity of votes and (b) the existence of a VIAF file. As per WP:CONSENSUS, this is a discussion rather than a vote. The VIAF file was never brought up by any participant of this discussion, so basing a close on that certainly trends toward a supervote. I've overturned the closure based on both of these issue, and any uninvolved editor may reclose according to the relevant policies and guidelines. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 07:01, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
keep young actress getting roles, including several in films taht will be released later in 2016 and in 2017.E.M.Gregory (talk) 23:38, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 00:57, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Silicon Park Africa

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

WP:CRYSTAL, "with construction scheduled to kick-off in 2016."
WP:PROMO, "Ryan Beech - CEO Silicon Park Africa", author is User:Ryanbersa
No WP:RS for (;;) (talk) 10:28, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. for (;;) (talk) 10:29, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. for (;;) (talk) 10:29, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. WP:NOTCRYSTAL and no sources to verify any content. Ajf773 (talk) 10:55, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:59, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:01, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 18:43, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- No indication of notability and I cannot find any sources. K.e.coffman (talk) 21:24, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. This is a WP:Soft delete; the article may be restored or usefied by any admin upon request. MelanieN (talk) 02:27, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Musean hypernumber

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

The same reason I had to propose the article for deletion. Multiple concerns:

The content in itself seems not notable at all; in fact the sources point to either Charles Musès (who wasnt a mathematician, but, as wiki itself says, "an esoteric philosopher") or to Jens Köplinger, who seems the author of this article itself, as he says in the talk at special:diff/99213211: "In order to support notability, you were asking whether these numbers were "widely studied"? I wish they were. To me they are a widely referred-to concept that is in deep need of study. Other than Charles Musès and Kevin Carmody, I only know about myself [6] having formally published in a mathematical context. Informally but mathematical, there are references in monographs by Robert de Marrais (e.g. [7] and others) or self-maintained web pages (e.g. Tony Smith's [8]). But, most other references are outside the field of mathematics, in attempts to link consciousness with mathematical concepts, and in spiritual and religious ideas (an internet search shows all kinds of mentions, some serious; I don't want to go there).".
References to mathematics and physics terminology is all wrong and nonsensical, how is that an algebra? How such construct relates to quantum consciousness, as Musean hypernumber#Visions_of_applicability implies? It seems non-rigourous patent nonsense.
Even if this were notable, its lack of mathematical rigor and standard terminology, as well as its original creator being an "esoteric philosopher", would make the perspective from which this article is told completely wrong. If this isnt real mathematics, but rather "the view of mathematics said philosopher had" the article must state it and not trying to sell such concept as if it had the same mathematical status of real analysis. Nickanc (talk) 12:25, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The article is poorly-written and the subject is of uncertain notability. But it's certainly not WP:NONSENSE in the Wikipedia sense: Musès rediscovered or repackaged the Cayley–Dickson construction and split-complex numbers at the very least, and probably most of his 'levels' are isomorphic to some simple or well-known mathematical objects. Further, it could be the case that the concept is not notable within mathematics but notable in, say, philosophy of mind or Western esotericism. In any case I'm unwilling to count as a strike against the article Musès' use of terminology which differs from modern mathematical terminology: pick one or the other, define appropriately, and move on. CRGreathouse (t | c) 04:24, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:01, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:59, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Most of this isn't exactly nonsense, but it's possible to invent any number of useless mathematical structures like this. If Charles Musès is actually notable, some of this article could be very selectively merged there to help describe his esoteric views. But it's not clear to me that he is. As mathematics in its own right, the topic here is not notable. --Sammy1339 (talk) 00:53, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 18:40, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - agree with above comment: as mathematics, it does not seem to be notable, from what I can tell. WP is not a soap-box; to become notable, it must happen outside of WP, with students and followers further articulating the theory. So this seems to lie at the edge, perhaps past the edge, of what is acceptable in WP: we are not here to document the thoughts of creative, inventive thinkers -- you can find many marvelous ideas and insights and observations and inventions on the web -- and 99.99% of them do NOT have a corresponding WP article. Heck, there's maybe only one WP article for every 10K published scientific papers, or something like that. My gut reaction is that the original author should take this article, turn it into a PDF, and publish it on ArXiv, or send it into some mathematical or philosophical monthly to attract a bigger audience. I guess my comment here leans towards delete, but I'm a bit too ... err ... nice and tolerant to quite say that. (Oh, BTW, based on the talk page, it appears that this content has been on WP for almost a decade!! Why the sudden urge to delete? Live and let live?) 67.198.37.16 (talk) 20:50, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. This is a WP:Soft delete; the article may be restored or userfied by any admin upon request. MelanieN (talk) 02:29, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hikari Kiyama

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

Insufficient significant coverage in RS. —swpb^T 12:47, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and Comment: swpb, you need to list this at the appropriate AfD category. I will alert the appropriate WikiProjects to come over here and take a look. Adding a Keep !vote as it appears that editors are beginning to add sources. Montanabw^(talk) 22:52, 28 July 2016 (UTC) (update Montanabw^(talk) 20:43, 29 July 2016 (UTC))[reply]
- What editors are "adding sources"? Not a single source has been added to the article since my nomination. Where are you getting this idea? I would advise the closing admin to ignore your vote, as it is apparently based on a complete falsehood. And, for future reference, no, I am not obligated to add the AfD to categories. It's a nice thing to do, and one I usually try to do, but it is very explicitly not required—and when it's not done by the nominator, it's very quickly done by someone else, as it was here. So, once again, if you're going to criticize based on policy, it would be wise for you to read that policy first. —swpb^T 12:47, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please get a grip and AGF. It looked like Michael Bednarek had done a bunch of cleanup, I thought there had been sources added too, it looked like someone was working on it and that was enough to put me to the keep side, at least momentarily. That said, I still am going to wait to see what music and Japanese culture editors have to say before determining if I need to change my !vote. Bottom line is that the servers aren't at capacity and there is no deadline, I'm willing to take a wait and see approach. Montanabw ^(talk) 21:38, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

AGF is for the first time, even the first few times, an editor does something shady. You're way past that point with me. And even if you were commenting in good faith, should we ignore the fact that you were plain wrong? The entire basis for your vote is a falsehood, whether you knew it at the time or not; what admin would give any weight to such a vote? —swpb^T 15:08, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Again with the personal attacks. Knock it off. Montanabw ^(talk) 21:47, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Follow up: I just spent about an hour or so drilling down on the deadlinks, and found archived links for most of them. Unfortunately, many are in Dutch or German, so it's going to take someone other than me to do the review of these materials, but I do believe that the multiple citations in third-party sources independent of the subject has been met. Just once, it would be nice if people would make a good-faith effort to salvage these older articles before putting an AfD on them. Montanabw ^(talk) 22:34, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:08, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:08, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:58, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 18:40, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - an effort has been made to save this BLP, and it is still a mess. Sorry, but I don't see how this reaches WP:HEY or WP:BARE, much less WP:GNG by a long shot. Bearian (talk) 15:00, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 00:57, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Apurva Chamaria

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

NonNotable Indian Businessman. Vice Presidents are never notable

Reads like a Linkedin profile. WP:Promotional Uncletomwood (talk) 12:49, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor ^Talk! 13:25, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor ^Talk! 13:25, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete He is a non-notable businessman. There are possibly some cases where a vice president in a business is notable, but this is not such a case.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:25, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:58, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 18:39, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:GNG, WP:MILL, WP:NOTRESUME, and WP:UPANDCOMING. The subject lacks significant coverage in multiple sources, which is required of all BLPs. All business VPs post on LinkedIn and try to get published in an economist-type magazine, especially marketing mavens like the subject. We are not a place to post this person's resume, which is more of what this is than a real article. He's up-and-coming like lots of people in business; when he actually makes it big, we can re-create an article for him. Bearian (talk) 14:51, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- a non notable corporate executive. No indications of notability except for being associated with a corporation. The searches do not bring up anything substantial. K.e.coffman (talk) 17:33, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 00:57, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sushma Berlia

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

NonNotable Indian Businesslady. Uncletomwood (talk) 12:50, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:08, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:09, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as another classic example of there being nothing convincing. SwisterTwister talk 01:40, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:57, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Some excellent articles covering her at the bottom of the page, with coverage I would definitely call significant and not trivial. The tagged issues at the top are pretty easy to clean up, especially since the page is currently such a short stub. Yvarta (talk) 12:28, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - went in cleaned up some. Yvarta (talk) 22:24, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep.~~ Delete Apparently not the actual head of the university. ~~Notable as chancellor of Apeejay Stya University~~. But the article was so promotional that it needs complete rewriting. Yvarta's cleanup helped, and I'm working on it. DGG ( talk ) 23:10, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 18:39, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 (talk) 01:49, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment DGG, I'm a bit curious as to why we are using WP:PROF here. I went and looked up about the subject and it is clear that the subject is not an academic: they have not published any papers, they have not done any teaching. The university is a private university and the subject is the owner of the conglomerate which built the university. I'm hesitant to use WP:PROF here. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 01:55, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

WP:PROF criterion 6, "The person has held a highest-level elected or appointed academic post at a major academic institution or major academic society." There are two questions: First, is the university major enough, and I can understand thinking it is not, tho in practice we've extended this criterion down to some quite minor colleges. Second, is the position the actual head of a university. In many UK and UK related institutions it's the vice-chancellor who's the head.; in some US universities that are part of statewide systems the Chancellor is the head. In this particular case, checking their website, the co-founders of the university hold the positions of chancellor and pro-chancellor; there is a vice-chancellor. Dr. S.K. Salwan. I see no organizational chart or equivalent, but reading the CV's, I think he's clearly the head (and should have an article).I changed my !vote accordingly. Lemongirl942, I give you my appreciation for asking me to have another lookso I could correct my error. . DGG ( talk ) 15:37, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you DGG. And yes, I agree that Dr. S.K. Salwan should have an article as he seems to be noted for his work in the Indian government [9] and he was formerly the Vice Chancellor of another state university Punjab Technical University [10]. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 14:36, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No indication of notability. Xxanthippe (talk) 03:24, 16 August 2016 (UTC).[reply]
Delete WP:PROF doesn't apply as the subject is not the actual head of the university. The sources about the subject which I found are mentions in context of news about the university or the conglomerate. Not independently notable, hence delete. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 14:37, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. WP:NPASR per low participation herein. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:42, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Rodney Bruce Hall

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

Unable to identify any RS with this individual as the subject. PROD removed w/o relevant comment. —swpb^T 12:50, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:09, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:09, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:09, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. A GS h-index of 12 with some high individual cites just passes WP:Prof for this field. Nominator is invited to discuss what he thinks of the subject's citation record. Xxanthippe (talk) 04:15, 31 July 2016 (UTC).[reply]
Comment, a gsearch has brought up these book reviews (sorry, only reveals extracts, not the full reviews), of National Collective Identity: Social Constructs and International Systems - Constructivism All the Way Down (Review Essay) in International Politics (pp369-378) - "These three volumes constitute a good part of the theoretical terrain in the con- structivist study of world politics today. .. Rodney Bruce Hall shows how 600 years of Western history can be re-read from that perspective."[11], On Rules, Politics and Knowledge: Friedrich Kratochwil, International Relations and Domestic Affairs in Millennium: Journal of International Studies (pp397-399) - "On Rules, Politics and Knowledge is a 'Festschrift' honouring Friedrich Kratochwil. .. Despite the diversity of style and content, a running thread can be excavated from the volume: the concept of practive."[12], and a review of The Emergence of Private Authority in Global Governance appears in International Relations of the Asia-Pacific (pp197-199)[13], sorry but extract didn't work:((, so close to meeting WP:NAUTHOR. and libraries seem to like him with his titles being held by from around 100[14], 200 to 300[15][16] to over 1000[17]. Coolabahapple (talk) 05:28, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:57, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 18:39, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. (WP:NPASR). North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:41, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Vinay Maloo

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

NonNotable Indian Businessman. Reads like a Linkedin profile. WP:Promotional Uncletomwood (talk) 12:55, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

He is heading a USD 7 Billion empire. I think he is noteworthy. Here is the article: http://forbesindia.com/article/boardroom/medtech-giants-philips-and-ge-fight-over-india/36099/2 Nuttyprofessor2016 (User talk: Nuttyprofessor2016]]) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nuttyprofessor2016 (talk • contribs) 17:02, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:43, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:43, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:57, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 18:39, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Sandstein 20:11, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Starstreet Precinct

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

Swire is a repeat and long-term offender for COI promotional editing on Wikipedia, particularly with regard to their property holdings around Hong Kong (i.e. Cityplaza) as well as their group companies (like Swire Hotels).

The concept of the "Starstreet Precinct" was invented by the Swire company because they have a lot of property holdings in the area and wanted to elevate the value of the then-new Three Pacific Place tower by rebranding a "slummy" part of town into a stylish area. However, I do not think the moniker has come into common parlance. For average people it is simply a part of Wan Chai. Furthermore the article was created by a single-purpose account with conflict of interest and originally had a highly promotional tone with professional photos that also appear on official Swire websites.

This article is an advertisement for a "place" invented by a corporation in order to boost profits. What little substantive content there is can be easily incorporated into the Wan Chai article. Citobun (talk) 13:59, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I don't feel either way for this article, but I am very interested in the claim that Swire might have been engaging in COI and possibly WP:paid editing, since a lot of Hong Kong (and mainland Chinese) articles look very suspicious. Mind sharing your findings? _dk (talk) 23:55, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have just noticed a lot of single-purpose accounts that serve ONLY to promote Swire ventures, including:

- - Hkcm (talk · contribs)
  - TKPHK (talk · contribs) - refers to Taikoo Place
  - Kitykm (talk · contribs)
  - Cityplaza2016 (talk · contribs) - refers to the Cityplaza shopping centre
  - Evang1234 (talk · contribs)
  - Mstongling (talk · contribs)
  - Charlie883 (talk · contribs)
  - Citygate (talk · contribs) - refers to Citygate in Tung Chung
  - Csomarketingintern (talk · contribs) - from job ads, I gather that "CSO" stands for "Central Support Office" at Swire Hotels, which handles marketing/social media
  - KerryShaomei (talk · contribs)
  - Lilianlalala (talk · contribs)
  - Ahtie1003 (talk · contribs)
  - Liuz24 (talk · contribs)
  - SwireHotelsBrand (talk · contribs)
  - April2760 (talk · contribs)
  - Joanne Wang (talk · contribs)
  - TeensHuang (talk · contribs)
  - Clayton G - Swire Properties, Inc (talk · contribs)
  - Archigigiwong (talk · contribs)

Not including IPs, or many accounts that focused only on Swire but were not blatantly promotional. Citobun (talk) 03:05, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, was there any action against Swire by Wikipedia other than the isolated talk messages and blocks? _dk (talk) 21:48, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not to my knowledge. Citobun (talk) 12:14, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:11, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:46, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:05, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 18:27, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep - A notable tourist attraction in Hong Kong.[18] STSC (talk) 17:53, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Can you demonstrate notability through in-depth coverage in a variety of reliable secondary sources? This is a really minimal listing and I would hazard a guess that companies can submit listings directly to the Hong Kong Tourism Board. Note to closing admin: I would take this drive-by "speedy keep" with a grain of salt. This user strongly dislikes me for reasons unrelated to this article. Citobun (talk) 14:03, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Wan Chai, not notable enough to have its own article.—CycloneIsaac (Talk) 23:45, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Selective Merge to Wan Chai. Not finding enough source coverage to qualify a standalone article. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:17, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
1. O'Flaherty, Mark C (2014-01-04). "Bling thing: Hong Kong – the city where the shopping never stops". The Independent. Archived from the original on 2016-08-21. Retrieved 2016-08-20.
  The article notes:
  
  One of the most appealing shopping districts in the world right now is the assortment of steep yards and alleyways off Star Street in Wan Chai. The whole area – which now goes by the compound name Starstreet – is hemmed in on each side by the noise and chaos of the big city, but 100 yards in, it becomes tranquil and relatively traffic free.
  When I visited, there was a block party in full swing. It was the annual Starstreet Gourmet and Wine Walk, where – for HK$375 (£30) a ticket – I could bar hop for wine tastings and a sample of each local restaurant’s signature dish, and pick up a goodie bag in each participating boutique. Just across the road from the Monocle store (its very existence pointing to the fact that this is A Cool Area), two girls in bikinis performed burlesque in a giant coupe de champagne, while around the corner, a jazz trio played on the pavement; good times were being had by all.
  There are heavyweight designer fashion stores around Starstreet, but they’re of the insider kind (including off-beat casual Japanese brand Visvim, which takes inspiration from sources as diverse as the Finnish Sami tribes and Fun Boy Three and has its own store called F.I.L.). There are also charming one-off shops such as Odd One Out, which sells affordable art in the form of prints, cards and “upcycled” ceramics. Then, around the corner, there’s the Architectz’ Factory, an artfully chaotic jumble of Japanese radios from the 1940s, ancient cash registers, beautiful stationery, tomato fruit wine, tote bags and tea sets.
  I was particularly enamoured with the nearby Polab Instant Camera Workshop, which sells vintage Polaroid products as well as new camera bags by local label Zkin. I very nearly missed Polab, as it’s midway up a set of steps that look like they’re leading to an apartment block. Starstreet is an area that you need to wander, rather than rush around.
2. 黃若茵. "星街新興藝行地帶". Headline Daily (in Chinese). Archived from the original on 2016-08-21. Retrieved 2016-08-21.
  The article notes:
  
  灣仔星街本是一個毫不起眼的舊區，但自太古廣場第三期落成後，招徠各具特色的家具店、藝廊、餐廳及酒吧等，令星街連同附近街道小巷一帶，搖身成為藝術文化及休閒Shopping新蒲點。今日將帶你走遍小區內四大特色店，感受一下鬧市中的藝術色彩。
  From Google Translate:
  Star Street, Wan Chai, this is a humble old district, but since the completion of the third phase of Pacific Place, attract distinctive furniture stores, art galleries, restaurants and bars, so that together with the nearby streets alleys Star Street area, shake body art and culture and become a new leisure Shopping Po point. Today will take you all over the district four specialty stores, downtown feel Artistic colors.
3. Cyrus (2015). 香港有意思小旅行: 巷弄風景 × 個性小店 × 工廈文化 × 港島美食（暢銷增訂版）. Taipei City, Taiwan: 創意市集. p. 65. Retrieved 2016-08-21.
  The book notes:
  
  星街、日街、月街,這幾條擁有美麗名字的街道,加上周邊的秀華坊、永豐街、進教圍和聖佛蘭士街,就組成了充滿文化質感的「星街小區」。
  個性服飾店、懷舊雜貨店、藝廊、還有少不了的隱世咖啡店,星街小區沒有中環蘇豪區的濃厚商業味,每一家小店都帶著店主的獨特個性和品味,在這裡散步,每每讓人期待那轉角的驚喜。
  From Google Translate:
  Star Street, Day Street, May Street, which has a beautiful name a few streets, plus the surrounding Sau Wa Fong, Yongfeng Street, into teaching and around St. Francis Street, on the composition of the full cultural texture of the "Star Street district."
  Personalized clothing stores, grocery nostalgic, art galleries, and ultimately, the hidden world cafe, Star Street district no strong commercial flavor in Central Soho, every owner of a small store all with unique personality and taste, walking here , often surprises people expect that corner.
4. 張撲 (2013). 香港的前後時光. Hong Kong: 香港中和出版有限公司. p. 94. ISBN 9888200232. Retrieved 2016-08-21.
  The book notes:
  
  到了灣仔,這家星街的 MONOCLE 和倫敦的那家一樣,透露著謹慎的退讓感,不喧賓奪主,顧自內斂著。
  我獨自尋思,緣何 MONOCLE 要把香港的店開在灣仔的星街—大約是因為星街在這幾年成為一個匯聚設計類店舖、有格調的設計師的新興地區,也因為在此的 agnès b.藝術畫廊長期展示藝術創作,帶動整條街開設歐洲風味的咖啡館、小型設計時裝店。星街的藝術設計氛圍日益濃厚,吸引很多香港文化人士、藝術人士到此開設工作室。同時,這條星街和日街的區域都非常小巧,不會成為一種勢眾的浮華地段。我覺得星街和我覺得星街和日街能保持著這種清麗就好,能在灣仔拆建前行的當下,自我修煉,把喧囂和浮躁都抵擋到山下的新灣仔區域,守著自我的一點堅持和美好很是難得。總有保留地給人心靈的撫慰和寧靜致遠的審美享受,亦是香港的可歸之處。有靈魂、有想法的人一直都在聚合，讓這座城市不斷變法，給人更多期許。
  From Google Translate:
  To Wan Chai, this Star Street and London's MONOCLE that homey, revealed a cautious sense of concessions, not overwhelming, with restrained Guzi.
  I wondered myself, Why should MONOCLE shop opened in Hong Kong Star Street Wan Chai - Star Street about because in the past few years has become a gathering design shop class, in style designers emerging regions, but also because this is agnès b Art galleries permanent display of art, led the whole street to open European-style cafes, small design boutiques. Star Street art design atmosphere of increasingly strong, attracting a lot of people in Hong Kong culture, art and opened this studio. At the same time, this Star Street and Day Street area is very small, it will not be flashy Lot A Modified Potential congregation. I think and I think Star Street Star Street and Day Street can be kept like this elegant, contemporary construction and demolition can move forward in Wan Chai, self-cultivation, the noisy and impetuous both resist to the foot of the new Wan Chai area, guarding themselves He insists that it is rare and beautiful. The total reserve gives spiritual comfort and quiet Zhiyuan aesthetic enjoyment, also in Hong Kong can be attributed to the Department. Has a soul, the idea of people have been in the polymerization, so that the city continues to reform, giving more expectations.
5. 曹民偉 (2014). 再見．香港. Hong Kong: Enrich Culture Group Limited. p. 30. ISBN 9881278503. OCLC 883644314. Retrieved 2016-08-21.
  The book notes:
  
  日月星街漫遊者的驚喜在香港小街漫步,要有著漫遊者(City Flâneur)的感覺,日月星街是不二之選。街名來自香港首座建於1890年的灣仔發電廠,當時夜晚整個維港總是烏燈黑火,唯有灣仔這幾條街燈火通明,故此引用《三字經》「三光者,日月星。」來命名附近街道。
  此三條小街仍有低層唐樓建築,不少藝廊與設計小店、精品服飾與咖啡店都愛在此「落腳」。每個街角轉彎處都有驚奇發現,令小區多了一份藝術氛圍,是文青喜愛遊蕩的街區,也遙遙跟鄰近的藝術中心與演藝學院相呼應。
  From Google Translate:
  Sun Moon Star street roamers surprise in Hong Kong street stroll, to have a Rover (City Flâneur) feeling, Sun Moon Star Street is the best choice. From Hong Kong's first street built in 1890, Wan Chai, power plants, when the entire harbor at night is always black lamp black fire, only a few blocks in Wan Chai this brightly lit, so references to "Three Character Classic", "Sanko persons, sun and stars." named after nearby streets.
  This street is still three low-rise tenement buildings, many art galleries and design shops, boutiques and cafes in love in this "settled." Each corner has a bend surprised to find, make a cell more artistic atmosphere, Wen Qing is like wandering the neighborhood, but also with the distant and near the center of the Academy of Arts echoes.
  From the Wikipedia article:
  The Starstreet Precinct (Chinese: 星街小區) is a neighborhood in Wan Chai, Hong Kong, centred on Three Pacific Place and comprising mainly Star Street (星街), Moon Street (月街), Sun Street (日街), and Wing Fung Street (永豐街).
  The book discusses how the Star Street, the Moon Street, and the Sun Street were named.
6. Cheung, Rachel (2016-08-05). "香港街名拾趣~灣仔月街、日街、星街從何而來？". South China Morning Post. Archived from the original on 2016-08-21. Retrieved 2016-08-20.
  The article notes:
  
  星街、日街與月街臨近灣仔太古廣場三期，並且為附近的豪宅名字提供了靈感，比如月豐閣（Moonful Court）、星域軒（Star Crest）和星輝苑（Starlight Court）。但你可能會問，為什麼以天空為主題？
  三條街道的名字取自中國經典讀物《三字經》（Three-Character Classic）中的一句。圖：Rachel Cheung
  ...
  我們回到星街、日街和月街的問題上。雖然公司在發電廠建設和運營上艱難前行，但還是決定為員工提供住宿，以此鼓舞士氣。街道臨近發電廠，員工宿舍就建於此。由於這裡是香港首個擁有電燈照明的地區，街道的名字取自中國經典讀物《三字經》中的一句：
  三才者，天地人。
  三光者，日月星。
  From Google Translate:
  Star Street, May Street and Pacific Mall three months Street, Wan Chai, and provided the inspiration for the name of the mansion nearby, such as monthly Fung Court (Moonful Court), Star Crest (Star Crest) and Star Court (Starlight Court). But you might ask, why the sky is the theme?
  Three streets named after Chinese classic books "Three Character Classic" (Three-Character Classic) in the sentence. Figure: Rachel Cheung
  ...
  We return to the Star Street, May Street, Day Street and problems. Although companies in the construction and operation of power plants difficult before the trip, but decided to provide accommodation for their employees, in order to boost morale. Streets near the power plant, staff quarters was built here. Because here is Hong Kong's first electric lighting in the area has a street named after Chinese classic books "Three Character Classic" in the sentence:
  Those three powers, the world of people.
  Sanko's, Sun Moon Star.
7. 劉步拉 (2013-09-11). "散步錦囊：灣仔日月星街小區型鋪林立". South China Morning Post. Archived from the original on 2016-08-21. Retrieved 2016-08-20.
  The article notes:
  
  灣仔日、月、星街小區「型」起來了，也招徠了很多想型的人去逛，做設計的朋友亦會久不久到此走一走，吸取區內外那堆歐美日經典品牌店的靈氣。
  型格小區原本只是幾幢唐樓，再早至大約1900年的時候，香港開埠以來第一座發電廠在該址興建，而那麼美的街名則取自古文中「三才天地人，三光日月星」，喻意電力帶來光明。目前小區除指三條街外，還泛指周邊的地方，而得以的翻身轉「型」，除旁邊太古廣場第三期帶動和資助推廣之外，也全賴Monocle、Kapok等特式小店所賜。
  From Google Translate:
  Wanchai day, month, Star Street district "type" up, but also attract a lot of people who want to visit this type, designed to do this friend will soon long walk, to learn inside and outside the area of the pile of Western and Japanese classic stores Aura.
  Stylish cell had just blocks of tenement buildings, then as early as about 1900, when Hong Kong history since the first power plant built on the site, and then the street name is taken from classical beauty in "Heaven, Earth, with God, Sanko day on Star ", symbolizing the power to bring light. In addition to the current cell refers to three blocks, but also refers to the surrounding areas, and to turn over turn "type", in addition to Pacific Place, next to the third period led to the promotion and funding, also attributed Monocle, Kapok and other specialties of the shop thanks.
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Starstreet Precinct to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 01:33, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and Redirect as the listed coverage above is still at best PR-like, nothing containing the actual depth, and by this I mean nothing that is hinting at PR; thus, it's not convincing by itself as an article. SwisterTwister talk 03:46, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The article from The Independent is not "PR-like"—it is a review. The Chinese-language books that discuss Starstreet are not PR either. They neutrally discuss the subject. Cunard (talk) 06:07, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Cunard has demonstrated that there's enough coverage per GEOLAND and its requirement for neighbourhoods. It appears to be a notable district in a major urban area. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:20, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The old street names, i. e. "Star Street", are being conflated here with the modern "Starstreet", which is an invention of the Swire development company. Citobun (talk) 17:02, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oh yes I see. Thanks. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:51, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete While Starsteet Precinct may yet evolve into a notable commercial development it isn't there yet. For now the coverage seems to be fairly minor Swire-related PR. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:10, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Sandstein 17:58, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Megumi Toda

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

After an examination of IMDB, seems to fail general notability guidelines, and specially fails to assert WP:BIO and WP:NACTOR. On the few films, on which she get a listing, she is not even on the main cast list. Probably a young actress. scope_creep 14:15, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:42, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:42, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable voice actress.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:57, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:46, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 18:27, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 15:25, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 15:25, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment She's on a main character list for some anime shows: New Game!, Sakura Trick, Etotama. Perhaps she has more news articles under her Japanese name? I found this news article from Animate Times [19] and some event [20] There's a bunch of news articles about New Game. Here's one from music.jp [21] AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 15:48, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - There are 21 potential references present over at ja:wiki [22], this combined with Angus's findings. I also want to add that IMDB should not be a deciding factor when looking for sources. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 16:21, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I just noticed too that Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Megumi Toda has more sources as well. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 16:38, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Content moved from AfD talk-page

The person Megumi Toda received coverage in multiple secondary sources. The list below shows some of the secondary sources.
In English
Anime News Network
https://www.animenewsnetwork.com/news/2015-02-11/cast-performs-etotama-anime-theme-songs/.84337 (Etotama cast)
http://www.animenewsnetwork.com/news/2016-06-27/new-game-tv-anime-promo-previews-opening-theme-reveals-july-4-premiere/.103670 (New Game! cast)
http://www.animenewsnetwork.com/news/2013-11-16/saki-fujita-momo-asakura-join-sakura-trick-anime-cast (Sakura Trick cast)
http://www.animenewsnetwork.com/news/2016-07-20/pop-in-q-anime-film-trailer-shows-fantasy-world-teases-dance-sequence/.104509 (Pop in Q cast)
She even has an encyclopedia article on Anime News Network
Crunchyroll
http://www.crunchyroll.com/anime-news/2016/05/23-1/new-game-anime-featured-in-new-visual
http://www.crunchyroll.com/anime-news/2013/11/17-1/latest-sakura-trick-visual-and-character-art
In Japanese
Animate Times
http://www.animatetimes.com/news/details.php?id=1468471288 (a legit interview with Megumi Toda)
Yahoo! Japan
http://headlines.yahoo.co.jp/hl?a=20160623-00000062-nataliec-ent (article about the new show New Game!)
Koepota
http://www.koepota.jp/news/2016/06/21/0102.html (article about the new show New Game!)
Anime Anime
http://animeanime.jp/article/2016/06/28/29215.html (provides voice of RPG game Avabel Online which will get an anime adaptation)
http://animeanime.jp/article/2016/05/10/28447.html (New Game cast, one of the performers of the anime opening theme song)
http://animeanime.jp/article/2016/07/20/29570.html (Pop in Q cast)
This article passed the WP:GNG and WP:BASIC criteria, therefore we consider this article notable, and therefore, not to be deleted, and deserves to have an article.
So whether it passed or failed in all other criteria does not affect its general notability stated above.
Next, this article clearly passed 1 of 3 of the WP:NACTOR criteria.
I cannot say if this person has significant followers and if she has some innovative contributions to entertainment, but we cannot deny that she has at least four notable significant roles in three anime television shows (Etotama, Sakura Trick, and New Game!) and an anime special (List of Assassination Classroom characters.
According to Twitter, she has 26.4 thousand followers. https://twitter.com/todamegumi
Google's search engine recognizes her.
Additionally, Megumi Toda has both Japanese and Chinese corresponding wiki articles. If we delete this article, we may also delete those two articles especially those doesn't strictly follow the rules.
After the article creation, it has an average of 14 views per day according to https://tools.wmflabs.org/pageviews/. Not a good number, but a good indication that the article is visited. I credit New Game! for that. And in its Japanese and Chinese wikipedia articles, it is visited more than 600 times and more than 20 times, respectively, last 30 days.
"On the few films, on which she get a listing, she is not even on the main cast list." - She is on the main cast list on three shows.
And lastly, I wanna correct that she is a voice actress, which means, she uses her voice. IMDb does not know how to distinguish an actress and a voice actress. They're different. IMDb lists only five credits, one of them is significant (New Game!). CunningRabbitXenon07 (talk) 15:49, 27 July 2016 (UTC) }}[reply]

Comment Most of the articles as sources are spurious at best. Examining each in turn. Anime News Network. Each of the entries list the voice actress by name, as a cast member and do not assert notability. Crunchyroll - Are all cast member listing and do not assert any notability. Animate Times does an interview, but states she is new to singing but asserts no notability whatsoever, apart from the fact she is newbie. Yahoo! Japan - mention here name as cast member, Koepota - mentions here name as cast member, Anime Anime - 1st mentions single name, 2nd mentions here as a cast member, 3rd, also mentions here as being a cast member, added late. So a translation by Google and Bing Translate which is the better of the two, shows that out of the 11 so called sources, 9 of them list her as a cast member, similar to IMDB except with associated character, the interview mentions she is new to singing as newbie. So not single entry in the comment box asserts any [WP:BIO]] or asserts WP:GNG. I really do understand the sheer desperation that commit mankind to finish what he started, particularly in war, but at the end of the day this lassie is a newbie and as such doesn't have need an article on Wikipedia as yet. scope_creep 13:20, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

Scope creep, can you look at the JA Wikipedia references? The cast announcements from the English talk page don't help notability at all. The interviews might be okay. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 17:45, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

My first look through the JA sources is that they're mostly cast announcements as well. I was hoping famitsu or natalie might have some more coverage, but it does not look that promising. The theme songs are promising although they are all collaborations: Oricon rankings under Megumi Toda solo Oricon page with collaborations Soruaru BOB (Etotama cast) has a ranked single [23] so does fourfolium (New Game cast) [24] and Idolmaster [25]. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 18:47, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Has enough notable roles to warrant inclusion. —Xezbeth (talk) 08:42, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I hate to comment in these Afd which I've nominated, but what roles? Show me that one role @Xezbeth, in which she has a major part, with a valid source. You need to provide evidence dude, it is not acceptable just to make a statement with no backing evidence. I'll take a look. scope_creep 08:50, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

Comment @AngusWOOF, 1: is a cast member. 2: Is a ticket portal and aggregation site for show. It discusses hold a show which she will appear in, where you can ticket. 3. Describes here appearing as a guest, on a promotional radio show, which has been running 12 times Megumi Toda appeared in the broadcast of the guest. @Knowledgekid87 I wouldn't knock IMDB. Its very accurate. So in the end up, I still think she fails WP:BIO and WP:NACTOR spefically. scope_creep 09:13, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

IMDB is generally not a reliable source, per Wikipedia:External links/Perennial websites#IMDb. I would trust Behind the voice actors before I trust IMBD, as any roles there with green check marks next to them link to screenshots with confirmed credits. (An example: [26]) - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 16:06, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - There's not really a lot of coverage specifically about her at least in English, but given that she's had major roles in several series, she'd probably at the very least pass WP:ENTERTAINER. The Animate Times interview is a good start, at the very least. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 23:08, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment @Knowledgekid87, Well I think the distinction with IMDB is that the reviewer content is untrustworthy, not cast lists. They may be slightly out of date at the moment, but they will be eventually correct, and you must remember, that it is the same people creating content on Wikipedia, that is also creating content on IMDB, i.e. cast lists, but the argument is a side show. Not everybody is an anime nut, and I think cast lists tend not be updated when content is initially created, or indeed some time. @Narutolovehinata5, what major roles had she had. Tell me exactly what they are, as I've covered every web entry out to five pages, in the English, Japanese, and on Baidu, and no show as a star, or lead, or main character actor, merely a newbie, a reflection. You'll need to show me exactly what assertion on WP:ENTERTAINER it satisfies Scope creep (talk) 10:15, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

IMDB cast lists are not reliable because they are user-submitted. However, it can be a starting point to find the actual episode which shows her participation in credits. On the character lists, New Game she is listed 6th, Etotama 11th, Sakura Trick 6th among the main characters so those are large ensembles, which is different from headlining a show, but not a minor supporting role, considering she sings on the series' theme songs. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 20:49, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

And Wikipedia isn't also user submitted? Your essentially saying here that Wikipedia is not reliable or more accurately, inaccurate. Possibly they were worrying about peer and cross checking, but essentially both use the exact same methods to post and update, by multiple users concurrently. It is a false tautology, or false equivalence to suggest otherwise. Just because some policy wonks have written an policy article saying it is not notable, possibly because they don't fully understand how content is generated and the semantic web work, doesn't make it true. They are merely guidelines, at the end of the day. I think this is getting silly. I've already explained above this is the first time she has sung. The first time. She is newbie, and as such doesn't assert WP:GNG Scope creep (talk) 00:38, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

She currently does not meet notability as a solo singer, but her collaborative group efforts have charted. It doesn't matter if she is a newbie or has yet to make a solo singing debut. As for how to reference content from other Wikipedia pages, there's WP:CIRC. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 03:53, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What group efforts? I think possibly WP:SUBNOT applies. She needs to be notable on here own standing to be able to assert WP:GNG. @AngusWOOF, I don't think you understand what I saying above how content is created in the web, and how so much much is duplicated. Thats ok. Scope creep (talk) 09:38, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

My point is that a newbie singer can still be notable The group efforts are nice background information prior to the solo career, and it still depends on whether the artist's debut single/album has some decent notability. That's all. We don't need to discuss how similar or different user-editing is on IMDB compared to Wikipedia. I'm sure there are parts very much like Wikipedia. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 15:36, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 00:57, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

AndarKahini

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

Unnotable and uncited. I don't this is encyclopedic material. — Music1201 ^talk 14:41, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:12, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:12, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:45, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 18:27, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Unable to find any non-trivial coverage in reliable sources. utcursch | talk 17:46, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Nomination withdrawn. Drmies (talk) 16:54, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Black Pink

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

no debut, no charts (single or album), plain marketing promo The Banner talk 18:11, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Simply not true http://www.soompi.com/2016/08/08/blackpink-tops-charts-debut-tracks/ this seems to be vandalism since information regarding the proposed reason is available on the articles refs.Junkoo (talk) 18:19, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Blogs are no reliable sources, please read WP:RS. The Banner talk 19:12, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - Somehow you missed this http://entertain.naver.com/read?oid=109&aid=0003371414 also CNN is a blog by that standart is CNN unreliable?Junkoo (talk) 19:50, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - Also soompi is registrated under Viki http://whois.domaintools.com/soompi.com https://www.viki.com/about not sure if that gives them any more credit to their name but it implies it isnt run by some kids in their basement.Junkoo (talk) 19:58, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article should be deleted because right now they are simply not relevant enough to have their own page, they just debuted and Kpop fans have the habit to create for everything a page right away but it's also true that this group is from YG Entertainment and will be relevant soon therefore it's just a waste of time to delete the article, it would be re-created soon anyway (there was a similar discussion going on with NCT a while ago) but the sources are ridiculous and the whole page needs to be improved because right now I would almost agree with deleting it. I mean seriously? kpopstarz, allkpop, soompi? This page has like 2-3 reliable sources and that's it. Also Junkoo I get it you are a fan but if you want to help you should inform yourself how wikipedia works and read a few guidelines. --Thebestwinter (talk) 18:55, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- I dont even know their names yet calling me a fan is disrespectful but i am a YG stan it clearly states on the KR/RS that allkpop soompi and the likes have reliable news sections since they are just korean translations just like the article above.Id be pressed to provide you with articles that arent true on their websites that are form their news section and most of the rumors/gossip is also accurate so guidelines are on my side on this one and even if they werent they dont trump common sense.Obviously the group has debuted.This deletion request is comeplete bollocks they have abviously debuted and are and have an all kill on realtime notability for a charting and highly talked about group is common sense.Junkoo (talk) 19:04, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - "I dont even know their names yet calling me a fan is disrespectful" — First of all don't be overdramatic. I'm just trying to help you to understand but you are simply not understanding how things work here. I'm new myself and still learning, so some other users might help you to understand better than me but I'm gonna repeat it for you again: This band just released a single and the coverage presented is from Kpop news sites that have just repeated what they were told by the label in a tabloid style and also the page has only 2-3 reliable sources. If you want to discuss the reliability about allkpop and all the other unreliable websites you can open a new discussion but it was already done years ago and the result was obvious. Their charting positions will be released starting next week but right now they have no notability. They have released music now so yes they will be relevant enough soon that's why I voted to keep the article but if an actual admin would make a decision right now I'm pretty sure it would be redicted or deleted.--Thebestwinter (talk) 19:22, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    - Im not being overdramatic im just stating an opinnion anyway.Ive oppened the discussion on the talkpage (been meaning to do it for a while) its basicly already done its just put in the wrong section so theres not much to argue either way.Also if NTC and Red velvet ect pages are anything to go by these types of claims of it being too soon fall flat on their face.Its gonna be 3 days or so till Inkigayo even more news will pop up about them on the korean sites and will be mentioned in round up articles so it is a waste of time to delete this article and ridiculous after so many simmilar discussion to debate it.Wikipedia is about delivering information to the user and alot of searches happen in this period so its counterproductive to the project to delete it.At the most i can accept a keep with needed impovement.(IMHO)Junkoo (talk) 19:40, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - Your article states that they will debute op 14-8-2016, so they have not yet debuted. The article also states that the song and album have not reached relevant notable charts (= charts with an article on Wikipedia). The Banner talk 19:19, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    - That date is for Inkigayo it will be their debut music show (any subsequent release that will be featured after these 2 will be called comebacks as per Kpop terminology) not their debut mv release which already happened i guess if you dont understand much about Kpop or are new to it it can be confused.Also please wait till the 18th if you require a chart listed in aan arbitrary list on wikipedia (Gaon) since oviously being number one on all realtime charts is not enough to determine charting in 2016.I could go into how all kill status is more important than that list on wikipedia but since all that Gaon does is agrigate the already number one scores of other charts it seems pointless.Junkoo (talk) 19:26, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      - Please tone down a bit. Point is that you and your article have to adhere to the rules of Wikipedia. It is not the case that Wikipedia has to conform to Kpop, Yk and other marketing companies. Read the notability guidelines, read the guidelines for reliable sources. And please, if you are closely involved in a subject (fan, employee), you better not edit the page as it is extremely difficult to keep the article neutral in tone and style. The Banner talk 19:41, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        Im not insulting you im not demeaning you so please dont tell me how to write.Second we meet the guidlines period charts are being topped news is being written sources are being ref.Also ive mostly done citing and my part was merged from a previous article so take it up with that user.I dont see anything thats breakign neutrality.Junkoo (talk) 19:45, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        Please read Wikipedia Reliable Sources. Also please read Wikipedia:WikiProject Korea/Reliable sources that clearly states that Alkpop en Soompi are NOT reliable sources. The Banner talk 19:53, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        I have read it Allkpop "in addition to accurately reported facts." and for Soompi it doesnt even state a reason as to why it isnt reliable it just says "An English-language website K-pop site."Junkoo (talk) 20:00, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Clearly someone has an axe to grind against K-pop groups. The precedents for notability have long been set in this area. There is no question that the subject has significant impact of interest to a wide audience, bolstered by its high-profile debut and by its influential parent company. --Icmer In Nyc (talk) 20:22, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Nice suggestion, but I have no axe to grind about Kpop. I judged the article the way I found it, nothing more, nothing less. The Banner talk 21:38, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. JudgeRM (talk to me) 18:39, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. JudgeRM (talk to me) 18:40, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. Random86 (talk) 20:11, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Ignoring the massive dispute above, it seems to me like this would be being deleted on a technicality. All of YG Entertainment's groups seem to be very prominent and so even if this is marginally a case of TOOSOON, I feel like deleting this wouldn't really be beneficial as they're clearly going to be very much notable and already seem to be subject to hype. I also feel like systematic bias could well play a part here - has anyone fully explored Korean language sources? Many of the disputed sources are published in English. KaisaL (talk) 20:27, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The article needs a lot of work (sites like Allkpop are not reliable), but I don't think it should be deleted. Black Pink's songs are charting well on real-time charts which will translate to charting on the Gaon Digital Chart. Their two music videos have over 7 million views on Naver TV Cast and YouTube[27]. Here are more English-language reliable sources: [28], [29], [30], [31]. If it's WP:TOOSOON, the page should be redirected back to YG Entertainment, not deleted. Random86 (talk) 20:38, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- So, if I read you correct you say: "yes, it is promo and advertising but still we should keep it as it will make the notability threshold in time"? The Banner talk 20:18, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - To me it sounds more along the lines of the article doesnt contain a promotional tone it needs more work and they have reached 20 mil views in 4 days and have tv performences recorded and set to air on the 14th.And has already made the notability threshhold.But to each their own. Junkoo (talk) 20:35, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The group and quite famous even though it has been a short time career, this and the official website Black Pink site of the group in YG.--Little Fairy (talk) 15:28, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Very Weak Keep: Per arguments of Random86. Tibbydibby (talk) 23:18, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Creation of the page may have been rushed but the group's significance and notability is apparent post-debut. We have Wikipedia pages for artists who struggle to reach a million YouTube views for a video and never chart anywhere close to the upper top of a chart. Blackpink videos have reached more than 9 million as of this post, scanned enough to reach number 2 on iTunes US album chart, indicating people's interest and the group's influence. They just started out so their notability maybe wobbling off the radar for some. But if we delete the page for that reason, it is very likely that we would have to create it again eventually if the current statistics indicate anything. Josh (talk) 05:41, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not to my liking (the article is still plain promo) but I withdraw my nomination. The Banner talk 07:55, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- You have not quoted any part of the article to provide a reason as to why its promotional but thank you for withdrawing.Junkoo (talk) 11:30, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - Marketeers never recognize advertising and promo, is my experience... The Banner talk 16:08, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    - Well thats your experience all im seeing is a lack of an exampleJunkoo (talk) 16:51, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy deleted as an unambiguous copyright infringement. (non-admin closure) Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:17, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Gin transfer

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

Non-notable. Ethanlu121 (talk) 17:16, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:10, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:10, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 00:58, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Lyons

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

Contested PROD. Concern was Article about a footballer who fails WP:GNG and who has not played in a fully pro league. PROD was contested by an IP without providing a reason. Sir Sputnik (talk) 17:12, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 17:12, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 18:46, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete LOI is not a WP:FPL Seasider91 (talk) 20:15, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not meet notability guidelines for footballers.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:19, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails NFOOTY as has not played senior international football nor played in a fully professional league. No indication that subject has garnered significant reliable coverage for any other achievements to satisfy GNG. Fenix down (talk) 15:58, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, does not meet WP:NFOOTY, and nothing else to make him notable. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:00, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, Plenty of LOI players already have existing article's and Chris Lyons is already a prominent player in the league. (Optimistic Wikipedian). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Optimistic Wikipedian (talk • contribs) 16:34, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - other stuff exists is never a suitable argument to keep an article. If he is a prominent player, could you please show reliable sources providing significant, independent coverage. Fenix down (talk) 07:47, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Consensus is that this is a non-notable fringe topic. Sandstein 10:09, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hillary Clinton brain damage rumor

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

Per WP:PROFRINGE. I am not suggesting that the article's author intended to promote this fringe theory. Rather, this article should be deleted because it is supported only by sources which contain non-verifiable original thought. WP:BLP may very well come into play, as well. Brianga (talk) 17:09, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Agree with your reasoning 100%. Carbrera (talk) 17:13, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Bordering on defamatory, with no verifiable content. Ethanlu121 (talk) 17:23, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What, specifically, is not verifiable Ethanlu121? The Washington Post saying that the conspiracy theorists used a looped video to create this meme? That's not verifiable? The Daily Beast saying this meme originated from the notorious conspiracy theorist Paul Joseph Watson? That's not verifiable? Snopes debunking the conspiracy theory? That's not verifiable? Did you actually read the article? LavaBaron (talk) 17:28, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Brianga with all due respect, did you read the article? The article is sourced to references which verifiably debunk "non-verifiable original thought", specifically The Washington Post, The Daily Beast, Snopes, Media Matters, etc. It passes GNG as it is a bizarre conspiracy theory that has received widespread coverage. This is an important article as it collates the rational response and verifiable facts presented by RS that debunks a weird meme propogated by chat rooms, blogs, and notorious conspiracists like PJW in one place. It is as vital to the propagation of logic and reason as our other debunking articles like 9/11 conspiracy theories, Illuminati, and Climate change denial. I can't imagine why anyone would AfD this unless they didn't want the facts that undermine and debunk this expanding and outrageous conspiracy theory to be easily available. LavaBaron (talk) 17:26, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

As for your references argument, I disagree. The fact that the fringe theory is discussed on Snopes or even the Washington Post doesn't change that the underlying ideas are original thought and non-verifiable. As for the remainder of your argument, it seems like you are saying that Wikipedia should be used to debunk or propagate certain ideas; for that, I refer you to WP:SOAP.Brianga (talk) 17:37, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Respectfully, I believe you are incorrect. The mere fact that non-verifiable thought exists is not excludable from WP if it is the source of widespread coverage in RS which covers the existence of the thought rather than the thought itself. See Majestic 12 or any other conspiracy theory as non-verifiable and bizarre as this distasteful allegation; the fact is, it's become part of the cultural milieux. That may be a sad and depressing testament on society, but it's a fact as the article establishes. Also, please sign your posts. LavaBaron (talk) 17:35, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. JudgeRM (talk to me) 17:45, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Conspiracy theories-related deletion discussions. JudgeRM (talk to me) 17:45, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A rumor created as part of a political campaign is not entitled to a Wikipedia article just because a few reliable sites have debunked it. This is in the same vein as speculation that another candidate had small anatomical parts. Wikipedia was quick to punish an admin who made humorous reference to a candidate's hand size. This is even a more serious WP:BLP violation and should be speedily deleted. Edison (talk) 17:56, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Edison if you want to support Delete, that's fine; if you want to speedily delete it, okay. But please don't chill the conversation by alluding to some forthcoming "punishment" I may suffer. Instead, let's have a vibrant and mutually respectful debate on the issue in which we exchange ideas, trade opinions, contemplate each others viewpoints, and arrive at individual conclusions that we accept may differ from those of our fellow editors. Thanks. LavaBaron (talk) 18:00, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please reread my post carefully. I pointed out that the community took very seriously a previous humorous mention of an allegation from a candidate's debate forum. There was no tolerance shown of a BLP violation just because the victim was a political candidate.There is no statement, prediction or inference that you or others will be punished. I only called for a vicious BLP violation to be removed. Edison (talk) 18:18, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I wrote a "vicious" article? Got it. So much for a mutually respectful dialog. Guess we're going full radioactive. (And how anyone could even think an article which is essentially an index of facts that debunk a vicious rumor is, itself, "vicious" is utterly beyond me. Going into this I thought there was a chance I'd be accused of being a Clinton apologist; the idea someone would think this was a Clinton attack article is really throwing me for a loop.) Off-topic, but there's been such a frustrating trend here lately with editors coming in and immediately unsheathing their battle axes to start swinging instead of taking a couple deep breaths, having a cold glass of water, and sitting down for a discussion. LavaBaron (talk) 18:21, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You have twice attributed to me things I did not write. Stop it. I did not call it a vicious article as you claim. I said it was a vicious rumor. Again, please read posts carefully before you reply to them. Do not create strawmen. Edison (talk) 19:17, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speaking of reading posts carefully - you said (quoting verbatim) it was "a vicious BLP violation" not a "vicious rumor" [32]. In fact, not once did you use the phrase "vicious rumor" prior to your last reply in which you claim you did; you did, however, describe my article as a "serious BLP violation" and "vicious BLP violation" [33][34] which leaves very little ambiguity as to what you are referring as the term "BLP violation" only exists on WP and unambiguously refers to a WP article.

But I AGF you misspoke and meant "vicious rumor", not "vicious BLP violation", so no harm done now that that's clarified. Thank you for taking the time to respond. LavaBaron (talk) 19:50, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The unfounded claim that a presidential candidate (or anyone else) has brain damage is itself a vicious BLP violation, and has no place in any in Wikipedia. At WP:BLP it is clear that "BLP violation" can include content in an article, as opposed to the entire article as you state, when it says "Administrators may enforce the removal of clear BLP violations with page protection...." which would prevent some statement being re-added to an article, but would leave the article. Edison (talk) 21:10, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

So you didn't say "vicious rumor" then? LavaBaron (talk) 09:48, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closing admin - If consensus is for delete, please word the explanatory note cautiously so someone viewing the deletion record doesn't come to the conclusion this was an article propagating or advancing this conspiracy theory. If the text is eviscerated and only a record of the title is left, I can see this coming back to bite me down the road. Thanks - LavaBaron (talk) 18:10, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There is a fine line between creating an article that engages in speculation and an article that reports on the practice of a specific form of speculation, provided that the practice has received significant coverage in reliable sources. I think this is a fairly close call in this case, but on balance, I think this article functions more as restatement of the conspiracy theories than a description of history, prevalence, impact, and significance of such theories. To the extent that these rumors are noteworthy, I think readers would be best served if a brief summary of the rumors were included at the article for Hillary Clinton (per WP:PAGEDECIDE), which already includes a discussion of her health and explains that "her doctors subsequently said she made a full recovery" from the 2012 hospitalization. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 18:12, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Great points, Notecardforfree. Thanks for such a thorough analysis. LavaBaron (talk) 18:20, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, LavaBaron. I also want to add for the record that I certainly don't think this article was created in bad faith or as an attack on Hillary Clinton -- Lava Baron has done a fine job to expand our coverage of issues relating to politics and government, and I believe this was a good faith attempt to write an article about an issue that has appeared in the mainstream media. Best, -- Notecardforfree (talk) 18:43, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

And I indicated the same in my nomination. Brianga (talk) 19:26, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Conservatism-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:33, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:33, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:33, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:37, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. While nutty and baseless conspiracy theories can under certain circumstances be sufficiently notable for an article, this is not one of them; the conspiracy nonsense has not achieved significant, in-depth third-party coverage. I acknowledge that LavaBaron, the creator of this article, was attempting to describe the theory, not to promote it, and was acting in good faith. But frankly—I say this only half-facetiously— if we devoted an entire article to every crazy right-wing conspiracy theory about the Clintons, we would have server space for little else. Perhaps this claim (and the various debunkings) merits a mention in the biographical articles of those people who propagated this nonsense. Neutrality^talk 21:57, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per WP:PROFRINGE. Also fails WP:GNG. What we would need for GNG are more reliable sources about the subject (the subject behind all the examples, not a coatrack of specific accusations/rebuttals). There are a couple, but not enough when compounded with WP:PROFRINGE (and, to a lesser extent, WP:BLPGOSSIP). — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 00:26, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unquestionably PROFRINGE. Not enough independent coverage. This one is less than a week old, per Neutrality, this stuff is not enough for a standalone article. Montanabw^(talk) 04:57, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- Fails WP:PROFRINGE and, possibly, WP:GNG. If Wikipedia covered every conspiracy theory that emerged, it would fill up pretty quickly. This theory is very clearly designed to undermine Mrs Clinton's campaign for the Presidency, and Wikipedia should not be used as a tool to manipulate voters, especially in cases such as this where there is virtually no evidence. If more concrete evidence emerged (e.g. an expert opinion from Clinton's doctor), then I would suggest inclusion on Clinton's own article. It isn't worthy of its own article. Specto73 (talk) 11:08, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. WP should not be a tool to manipulate the public. It should be a tool to inform the public and that's what this article does - it collates all of the factual claims that debunk these ridiculous rumors into one concise, easily accessible place. With the help of WP's reach, this article had the potential to slow the spread of ignorance. Within a week or two, people googling Clinton + Brain Damage would have landed here, where they would see these claims countered with facts from RS like the WaPo and Daily Beast. Instead, once it's deleted, they'll be landing on the Alex Jones website where they'll get pounded with uncontested conspiracy clap-trap. You've done great work on WP, Specto73, but I'd ask you reconsider your !vote. I know you mean well but by hitting delete the only people you're helping are Alex Jones, Frank Gaffney, and Dylan Howard; they'd like nothing more than resources like this swept under the rug. LavaBaron (talk) 13:51, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Respectfully, you still seem to think that Wikipedia should be a soapbox (or a counter-soapbox?) rather than an encyclopedia. Brianga (talk) 15:52, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Respectfully, evisceration of ignorance and the democratization of knowledge are normative goals of the Wikipedia project; spreading opinion constitutes "advocacy" as defined in WP:SOAPBOX, spreading knowledge does not. If I were calling for the maintenance of an article that rebuts criticism of Clinton's policy positions, that would be WP:SOAPBOX. However, maintaining an article that provides the scientific rational consensus regarding a popular, false conspiracy theory is not advocacy, it is knowledge dissemination - the very purpose of WP. LavaBaron (talk) 16:28, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

S̶t̶r̶o̶n̶g̶ ̶K̶e̶e̶p̶ This clearly passes WP:PROFRINGE since "The notability of a fringe theory must be judged by statements from verifiable and reliable sources, not the proclamations of its adherents" has been met by sources to Washington Post, Daily Beast, Media Matters, and Fox. It is a notable, long running conspiracy theory that is well sourced and discussed outside of its original conspiratorial sources. However, it probably needs a title change from something like 'rumor' to 'hoax'.--DrCruse (talk) 01:46, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Good point - thanks for making the page name change. LavaBaron (talk) 17:21, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm revising my strong keep to Merge with Conspiracy theories of the United states presidential election, 2016. I still think it's notable and passes WP:PROFRINGE but it is not important enough to have its own article. --DrCruse (talk) 15:05, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Update - New RS stories covering the hoax continue to be filed; I've just added additional sources to the New York Post and The Stranger, to augment previously filed coverage in the Washington Post, The Daily Beast, Snopes, Media Matters for America, Real Clear Politics, CNBC, etc. LavaBaron (talk) 17:37, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:PROFRINGE since this is not being given serious credence in legitimate sources. Just because WaPo and others have mentioned it in an effort to discredit it does not mean it becomes notable. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:31, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, per WP:PROFRINGE, that's exactly how it becomes notable. LavaBaron (talk) 22:51, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep - Passes WP:PROFRINGE, no doubt. It is credible enough for WaPo and others to feel the need to dismiss it. Frankly, if this were a Donald Trump rumor, not only the media but also Wikipedia would pounce on it. Every vote would be "keep." I know it. 2601:192:4602:CEE0:CD9B:57BA:A84D:21CA (talk) 22:50, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- BS. There's an (unsubstantiated) lawsuit that Trump raped a 13-year-old girl, but Wikipedia doesn't have an article about that, anon. Ribbet32 (talk) 16:58, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - Right. Wikipedia and the media are bent on destroying the right wing! We will be silent no more! 2601:192:4602:CEE0:CD9B:57BA:A84D:21CA (talk) 16:13, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I spent weeks working on the AfD for Boyd Bushman which was a WP:PROFRINGE deletion and we had to scrape and claw due to the fact it was getting airtime on Coast to Coast AM so every nutter in America was coming to the article. THAT was fringe. This is not. Some people here are mistaken as to what WP:PROFRINGE covers. PROFRINGE is not a proscription on fringe, weird, or bizarre ideas; PROFRINGE is a proscription on fringe ideas that can only be sourced to fringe sources. This is a fringe idea that has been elevated to the point of national discussion through coverage in the mainstream media. The fact it's a hoax is totally irrelevant - we have all sorts of articles on hoaxes like Żydokomuna, Balloon boy hoax, Stab-in-the-back myth, and a thousand others. BlueSalix (talk) 01:22, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete Each little made-up attack on a political figure is not a notable topic or one appropriate for an encyclopedia, even if summarily debunked by reliable sources. This is no more than a standard fringe theory during an election that happened to be addressed in the WP:NOTNEWS, and utter nonsense claims made by the ilk of InfoWars and the National Enquirer do not warrant an article. Reywas92^Talk 22:17, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wow. I feel like you needed to stop to take a breath halfway through that! j/k LavaBaron (talk) 22:52, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There will be other attacks on the presidential candidates as the election approaches, and this is a good time to alert contributors that made-up stuff to feed the 24×7 news cycle should not be amplified into an encyclopedic article unless secondary sources comment on significant outcomes. If Clinton loses the election and secondary sources attribute part of the loss to this hoax, the article can be re-created, but at the moment it is just a celebration of pure fringe nonsense. Would LavaBaron please stop biting the ankles of contributors to this AfD. Johnuniq (talk) 02:44, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nom.--Jorm (talk) 03:15, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The comments on this discussion seem to be in the direction that not only should this not be a stand-alone article, but that this is not appropriate content for Wikipedia. So why would it be okay for it to be pasted to Conspiracy theories of the United states presidential election, 2016? This seems like an inappropriate way to get around an AFD and should not require a second discussion on the content. Reywas92^Talk 06:14, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trump_plant_theory <--- Why isn't that up for deletion? Bias. 2601:192:4602:CEE0:CD9B:57BA:A84D:21CA (talk) 16:14, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:GOFISHING, WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS Ribbet32 (talk) 18:59, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per nomination.... --Zackmann08 (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 15:20, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per Johnuniq as "pure fringe nonsense". An entire article filled with weasel words like "alleged", "suggested" and "insinuated" has no encyclopedic value. There's a conclusion from a physician who has never even examined Clinton, but yet his quote in the article is not identified as being speculation. The WaPo ref is not quoted accurately, our article says - In most of the cases scrutinized - which implies that some cases are legit, when actually The WaPo stated - In every case, a Clinton moment that had been captured by the media was reinterpreted and wrenched out of context. I also share Reywas92's concern about Conspiracy theories of the United states presidential election, 2016, an article which now has this identical content and was created 3 days after this one was nominated for deletion.-- Isaidnoway (talk) 17:30, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Passes WP:PROFRINGE. KGirlTrucker81^{talk what I'm been doing} 17:46, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Marge/redirect to Conspiracy theories of the United states presidential election, 2016. As I read PROFRINGE discussion of the fringe idea in reliable sources is enough to support having an article. So on that basis the right outcome is an easy keep. However, I believe that editorially we are best served by placing it in the context of other, related, conspiracy theories. Thus the merge !vote. Given there is already a lot there, a pure redirect is probably fine, but I'd prefer not to see the underlying article deleted. Hobit (talk) 02:22, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is a reference site, not a place for unsubstantiated and disingenuous opinions. Whether one agrees with the contents or not, this post's existence, in and of itself, devalues Wkipedia's entire site and all of its contents. If Wikipedia goes down this road, they will be relegated to a banal comment section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 104.172.195.231 (talk) 01:31, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Hobit. It is debunked in enough RS that PROFRINGE says it should be kept: Ideas supported only by a tiny minority may be explained in articles devoted to those ideas if they are notable. But encyclopedically it is useful to put it in the context of other glorious examples of contemporary American post-truth politics, so redirect it and merge the material. FourViolas (talk) 06:08, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. MBisanz ^talk 00:59, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Daryl Horgan

AfDs for this article:

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

Speedy deletion per WP:G4 was declined on the grounds that it seams (sic) like he plays in a professional league now. This is not the case. The League of Ireland is confirmed as not fully pro at WP:FPL. Sir Sputnik (talk) 16:11, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 16:11, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete does not meet the notability requirements for a footballer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:12, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and Salt - Fails NFOOTY as has not played senior international football nor played in a fully professional league. No indication that subject has garnered significant reliable coverage for any other achievements to satisfy GNG. Wasn't notable in 2011. Wasn't notable in 2013. Still playing in the same league in 2016 - he isn't notable now. Fenix down (talk) 16:28, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - actually, think I am going to go with keep here on reflection, the goal.com article plus the career summary in an Irish national newspaper as observed by Nfitz indicate wider coverage. Normally, Irish footballers who have not played in an FPL or senior international football would not be notable, but in this case I think GNG is met. Fenix down (talk) 08:16, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and SALT - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 18:46, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - rival manager calls him the best player in the league, 1000s of other League of Ireland players have their own page, few have played in a fully professional league or internationally. Seaninryan (talk) 13:35, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not all League of Ireland players are non-notable, international players and those who have played in other leagues that are fully professional, or those that can be shown to pass wider GNG would be notable. WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is never an argument to keep an article. Fenix down (talk) 14:49, 11 August 2016 (UTC) ok m8 Seaninryan (talk) 19:08, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Article needs work but subject defo notable. Irrelevant about semi-pro. Hundreds of articles on English semi-pro players on Wiki. Horgan has been named in LoI Premier Division Team of the Tear on at least two occasions. Also played for Dundalk in European football this season. They have qualified for group stages of 2016–17 Europa League. Surely this is notable. Djln Djln (talk) 20:30, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This argument is not supported by the relevant notability guidelines, and as previously mentioned other stuff exists is one of the explicitly enumerated arguments to arguments to avoid in deletion discussions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 03:08, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not really interested in what guidelines say. A subject is either notable or not and I don't need guidelines to tell me so. Plus "guidelines" are guidelines not rules or laws. They are not carved in stone. Horgan plays in top level football in his country and has played in European qualifiers. That is surely notable. If hundreds of other articles on semi-pro footballers exist that sets precedent. Are you advocating we delete every article on semi-pro footballers. Surely not ! Djln Djln (talk) 11:04, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - there was quite an extensive profile of him in a national paper a few months ago [35]. Combined with all the media references of the accolades and mentions above, he meets WP:GNG. Nfitz (talk) 03:50, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - enough third party coverage for Horgan to pass WP:GNG. --Jimbo^[online] 10:36, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above arguments; it appears the subject has received enough coverage to pass WP:GNG. Mattythewhite (talk) 00:32, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above passes WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 04:03, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 01:00, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Chinese genocide

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

Delete Original synthesis of things already discussed better elsewhere, riddled with numerous typos and formatting errors. Tigercompanion25 (talk) 17:39, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:39, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:39, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:39, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (both) per nom. SRS neologisms. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 20:57, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Should have been speedy deleted under A1 or A11. STSC (talk) 01:43, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both -- Genocide is killing people because they belong to an ethnic group. It should not be extended to massacres generally, but that is what these attempted dab-pages are attempting to do. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:20, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

*Redirect - We have a perfectly serviceable disambiguation page at Chinese Genocide (capital G) so a redirect seems appropriate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Crow (talk • contribs)

@Crow: Nice find, but that ultimately is the creation of the same user, so the fact that the article at Genocide is still a neologism is unchanged. CaradhrasAiguo (talk) 19:17, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Good catch on your part! In that case, DELETE all 3 (Chinese genocide, Chinese Genocide, and Polish Genocide). Crow^Caw 14:06, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

See also Polish genocide. Crow^Caw 17:12, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Ed (Edgar181) 14:23, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Laws of attraction

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

This page is essentially a disambiguation page in disguise, covering a multitude of "laws" in all sorts of different fields, all of which are unrelated. The largest section of this page "history", is simply a listing of all people who theorized about repulsion or attraction of pretty much anything. Ysangkok (talk) 15:26, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:09, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:09, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This is not a single topic, but a list of unrelated laws. Margalob (talk) 19:15, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is conflating laws from different disciplines that have no relationship to each other. This is probably acceptable in some pseudoscience belief systems, but this doesn't mean anything on Wikipedia because it is essentially equal to gibberish. -----Steve Quinn (talk) 05:06, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Seems to be an original essay, which like mentioned, conflates wildly different things. Mr. Magoo (talk) 12:59, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The sole dissention from delete is a suggestion to merge, which didn't gain any support. -- RoySmith (talk) 20:32, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hummer (band)

AfDs for this article:

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

Relisting for further discussion following a NPASR closure where there wasn't enough participation after three relists. The issue here remains that the band has no strong claim to passage of WP:NMUSIC, and no strong reliable source coverage -- and we're much stricter about both of those things now than we were when this was created ten years ago. This was a one-off collaboration between musicians who were previously or subsequently associated with more notable bands than this one ever was -- but the problem is that the separation creates competing candidates for a potential redirect: Ron Hawkins as the only member who actually has any WP:BLP notability as a standalone topic in his own right (and the sole reason this band ever satisfied any earlier version of NMUSIC in the first place), or FemBots as the band that the other two members subsequently went on to form. And because of that target conflict, I'd still prefer to just delete rather than redirecting this. Bearcat (talk) 15:09, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - as per the previous instances. No notability whatsoever. Karst (talk) 15:11, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. JudgeRM (talk to me) 18:27, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge. Per my view in the first AfD, the Allmusic bio is sufficient for sourcing basic facts about the band, and it was significant enough to be covered somewhere in articles about McKinnon and Poirier's bands. Dig Circus or FemBots are probably the best merge targets, but the whole set of related articles could really do with looking at to see which can be sourced properly and which should be merged elsewhere. --Michig (talk) 06:03, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dig Circus have already been merged, as I did check deeply enough to determine that they cannot be sourced up to contemporary standards anymore. And you still never answered my question last time as to why a redirect to FemBots should be privileged over a redirect to Hawkins — Hawkins is (a) the only one of the three who actually has his own independent notability as a valid topic for a standalone BLP separate from any band he was in, (b) the sole reason this band was ever a legitimate article topic in the first place (because "independently notable member" was an NMUSIC criterion, while "members who went on to form another band but weren't independently notable outside of that" was not), and (c) overwhelmingly the likelier candidate for why anybody might ever actually have heard of this obscure local one-off project in the first place (because he was significantly more famousish than either of the FemBots to start with, and still is). So what I'm still waiting for is an explanation of why FemBots should be the preferred redirect target: why on earth would all of that count for less than "vocalist + guitarist"?

It's entirely possible to use the AllMusic bio to source the fact that this project existed in both Hawkins and the FemBots articles, which can still directly link to each other in that context, while deleting the title because there are two competing topics with valid claims to a redirect — but you're simply ignoring the fact that Hawkins has an at least fully equal, and arguably stronger, claim to the redirect as compared to FemBots, and I don't understand why. Bearcat (talk) 15:26, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- no notability whatsoever, and Merger/Redirect option is not viable since there are two competing targets. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:33, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 01:00, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

850 AM Montreal

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

Delete. This is a radio station which was granted a license in 2013 to launch, but has now had its authorization expire still unbuilt -- meaning that it can never launch without starting over from scratch with a new application that it would be substantially less likely to actually get reapproved. (Both of the company's other two stations on 600 AM and 940 AM are also set to expire unbuilt within the next six to eight weeks, but their licenses are still technically active as of today.) In truth, there's a longtime pattern here of sanding down the edges of WP:NMEDIA by starting articles about radio stations as soon as they get their license approvals, even though they don't yet meet NMEDIA's second condition regarding "established broadcast history" -- but this kind of scenario is exactly why we need to put a lid on that and start limiting "licensed but not yet launched" stations to draftspace instead of permitting them in mainspace. And for the record, the sourcing here is three-fifths blogs and one-fifth the CRTC license itself, leaving only one news article for reliable source coverage -- and even that one news article isn't about this station itself, but was an overview of all the new radio stations that got licensed in Montreal's 2013 "Let's Repopulate the AM Band!" bonanza, with only a blurb's worth of content about this one. So there's not much case for deeming this exempt from NMEDIA because WP:GNG — all we need about this anymore is one short paragraph about TTP in Media in Montreal. Bearcat (talk) 13:55, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Quebec-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 19:07, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 19:07, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The station never went to air, its authorization expired unbuilt, and there seems to be insufficient coverage in reliable sources to establish notability that way. The presumption of notability for broadcast stations is largely reserved for stations that are actually operating, which this station never will. --WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:42, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Station only existed "on paper" and did not actually broadcast. As such, article does not meet NMEDIA or GNG. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 01:16 on August 14, 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 Procedural close. Already deleted under G7 (non-admin closure) — Sam Sailor 22:50, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

List of accidental explosions

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

Too vague a title. "List of days that birds flew over my house", "List of undesirable school vacations", "List of ways to sink a ball of popcorn". We have lists for nuclear disasters, etc. because these are specific... "list of accidental explosions" is one step short of "list of intentional explosions", which becomes infinite. KDS4444 (talk) 13:04, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Kristijh (talk) 13:06, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:49, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:49, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- original research and unclear criteria for inclusion. For example, 2010 San Bruno pipeline explosion is not listed. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:20, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn (non-admin closure) Anarchyte (work | talk) 11:33, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The High School Attached to Zhejiang University

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

Non-notable high school. KDS4444 (talk) 13:00, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. JudgeRM (talk to me) 17:07, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. JudgeRM (talk to me) 17:07, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES. While I'm personally against the use of SCHOOLOUTCOMES in any discussion, including AfD, it's been used to keep high school articles in the past, as long as the school has been confirmed to exist; this high school is confirmed to exist, so it stays. I would suggest a trip to WP:VPP if you don't like the outcome of this. JudgeRM (talk to me) 17:10, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I withdraw my nomination KDS4444 (talk) 02:32, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If KDS4444 wasn't withdrawing their nomination, I would favour a merge with Zhejiang University here, until such time that the section on the school was long enough to merit splitting off into its own article. Cordless Larry (talk) 08:06, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(@Cordless Larry:, actually, I would much prefer a merge— I just get tired of fighting against the tide, which often seems a lonely and thankless job.) KDS4444 (talk) 10:35, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Why not let the discussion run, then, and see if that option has traction? Cordless Larry (talk) 10:39, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as a secondary school per longstanding precedent and consensus, despite its rather bizarre name. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:19, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The name's not so unusual, really - kind of the same idea as University College School in the UK (perhaps with the addition of some awkward translation). Cordless Larry (talk) 17:18, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That was my point. I wonder if we could get a more intuitive English name (e.g. Zhejiang University High School). -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:20, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to 47 Ronin (2013 film). MBisanz ^talk 01:01, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Carl Rinsch

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

One unsuccessful film does not make the director notable. The refs are about the film. We have an article about the film, in which the director is already mentioned DGG ( talk ) 12:56, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, I see no reason to keep this article. 79616gr (talk) 21:54, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to 47 Ronin (2013 film) -- appears to be a minor director, only mention in connection with the film. Variety has covered his work in the article Samurai Disaster. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:36, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:55, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:55, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect as per above, this seems to be a good option. The director is notable only for his involvement in the film 47 Ronin, the other articles listed mention his name being 'attached' to other projects, but as none of them came to fruition with him directing, he does not appear as a good candidate for this article remaining listed as it is currently. 79616gr (talk) 18:50, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 01:01, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Roger Milla Stadium

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

Fails WP:CRYSTAL and WP:TOOSOON. There is only one source available to say that the stadium is planned to be built but its not confirmed whether it will be called the "Roger Milla Stadium" either. Class455 (talk) 12:53, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Class455 (talk) 13:12, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Lack of significant coverage per GNG. Could have been speedy deleted, but the bigger picture are sometimes hard to see through all the speedy deletion trees. The page might warrant existing soon, but for now this is clearly delete. (usual disclaimer: came via Africa alerts) AbstractIllusions (talk) 14:31, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. — Jkudlick • t • c • s 20:09, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - WP:TOOSOON — Jkudlick • t • c • s 20:10, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:12, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:12, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GEOFEAT. Might be notable in future but not now. Fenix down (talk) 11:52, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete as per WP:G7. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 14:16, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

EternalRedirect 3

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

ReasonI was trying to create a user page subpage eternal redirect and forgot to put User: Kernosky ^talk2me! 12:27, 10 August 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 August 10. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 12:51, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 01:01, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

NatureIn Focus

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

The notability relies upon the typical promotional articles in the newspapers being used, DGG ( talk ) 12:47, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Minor 2-day photo exhibition. The fact there there are some sources announcing it does not make an article automatically notable. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:07, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as I also concur, none of this actually amounts to the needed substance. SwisterTwister talk 03:25, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:46, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:46, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:46, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:37, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:37, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Anarchyte (work | talk) 12:21, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dicle (name)

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

Unreferenced article on a name/ surname. Would have sent to CSD but but not sure how to classify. KDS4444 (talk) 12:39, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There are two blue-linked name-holders so the article functions correctly as a set index. By all means remove the unreferenced information but that doesn't warrant deletion. —Xezbeth (talk) 18:35, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:09, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as a set-index article that meets the requirements of WP:APONOTE. Uanfala (talk) 08:15, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As Turkish word for Tigris River and a personal name, keeping it would help users.--Kafkasmurat (talk) 15:42, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:36, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:30, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Kingdom of Speech

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

References currently in article consist of one primary reference and two blog entries. The latter lack reliability and the first is problematic as a WP:PRIMARY source. The paucity of discussion in reliable independent secondary sources suggests that this book is not notable, though I want to give credit to the article's author, Geoffrey1912, for his apparent first effort at article creation— please don't let this deletion nomination blow out your candle, and please feel free to leave me a message on my personal talk page to discuss things further, yes? KDS4444 (talk) 12:36, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 10:03, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 10:03, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, meets WP:NBOOK and WP:GNG, reviewed by Kirkus Reviews - "Typically, Wolfe throws a Molotov cocktail at conventional wisdom in a book that won’t settle any argument but is sure to start some."[36], Publishers Weekly - "Wolfe is at his best when portraying the lives of the scientists and their respective eras, and his vibrant study manages to be clever, funny, serious, satirical, and instructive."[37], Library Journal(a short one) - "Here, he works his way from Alfred Russel Wallace, who thought up the theory of natural selection before Darwin but then renounced it, to contemporary anthropologist Daniel Everett’s upset-the-apple-cart claim that language is not hardwired, to make the eye-popping assertion that human achievement and complex social structure are owing not to evolution but to speech."[38], and by The Times[39], and Booklist and a longer review in Publishers Weekly[40], National Public Review also discusses the books development - "Wolfe has hinted at the idea before, notably in a 2006 lecture called "The Human Beast."[41] Coolabahapple (talk) 10:59, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Plainly a notable book, so the only other possibility would be to merge this into the author's article. But a few days after creation there is no need to be hasty. Imaginatorium (talk) 11:09, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. A widely reviewed book. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:33, 13 August 2016 (UTC).[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:34, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:37, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I withdraw my nomination - Article now has adequate sourcing, and I now concur that the book is in fact a notable work. KDS4444 (talk) 01:48, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:37, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Small Firms Enterprise Development Initiative

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

Non notable government agency. Speedy deleted, but restored at a 2006 Del Rev that concluded , oddly enough, that A7 did not apply to companies. No consensus at the subsequent 2006 AfD.

I see no indication than this is more than a very minor enterprise development bureau. Google news show local announcements of minor events,& one apparent notice//press release in the Guardian DGG ( talk ) 12:27, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No sources to support WP:CORP or WP:GNG. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 15:23, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as there's no substance, I still frankly consider this A7. SwisterTwister talk 17:04, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No evidence of notability, despite best my efforts to find some. May warrant a passing mention in National Vocational Qualifications. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:39, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 09:46, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 09:46, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 09:49, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non notable company: no substantial coverage and only trivial mentions. FYI: Anthony Charles Robinson (co-founder of the company) is also being considered for deletion . K.e.coffman (talk) 17:29, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. self-penned spam for obvious nonentity Jimfbleak (talk) 13:07, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

P G Keshavulu

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

Article is written in a very promotional style (e.g "relentless service"). No sources mentioned (ref list is actually a list of awards that it is claimed that he has won and offices he has held). Fails WP:GNG - a Google search reveals no mention whatsoever of the subject or of any meaningful contributions to the field of art. Created by user called "Pg.keshavulu" -- hmm, not self-promotion at all, then ... Specto73 (talk) 12:19, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy deleted by DrKay. (non-admin closure) Altamel (talk) 19:24, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Anti-Pakistani Secession Law

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

Seems to be some sort of POV pushing. Author was banned soon after creation so G5 does not apply. First two references are dead, and the rest of the references refer to China's Anti Secession Law. David.moreno72 12:05, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked, not banned. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:20, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete due to lack of verifiability (and the law was never passed anyway if we are to believe the article); or at best, redirect to a relevant article like East Pakistan or Bangladesh Liberation War. I prefer the first option. Mar4d (talk) 12:21, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:09, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:09, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:09, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:09, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. per WP:SKCRIT as well as WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES. Any "illegitimate and slandering information of the University" should be resolved through editing. An article on a public state university is not going to be deleted because of a dispute over article content. (non-admin closure) Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:50, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Vikrama Simhapuri University

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

Reason Ramprasen (talk) 11:20, 10 August 2016 (UTC) The page contains illegitimate and slandering information of the University.[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2016 August 10. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 11:44, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. Even if true, there's enough non contentious material to justify keeping the article and the majority of the criticism looks referenced. Could someone who reads the language double check the sources and make adjustments if required?Killer Moff (talk) 12:20, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Withdrawn. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 15:45, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delateralization

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

Per WP:NOTDICTIONARY MorbidEntree - _{(Talk to me! (っ◕‿◕)っ♥)}(please reply using {{ping}}) 10:24, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:39, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

We normally keep articles on sound changes, even if they happen at present to contain just a single example. Uanfala (talk) 19:08, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - content can easily be added to make it longer. I'm afraid that WP:NOTDICTIONARY no longer applies. Mr KEBAB (talk) 12:24, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Done - now it's much longer. Mr KEBAB (talk) 12:54, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Definitely much more than a definition. Margalob (talk) 20:49, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination per Mr KEBAB's improvements. -- MorbidEntree - _{(Talk to me! (っ◕‿◕)っ♥)}(please reply using {{ping}}) 21:52, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. per WP:SKCRIT. Any editor can "restart" the content of any article -- provided there is consensus to do so. Even a successful Afd would solve nothing, since the stated intention is to then recreate it -- and in which case the nominator still would not WP:OWN or control the content. (non-admin closure) Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:24, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mohsin Abrar

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

I need to start same Article again with accurate and breif data Anju Raghav (talk) 09:31, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The proposer has been involved in an edit war on this article. This is a case of "if I can't have my version, let's try and get it deleted". Neiltonks (talk) 14:19, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - article needs improvement, and notability may be questionable, but "I want to start again" is no reason to delete it. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 14:47, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy delete A7. -- GB fan 10:47, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ro Glez

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

Fails WP:GNG. Author removed Speedy Deletion tag by stating that "This article should not be speedily deleted for lack of asserted importance because everything is important nowadays". Aust331 (talk) 08:26, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I do not think this page should be deleted, Wikipedia was made to help and make each other´s life easier, what we are doing here is helping them to get to people, we do not know who is going to search them but we know that with this page being here helps to promote the new generations and inspire other people. Josepereira1234 (talk)

Comment: Wikipedia does not exist to "promote the new generations" (or any others) nor to inspire. See WP:NOTPROMO. AllyD (talk) 09:38, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I just finished reading this Wikipedia page and on my opinion it should stay there, it has a great summary about his life, what does he do, how did he start and his personal life. Everyday people want something new and I think this kind of things is what they are looking for, they want someone to inspire, as the creator of the page stated on the artist page "Trying to set a role model and show the world everything is possible", which means that the artist wants to show the world that if you want it, you can have it, that is why I think this page should stay there and help other people to get to know him better and where does he come from. Kevin franco 00 (talk) 05:11, 10 August 2016 — Kevin franco 00 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Delete (CSD A7): The author's challenge to the speedy deletion also said "there are a lot of musicians that no one knows and we can help them grow and become better at what they do... by deleting this page we are closing a path that could be the path to success" which is effectively acknowledging that the subject has not attained notability yet but hopes that he may one day. My searches are identifying nothing other than the usual social media. The article creator removed the speedy deletion, which should have been reinstated rather than going to AfD. AllyD (talk) 09:49, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was procedural close per WP:G12. (non-admin closure) Savonneux (talk) 14:00, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Azad Jammu and Kashmir Council

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

Clearly a notable topic, but the way it's currently written it's a pure political advertisement. Arthistorian1977 (talk) 06:22, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I think this is already covered and better written at History_of_Azad_Kashmir. So WP:POVFORK and WP:A10--Savonneux (talk) 07:23, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. for (;;) (talk) 08:11, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. for (;;) (talk) 08:11, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - the author seems to be on a mission to create as many WP:NPOV WP:OR articles as possible in their first day on the wiki. for (;;) (talk) 08:13, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as it is a constitutional body and has executive powers. It also serves as a link between the Azad Kashmir government and the federal government of Pakistan. Very notable in the context of the Kashmir dispute and political autonomy. I would be willing to rewrite the article. Mar4d (talk) 10:44, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If you're up to the task I can reconsider my nomination. As for now, it's part of a sting of articles clearly created by editor, who is trying to establish a personal view on existing topics about Pakistan and India. It looks like attack, failing WP:POVFORK. Arthistorian1977 (talk) 10:55, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have speedy deleted it as a copyright violation, copied from here, written in 2014. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:54, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Obvious consensus to keep this page, no need to leave it open any longer. See WP:SNOW. (non-admin closure) Anarchyte (work | talk) 10:58, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ilhan Omar

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

Delete. Fails WP:NPOL. Article says "she is expected to win in November" and that she is a nominee. Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 05:34, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete She has not been elected to office, she is not yet notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 07:41, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Hi, I'm the article creator. I think this is a very premature AfD nomination. You nominated it 48 minutes after I created it. You couldn't have waited maybe a day? I'm planning on adding a lot more to the article soon, so in a week's when this discussion wraps up, it will be a very different article with regards to WP:NPOL. Trinitresque (talk) 14:21, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Despite her candidacy status, Omar meets the WP:NPOL. She meets the WP:GNG in that she has received significant outside coverage for her campaign, getting attacked at the caucuses, and for her status as the potential first Somali-American legislator in U.S. history. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mauramauramaura (talk • contribs) 18:14, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. User Mauramauramaura is most probable a sock of Trinitresque. Only ONE edit from the account and that too for keep vote. I am striking the vote. Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 18:26, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In all my years of editing on Wikipedia, this is honestly the first time I've been accused of sockpuppetry. Well done. Of course this is absurd, and I'm happy to find an administrator who can look at IP logs to see if there's any evidence of sockpuppetry. Since you don't have evidence, your "strike" of Mauramauramaura's comment is talk page vandalism, and I will revert it. Also, per WP:CLOSEAFD, "consensus is not based on a tally of votes, but on reasonable, logical, policy-based arguments." So striking a vote does nothing, because AfD decisions are based on consensus from arguments, not vote tallies. Trinitresque (talk) 03:24, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep - This directly effects modern American politics in this day and age, as well as the fact that (Redacted). 96.40.114.242 (talk) 21:43, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. She's probably the first female Muslim elected official in the country, at least Minnesota. Seems notable. Earthscent (talk) 02:23, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

She has not been elected. And mere candidacy does not confer notability. A decision here should be based on WP:NPOL and WP:CRYSTAL. Kablammo (talk) 20:22, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Easy keep -- her primary victory was already the subject of a front-page article in the Star Tribune, and she's been the subject of numerous other articles on local media. Notability is clear even though she is not yet an office-holder. --JBL (talk) 03:44, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I agree with Earthscent. [http://www.wnd.com/2016/08/americas-1st-female-muslim-lawmaker-about-to-be-elected/ Ref]. - Paul2520 (talk) 13:21, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I also agree, but I hope you don't expect anyone to use that article as a reference in WP! -JBL (talk) 13:59, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - while theoretically she could lose in November, it is incredibly unlikely in her district. Additionally, she has attracted media attention far out of proportion to that normally accorded a challenger, even one who unseats a long-term incumbent. She already meets WP:GNG. --Orange Mike | Talk 21:34, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- I do not see the justification for deleting this article. It's historic and noteworthy that a Somali-American woman has won a primary for a state legislative seat. All Minnesota House members have Wikipedia articles. There is truly no chance that a Republican could be elected in this district (it's wildly Democratic; and yes WP:CRYSTAL me for saying that). So we're supposed to then reconstruct this article from scratch in November, when Omar is elected, because we couldn't bear the bandwith this article is taking up until then? Random deletionism. Omar is the subject of articles in major media. (Non-Minnesota examples alone: [42], [43], [44].) She is relevant even as a nominee for breaking a gender/religious barrier that had not previously been broken in the USA. Moncrief (talk) 22:27, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Minnesota-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 05:27, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 05:27, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Somalia-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 05:27, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 05:27, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, nominating an article for deletion in less then one hour after creation seems a bit quick, although the article creator could have used their sandbox before moving it into mainspace, this may have been a case of WP:TOOSOON, but with the multiple sources cited it meets WP:GNG and so is a keep. Coolabahapple (talk) 05:52, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Nom is right -- the subject fails NPOL -- but who cares? She passes the GNG in spades. — MShabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 12:19, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - passes GNG. Kaldari (talk) 20:27, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Groundbreaking accomplishment to win the primary. Adequate coverage to meet GNG. Could tone down the promo language, though. Montanabw^(talk) 07:52, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Deleted as this is taken care of, regardless, and there are no objections so far (NAC). SwisterTwister talk 04:57, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Progressive definition

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

not a dictionary Danilo da mosca (talk) 04:21, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Obviously just a set of dicdefs. DGG ( talk ) 04:50, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (oops): I didn't see the AFD link until now; I already deleted it based on previous article history and not a dictionary. I'll undelete if anyone objects. —EncMstr (talk) 04:54, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Anarchyte (work | talk) 07:03, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Trash Can (EP)

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

Fails WP:NALBUM. Source search brings up d/l links only. The review is actually a good review, but we require multiple sources, which I honestly wouldn't expect for an EP. There's no content worth merging to the main artist article. MSJapan (talk) 04:14, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:00, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:00, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep - the ep has been reviewed by the already sourced Pulse Nigeria, tooXclusive, BellaNaija and a review by 360Nobs which sparked controversy. The above sources are enough to establish notability of the EP. —Oluwa2Chainz »» (talk to me) 08:12, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The sources provided by Oluwa2Chainz shows that the EP meets WP:GNG has been discussed in significant detail. BellaNaija, tooXclusive, 360Nobs, and Pulse Nigeria are media outlets with editorial oversight. Versace1608 ^{Wanna Talk?} 11:24, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Per WP:BLP. Given that serious concerns have been raised that this living person even exists, or did what the article says he did, the "keep" (or "merge") side would have needed to address the issue of source quality at some depth. Most don't, and instead we get irrelevant commentary such as claims of bias or something about a "voice in the wilderness".

If the sourcing issue had been addressed, on balance we'd probably have consensus to cover him, at least for now, at Muslim supporters of Israel, so any recreation of this or similar content (with unimpeachable sources) should probably first happen there. Sandstein 20:08, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mahdi Satri

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

Fails WP:BIO, a self-published source cited 8 times, another source repeatedly found to be unreliable at RS/N (Arutz Sheva) cited twice more and an interview in an online magazine does not notability make. Can find zero mention of this person in mainstream reliable sources. Nableezy 03:27, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Nableezy 03:33, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Palestine-related deletion discussions. Nableezy 03:33, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. Nableezy 26 July 2016 (UTC)

Comment I went to Google's Israeli site, hoping to find the spelling of Mr. Satri's name in Hebrew to help find additional sources (as I've done at other AfDs). Instead, I found page after page of results, hundreds of websites with identical content. In English. "'I receive regular threats from both Arab Israelis and Palestinians, via social media and by phone,' said Mahdi Satri, 17, a resident of Jadeidi-Makr, east of Acre." Almost like somebody has spammed his story all over the web. Very disappointing. I didn't find a single page about him in Hebrew. Nor anything resembling original reporting. Perhaps an editor in Israel can find some local coverage, because I had hoped to and wasn't able to. I'm withholding judgment for now, but this is starting to smell like a hoax to me. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 04:13, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

CommentI didn't find anything in Hebrew. Also I searched by the village name and nothing pops up in local news. So, I guess as for now it's a one time news event. BTW, hundreds of website with identical content may be an outcome of some article published by Reuters or similar news agency. Their articles are being copied over and over again with the same content. It's like a stock for articles for sites, that do not have their own journalists. Arthistorian1977 (talk) 12:11, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Here's an Algemeiner story about him, where they interviewed him, not copy paste from other sites: http://www.algemeiner.com/2016/07/24/arab-israeli-teen-fearful-yet-undeterred-by-threats-from-fellow-muslims-palestinians-for-outspoken-zionism-know-that-i-died-a-dreamer-interview/ Sir Joseph ^(talk) 13:42, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That is in the article already, and it is the only source that is even slightly indicative of notability. It isn't enough. Zero^talk 13:44, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This guy did nothing except express an opinion to an online newspaper and put some totally uninteresting stuff on an [http:bdsguide.com uncitable website]. He didn't actually do anything at all. The initial story was quoted in a few other places but no other news outlet bothered to get their own interview.

It is completely ridiculous that someone could get an article without far better evidence of notability. Zero^talk 13:04, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Another source, of the exiguous number found, namely ENLACE JUDÍO MÉXICO, egregiously fails RS as well. One statement by an Arab adolescent in a village in Israel clearly does not constitute news, any more than Hanan Schlesinger warrants a page simply on the strength of his declaration, as a settler and rabbi, that he defends the opposite thesis, Palestinian rights.I did add news re Schlesinger's activism on a page relevant to a wider discourse, about a year ago, by the way. One cannot create bios on meme reproduction as here, but only when a critical mass is reached on on the subject over time.Nishidani (talk) 10:28, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete at the moment. Merge for now into Muslim_supporters_of_Israel. Unfortunately, he can get to local news if something happens to him. For now, I didn't find anything in Hebrew. His story can be an interesting part is someone will be up to task to expand Muslim_supporters_of_Israel#Acceptance_of_Israel_among_Israeli_Arabs. Arthistorian1977 (talk) 12:14, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge for now into Muslim_supporters_of_Israel, there are sources that state that he is a supporter and the fact that he is part of Likud kiddies and being attacked for his views should be fine for inclusion into that article. If more original sources can be found to expand, then we can revisit this again in the future. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 13:48, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Sir Joseph and Arthistorian1977.--Bolter21 (talk to me) 15:35, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A merge would require some actual reliable third-party sources about this person. All that exists about the supposed subject of this article is an interview in which the supposed subject makes unsubstantiated and self-aggrandizing claims. There is nothing in this article that belongs anywhere on Wikipedia. Im not even sure this person exists. nableezy - 15:43, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Algemeiner has an interview with him. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 15:49, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ya, Im aware that Algemeiner has published an interview with somebody with this story. I cant find any type of verification for anything the person that gives this story anywhere. You would think such an unusual set of events would be in more well-known sources like the Jerusalem Post, or the Times of Israel, Yedioth Ahronoth. But its not. Its a NY based web magazine that has an interview with somebody who says they are in Israel. Funny how that works out. nableezy - 16:23, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

We accept that word of journalists that an interviewee "exists."E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:13, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

And if this were a better source I would so accept it. Also, please dont modify my comments, it's incredibly rude. nableezy - 21:35, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This is quite reliable news source in Israel: [45]. Arthistorian1977 (talk) 07:29, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not really, its been repeatedly discussed with mixed results at WP:RSN, eg Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_75#Arutz_Sheva. I wouldnt use Arutz Sheva for the day of the week personally, and if they publish something that other sources with a better reputation dont, even those sources on the same ideological spectrum (Jerusalem Post, Times of Israel) then I would think one would be wise to be cautious in using it. nableezy - 17:41, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nableezy's personal views notwithstanding, are we really now debating whether Arutz Sheva, with Israel's third-largest weekend circulation according to Wikipedia, is a reliable source? Kamel Tebaast 19:05, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I posted a link to RS/N, not my personal views, Sherlock. Having a large circulation does *not*^edited a reliable source make, otherwise National Enquirer or The Sun would be reliable sources. Arutz Sheva has a reputation for being the voice of the settlers, but not one for accuracy or fact checking. nableezy - 19:38, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, you did post your personal views. You even wrote the word "personally", in that you would not use "Arutz Sheva for the day of the week". Also, to be fair, I think you meant "Having a large circulation does not a reliable source make". Kamel Tebaast 19:58, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I posted that personal view. The main point, which you failed to respond to, is that they arent simply my personal view, and that this source routinely ends up at RS/N as it often publishes garbage that no respectable source would touch. But thanks for the correction. nableezy - 21:45, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

So Radical Islamic terrorists visit the White House and Giulio Meotti, when it was found he never wrote anything but plagiarized his articles, was fired from mainstream journals and found a home on Arutz Sheva. I could go on for an hour about A7 as a joke in poor taste unreality show, but the ad break in my movie's just about to end. It has no place on Wikipedia.Nishidani (talk) 20:18, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Arutz Sheva is like Fox News and MSNBC what you see depends on where you stand. However, personal opinions aside, profiles and interviews in legitimate media like Arutz Sheva are secondary and count towards notability. Period.E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:56, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You dont quite get to decide that. Period. nableezy - 21:45, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Appears to be a group of anti-Israel pro-Palestine editors wikiwashing a story that has gained traction in pro-israeli news sources. Bolter21 believes that the use of criminal murder of a sleeping child as a terrorist tactic condemned by US state department is "not notable". Malik Shabazz says video of a Afghan youth pledging allegience to Islamist terrorist organization is not evidence of a religious motivated terrorist attack. Nableezy also has a long history of deleting content which defames terrorists or supports counter-terrorism efforts. Excluding pro-Israel sources violates the spirit of NPOV which is include all views, not delete the politically incorrect views of a topic. To doubt the very existence of the person shows further bias against the subject Bachcell (talk) 16:06, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wtf are you babbling about? What pro-Israel source are people excluding? nableezy - 16:23, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nableezy, please stay civil. Debresser (talk) 16:58, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Civility is more than the meaning of the acronyms we use. nableezy - 06:48, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I tried to find some sources about him in Hebrew and I didn't. You claim pro-israeli news sources exist. Could you please post them here or even better add them to the article? Thank you Arthistorian1977 (talk) 07:39, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A notable voice in the wilderness. There are sources too. This will probably never be a large article, but that is not a per-requisite. Debresser (talk) 16:58, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please post sources here or even better add them to the article? I didn't find anything beside two already mentioned in article either in Hebrew or English. Thank you. Arthistorian1977 (talk) 07:47, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep [by creator of the page that is the subject of this AfD]

The idea to merge into Muslim supporters of Israel is, in itself, argument to keep. In that entire article, and specifically in the Israel section, not one youth is listed, let alone in the nature, fervor, and methodologies of Satri’s pro-Israel advocacy. The fact that Satri, since age 12, has basically stood alone against physical violence and death threats (including from his own village, Hamas, and those in Ramallah), makes this notable. The only question is, when Sarti is murdered and a Wikipedia article is written about him, how long will it take for the Wikiwashing debate to ensue that the article should be merged with Israeli-Palestinian conflict (2015-present) or List_of_violent_incidents_in_the_Israeli–Palestinian_conflict,_[add date here]? Kamel Tebaast 18:36, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Hopefully, as creator of the article, my opinion will carry added weight to merge. I realize that at this point, he has not attained enough notoriety for a singular encyclopedia article. If that time comes, we can always give him one. Until then, I think he should be added to Muslim supporters of Israel. Kamel Tebaast 21:52, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I hail his courage and him standing alone against people in his village and family. But, the encyclopedia is about sources and verifiability. As soon as there any no reliable sources in either language, what is the rationale for keeping an independant article? Arthistorian1977 (talk) 07:50, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This is English Wikipedia so, as far as I understand, we must not find Hebrew sources for every story that occurs in Israel. That said, Arutz Sheva, as you pointed out above, is a reliable source from Israel and is in both Hebrew and English. Kamel Tebaast 15:40, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly you can bring sources in Hebrew publications - below I bring one in Norwegian. Cheers.E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:08, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, pr nom, (Btw, when I was 17, I was 100% pro-Israeli, too!!) Huldra (talk) 21:13, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
~~weak keep~~ I did what I usually do. I googled him. There are sources not yet on the page. This article [46] in Norge Idag should be added ot the page. It is a 27 July profile (not a long one) written by a Norwegian that draws on published articles about Satri and on Satri's online writing about Israel. Granted, this is a case of marginal, recent notability. But Satri is drawing press attention, and because his "career" as an activist is so new I urge that we consider WP:RAPID and perhaps keep ad "no consensus" for now, revisting in 6 months or a year to see how this looks then. (with a prayer that he lives that long.).E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:07, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Or, if not kept, Merge to Muslim supporters of Israel.E.M.Gregory (talk) 11:56, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

LoL, the Norge Idag -source is not a WP:RS; its editor Finn Jarle Sæle, and his wife, Anita Apelthun Sæle are notorious supporters of the Israeli settlers on the West Bank. They are both ardent "Covenant"-believers, (according to Abraham (Genesis 15)) that is, they think the northern-most border of Israel should be at Euphrates. I kid you not. Huldra (talk) 23:26, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It is a Christian newspaper in Norway. Neither your personal opinion or the political opinion of the editors changes the fact that it is an edited, secondary source that supports notability.E.M.Gregory (talk) 09:01, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

To equal Norge Idag with Norwegian Christians, would be like equaling Westboro Baptist Church with US Christians. Norge Idag have had campaigns agains gays in "leadership" position, at the same time as they advocate a centre, where they "cure disease by prayers". And here they write that Elor Azariya, (the soldier who killed a Palestinian at Tel Rumeida recently,) did so as the Palestinian was "apparently about to detonate a bomb". Look at the video of that shooting and tell me if that is even close to the truth. Huldra (talk) 20:43, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Huldra, did you actually write "truth"? Please share with me the link to a Wikipedia policy that discusses applying "truth" to articles. As far as I have seen, Wikipedia is mostly trying to reach a consensus, but that is generally divided along political, philosophical, religious, and other lines. Kamel Tebaast 23:05, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User:Kamel Tebaast: I´m quite aware that there are contributors to Wikipedia who are unfamiliar with the concept of "truth", thank you. Huldra (talk) 23:25, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You just love scraping the bottom of the barrel dont you. Ill repeat for the closer, this supposed person has zero mention in any mainstream source. None whatsoever. nableezy - 11:16, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

note thatThis idiosyncratic definition of "mainstream" excludes the paper with the third largest circulation of all newspapers in Israel.E.M.Gregory (talk) 11:56, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"Mainstream" may not be the correct word to use, but examples like News of the World should by now lead you to find better evidence of reliability than circulation. However, in this case the reliability of A7 doesn't need to be questioned, because all they did was quote the Algemeiner story. Who cares? Who has a Wikipedia article based 100% on a single interview? The guy did nothing except express an opinion. Everyone has opinions. Zero^talk 12:58, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'd like to point out that the recent "news articles" cited about Satri are actually about the alleged interview with him that was published by the Algemeiner Journal. They are not independent reports about him, and they do not confirm his existence. — MShabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 11:30, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Correct, and that means we should apply WP:SINGLEEVENT. And since the event was just being interviewed, there is nothing here to support an article. Zero^talk 11:35, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't a single event. Satri is a young writer, which should be better reflected in the article, and these two publishings here and here are what inspired the subsequent published interview here and secondary news story in Arutz Sheva here. Kamel Tebaast 16:43, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"publishing" is not sufficient. Even publishing several articles in The New Yorker and several more in The Atlantic is insufficient, unless other publications consequently write about you as a writer.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:46, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

bdsguide.com obviously fails WP:RS, so all citations to that are going to be deleted if this article (amazingly) survives. Zero^talk 23:26, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom - Fails WP:BIO, does not meet the additional criteria required to "merge the article into a broader article providing context" and fails WP:SINGLEEVENT. Sean.hoyland - talk 07:53, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 07:20, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 03:51, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge - I agree with E.M.Gregory's suggestion of moving this to Muslim supporters of Israel. Aust331 (talk) 08:18, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Still delete. Since the original listing, there is still nothing at all to indicate notability of this person. All I can find is a dwindling number of random websites continuing to report the original story. This is a no-brainer delete. Zero^talk 11:23, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Since there is a recent tendency to confirm articles that egregiously fail WP:BIO, WP:NOTABILITY WP:EVENT, and a dozen other principles, it is evident that the concept of a plebiscite has trounced policy criteria. Practically, anything survives because you get arguments from policy balanced by opinions that just say, regardless of policy, keep. Perhaps the policy guidelines should be abolished. That is the only lesson to be drawn from this farcical refusal to apply clear criteria for inclusion or exclusion.Nishidani (talk) 11:42, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Surprised to notice that this discussion is still open, I took another look. Here: "A Growing Trend: Brave Muslim Zionists," [47], a columnist puts this young man in context.E.M.Gregory (talk) 12:32, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- I was prepared to thank you for finding a source about Satri, even if it is an opinion column, but then I saw it was published by Steven Emerson's Investigative Project on Terrorism. Now its credibility is about zero. Sorry, but I'm more likely to believe in an alien abduction than anything associated with Emerson, the man who repeatedly insisted the 1995 Oklahoma City bombing was perpetrated by Islamic terrorists from the Middle East. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 03:11, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) —UY Scuti ^Talk 16:42, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Felabration

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

NN event that fails WP:EVENT, WP:ENN. Seems to be drawing on relationship to a notable person. Coverage seems to be limited to the fact that it happened. MSJapan (talk) 03:30, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as subject passes WP:GNG to merit a stand-alone article. It has been covered by the Evening Standard, Music in Africa, The Voice Online to mention a few. It is also a well-attended event with notable local and international acts. --—Oluwa2Chainz »» (talk to me) 09:15, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. —Oluwa2Chainz »» (talk to me) 09:16, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. —Oluwa2Chainz »» (talk to me) 09:18, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - This is not a person, this is an event, and more particularly, a festival, so it has slightly different requirements for notability. The fact that notable acts attend doesn't really matter; the event won't inherit from that, and as a matter of fact, there aren't any listed. Also, I'm a bit confused - the festival takes place in Lagos (according to the article and the Music in Africa source, but the Evening Standard source says there was a performance in a Reading Room at the British Library, which is in London. So that's not about the same event. So out of the three sources provided here, two aren't pertinent, and of the four in the article, none provide significant coverage, as they're all written prior to the event and announce its occurrence. One source is insufficient to meet WP:GNG. I'd also add that per WP:EVENT, the event is never covered outside of its occurrence, and thus is WP:NOTNEWS in that context. MSJapan (talk) 16:32, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I disagree that this is a non-notable event, whether the coverage is significant enough to warrant an article is a different story, but it is a notable event; Pulse, CNN, AP (2008) and AP (2012), The Star (South Africa), All Africa, Yagazie Emezi (photography) and an article about her photography at Felabration, Bella Naija, HF Magazine, Uncova.

In addition the Evening Standard source is about the event, because around the date of his birthday, felabrations are held worldwide with different Felabrations, just a few I found: Singapore, Amsterdam, London, Kansas City, MO, Boulder, CO, NYC, Atlanta, GA, Boston, MA, Los Angeles, CA and even in Nebraska. At the very least, if it's not kept it should be merged/redirected to Fela Kuti and a section added there.-- Isaidnoway (talk) 01:06, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:11, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:11, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The yearly event has been discussed in reliable publications. I was able to find reviews of the event on the websites of these reliable sources: allAfrica.com originally published by This Day, Nigerian Entertainment Today (2014), Vanguard, Nigerian Entertainment Today (2013), and Asiri Magazine. The annual event was also discussed in John Collins's 2009 book, Fela: Kalakuta Notes. An e-version of the book can be seen here. Fela: Kalakuta Notes passes WP:BKCRIT since it has been discussed in reliable independent sources such as The Journal of Folklore Researchand Equinox Publishing. I'm pretty sure if I look harder, I'll find more reviews. Versace1608 ^{Wanna Talk?} 01:31, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I am aware that when you Google Felabration, information about London's celebration of Fela pops up. Having said, the article is very specific about the annual event held at The New Afrika Shrine in Lagos, Nigeria. Versace1608 ^{Wanna Talk?} 01:37, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- sources presented at the AfD appear to demonstrate notability to pass GNG. The fact that it was covered by AP is especially convincing. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:24, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Obviously notable, per the argument that has already been presented by other users above me. The event is well covered by reliable sources.--Jamie Tubers (talk) 21:15, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, on some editors' apparent confusion at where the festival/event is held, it appears to be similar to the film festival Tropfest that was originally held in one or two oz places but is now held simultaneously in different venues around the world. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:08, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Anarchyte (work | talk) 07:12, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Indestructible Choc Boi Nation

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

NN comp album, didn't chart, fails WP:NALBUM. There may be a WP:WALLEDGARDEN here wrt the label and artists, so do not presume notability based on a bluelink within the article. MSJapan (talk) 03:11, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The albums passes WP:GNG and WP:NALBUM. It has been critically reviewed by 360 Nobs, Pulse, BellaNaija, Nigerian Entertainment Today, and The National Mirror. Prior to its release, it received coverage in Nigerian Entertainment Today. Charts cannot be used as an argument here to determine the notability of this album since Nigeria doesn't have an official music chart. Versace1608 ^{Wanna Talk?} 23:45, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: @MSJapan: Please do a Google search before you nominate the next article for deletion. Versace1608 ^{Wanna Talk?} 23:51, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Versace1608 ^{Wanna Talk?} 23:35, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Versace1608 ^{Wanna Talk?} 23:35, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - per sources noted by Versace1608, the album passes WP:GNG. @MSJapan:, is album charting the only criterion for notability in WP:MUSIC? I know of an AfD thread on almost 30 singles by Drake which were deleted and redirected. —Oluwa2Chainz »» (talk to me) 16:55, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No, but it's by far the easiest, and here's why. WP:NMUSIC has three main sets of notability policies (for musicians, albums, and songs). The one that applies here is WP:NALBUM. The problem with relying solely on coverage is this - the coverage needs to be WP:RS, and that's often hard to determine. For example, this sources given here may be OK, but some of the stuff I've seen in other articles frim the same sources is or borders on gossip - one of the sources on Ruby Gyang was all about why her baby daddy wasn't in her video, and I'm sorry, but that's not appropriate encyclopedic material. Gossip/tabloid coverage in a source calls into question the quality of the source overall, and it's not "because it's Nigeria" - we don't take any gossip rag or tabloid from any country as WP:RS, and there have been a lot of discussions on whether sources are reliable. We have a an entire noticeboard for that.

Honestly, some of the sources just aren't helpful in determining notability via coverage. I read the 360Nobs piece, and it hardly talks about the album; it talks about everything going on around the album, and that's closer to coverage of the label than it is the album. BellaNaija is also not a quality source once one reads the content - it's a transcript of two radio hosts talking back and forth, not a professionally-written article. The Daily Mirror review was written by the webmaster for the site, so it's hard to say whether it's under the same sort of editorial control. So there's legitimate questions here, and they are the same questions that apply to all sources. However, all of the other criteria - charting, a gold/platinum record, major music award, national airplay, etc., is objective - it either is, or it is not. The artist/record/song either got the award or didn't. The artist/record/song either got the chart position or didn't. There's no subjectivity involved.

The Drake stuff was probably because we have a policy that says "existence is not notability"; I don't think Drake had all thirty of those singles chart, and the fact that they were released isn't sufficient for an article - we are very clear on this. As far as songs go, charting is about the only reason to have an article on a song - otherwise there's not much to say that couldn't be said as part of the album article, even if it's soundtrack placement. The stand-alone songs we do have articles on are usually because they're significant to the genre ("Rapper's Delight"), or have been covered extensively ("Knockin' on Heaven's Door"). Even looking at List of songs recorded by the Beatles, not everything there has its own article because of the Bealtes alone. Some have no article, and some redirect to an article on the song independent of any group. That may be a bad choice of example, because almost everything the Beatles did was extensively written about, from song composition on up, in book-length form. Even Because (Beatles song) has ten sources and has been covered over 20 times. MSJapan (talk) 18:15, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No matter what you say, you cannot deny the fact that this album meets WP:GNG. Again I repeat, the websites I cited here have editorial oversight. How many sources does one need to provide before you're going to agree that this album meets WP:GNG? An article doesn't need to have a fix number of sources in order for it to be considered notable. The fact of the matter is that this album has been discussed in multiple (more than one) independent reliable sources. Versace1608 ^{Wanna Talk?} 19:15, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@MSJapan: You are nitpicking here simply because you cannot deny the fact the album meets WP:GNG. You are now questioning Nigerian Entertainment Today as a reliable source, smh. Versace1608 ^{Wanna Talk?} 19:34, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Subject has played in at least one fully professional league and so clearly meets the subject-specific guideline. Closing as there is no reasonable chance of suitable delete arguments being presented, there is no need to keep this open for purely bureaucratic reasons. Fenix down (talk) 11:50, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

David Kasumu

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

Reason FilthyDon (talk) 02:28, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not notable - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2016 August 10. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 02:53, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep passes WP:FOOTY has played in 2016–17 EFL Cup for Milton Keynes Dons against Newport County both of whom play in WP:FPL per this and is currently playing in a fully Professional League.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 14:08, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:04, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. — Jkudlick • t • c • s 20:03, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. — Jkudlick • t • c • s 20:03, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Consensus is that appearing in a league cup match between two clubs which play in a WP:FPL is enough to meet WP:NFOOTY. — Jkudlick • t • c • s 20:05, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per above. I don't understand this nomination. This article and Andrew Osei-Bonsu were both created by the nominator, quite properly, after the players made their debuts in the League Cup match. Long-time consensus being that playing in the cup competition of a fully professional league meets the spirit if not the letter of WP:NFOOTBALL. Yet within hours of creating the pages, their creator nominates them for deletion? cheers, Struway2 (talk) 08:39, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Subject has played in at least one fully professional league and so clearly meets the subject-specific guideline. Closing as there is no reasonable chance of suitable delete arguments being presented, there is no need to keep this open for purely bureaucratic reasons. Fenix down (talk) 11:51, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew Osei-Bonsu

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

Reason FilthyDon (talk) 02:31, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not notable - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2016 August 10. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 02:53, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep passes WP:FOOTY has played in 2016–17 EFL Cup for Milton Keynes Dons against Newport County both of whom play in WP:FPL per this and is currently playing in a fully Professional League.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 14:06, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:04, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. — Jkudlick • t • c • s 20:05, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. — Jkudlick • t • c • s 20:05, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Consensus is that appearing in a league cup match between two clubs which play in a WP:FPL is enough to meet WP:NFOOTY. — Jkudlick • t • c • s 20:05, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per above. I don't understand this nomination. This article and David Kasumu were both created by the nominator, quite properly, after the players made their debuts in the League Cup match. Long-time consensus being that playing in the cup competition of a fully professional league meets the spirit if not the letter of WP:NFOOTBALL. Yet within hours of creating the pages, their creator nominates them for deletion? cheers, Struway2 (talk) 08:36, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. czar 03:03, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

GBA Special Features

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

Fails WP:GNG. The article currently has no sources, and a Google search turns up sources that are either unrelated or unreliable. Most info on the page appears to be original research. PROD removed by article creator. JudgeRM (talk to me) 14:18, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. JudgeRM (talk to me) 14:24, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. JudgeRM (talk to me) 14:24, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Any of these factoids would belong in the various related game boy articles. As is, this is just an WP:OR-based collection of WP:Trivia. Not even worth a redirect because I'm pretty sure the article title is made up by the article creator. Sergecross73 msg me 10:49, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:06, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Wikipedia isn't a strategy guide. This won't ever be an encyclopedic article and the one piece of trivia could be included in the article about the relevant game if a source could be dug up from somewhere. A Train^talk 10:30, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Even if it exists, that's not a reason to keep an article on the subject. Could easily be integrated into the one example. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 08:00, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, wikipedia is not a game guide. Coolabahapple (talk) 10:37, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 01:01, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

GoldUn Child

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

Unreferenced. Not notable Rathfelder (talk) 15:36, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:06, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:06, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Lacks significant coverage in reliable sources. Does not satisfy WP:GNG or WP:NALBUM. — JJMC89 (T·C) 07:20, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:02, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Very little coverage and page's only reference is Youtube. Meatsgains (talk) 02:51, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete--Ymblanter (talk) 07:09, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Calabasas Fire

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

Article is about a small, non-notable fire that was under 1,000 acres and received only local coverage. Per WP:WILDFIRE-GUIDE, fires over 1,000 acres are notable. This one is not. Zackmann08 (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 18:38, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:00, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:00, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:00, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete While sourced, this is a single moment in time as indicated by the datelines. LavaBaron (talk) 20:21, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:48, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not news. There are wildfires every year. Nothing about this one is unique or covered more than the others. WP:NOTNEWS--Savonneux (talk) 04:42, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to SuperTuxKart. czar 03:05, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

TuxKart

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

This does not appear to be an article with a notable subject. Additionally, I have Googled "TuxKart", and I have seen a few mentions of the game in the "News" section (most [if not all] of which are from unreliable sources). It should be deleted or merged into or redirected to SuperTuxKart, whose subject does appear to be notable. ~~Gamingforfun~~³⁶⁵ (talk) 20:38, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:53, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 (talk) 03:38, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to SuperTuxKart. Not notable on its own, as no significant RS coverage can be found. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:34, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:32, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Not a snowball's chance of another outcome. czar 16:40, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Break the Glass Ceiling

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

Fails WP:GNG. A Google search turns up nothing about this game; all the sources I found are unrelated. JudgeRM (talk to me) 00:51, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. JudgeRM (talk to me) 00:52, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Subject lacks coverage in reliable sources. Search results are not directly related to the video game. Meatsgains (talk) 01:27, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - these are worthy goals, but this game isn't notable. Blythwood (talk) 01:58, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
delete Cant find any real coverage. No prejudice but not notable enough.--Savonneux (talk) 04:20, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I wish the programmers well, but I just don't see where there's any coverage out there for this video game. Since it looks like this article was created by one of the programmers, I'd like to recommend that they hit up the news circuit. Outlets like Jezebel and TheMarySue would probably be some of the most likely to review or otherwise cover the work. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:12, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:38, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Unfortunately it's not yet notable enough. Arthistorian1977 (talk) 10:55, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy delete WP:A9 after the artist's article was deleted by consensus. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:19, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Uviwe Jikwa (mixtape)

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

Another mixtape by a non-notable artist whose article is also at AFD. A9 doesn't apply because the article exists, although it will once that article is deleted. Tazerdadog (talk) 00:33, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Blythwood (talk) 01:46, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Same page created under different name to avoid being deleted again. Non notable. Chris "WarMachineWildThing" (talk) 02:00, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete - Clear A9. MSJapan (talk) 02:02, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry - it's NOT an A9. The artiste currently has an article (also at AfD). While that article exists, A9 is out of the question. A9 depends on non-notable recording AND artiste without article. Peridon (talk) 11:11, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

While it's not an A9 candidate right now, we are probably already at the point where we should invoke the snowball clause, and move on with more productive matters.Tazerdadog (talk) 11:35, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There is WP:CRYSTALBALL and there is unsourced Crystal Ball. This one is the latter. Absolute delete. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 02:20, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Lemongirl942 – "unsourced CRYSTALBALL"... that probably makes it more of a WP:CLOUDYBALL. But yes, delete for failing WP:NALBUM, WP:TOOSOON, WP:GNG and probably a few others as well. Richard3120 (talk) 00:19, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, promotion, no independent coverage. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:41, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. JudgeRM (talk to me) 23:57, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. JudgeRM (talk to me) 23:57, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. JudgeRM (talk to me) 23:58, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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