Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2016 February 7

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 6 February	8 February >

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 keep. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:07, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

United States presidential election in District of Columbia, 2016

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

It feels like an unneccicary expansion to the 2016 election page, rather than it's own page. OrangeYoshi99 (talk) 22:59, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm putting it back because the article is part of a series of articles on the election results of the all the primaries in the 50 states, six territories and the District of Columbia. See below:

Arglebargle79 (talk) 17:13, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 02:32, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington, D.C.-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 02:32, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep perhaps as I've noticed several articles with states-focused pages and this seems acceptable, no serious needs for deletion. Notifying DGG for analysis. SwisterTwister talk 05:11, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. On the same basis as the others. If there aren;t much in the way or sources now, there very soon will be. Tje missing ones should be started as soon as possible. DGG ( talk ) 09:39, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per comments of SwisterTwister and DGG. May need some cleanup, but no need for deletion. There is clearly a precedent and justification for this type of article.--Ddcm8991 (talk) 20:19, 13 February 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. Speedy deleted by Anthony Appleyard, CSD G11: Unambiguous advertising or promotion. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 16:24, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Alraid

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

Despite the removal of the prod there are still no independent sources, and is overly promotional with little to indicate notability Jac16888 ^Talk 22:53, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 02:31, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 02:31, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 02:31, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No independent RSs in the Russian and Ukrainian versions, either. There's some coverage of a recent dust-up with Crimean authorities in Russian and Ukrainian press, but I don't see enough to establish notability. Eperoton (talk) 20:04, 8 February 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. Uncontested. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:09, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew Tweddle

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

Minor government official. If find many mentions in connection with cases he has investigated but nothing that indicates real notability. —teb728 t c 21:26, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:35, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:35, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete cant see anything that indicates notability. MilborneOne (talk) 17:21, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and I may've simply PRODed as this is obvious. SwisterTwister talk 05:14, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:11, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Turki Al-Jalvan

(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 the article's creator without providing a reason. Sir Sputnik (talk) 21:17, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 21:18, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Yet to make an appearance in a WP:FPL nor has he made an international appearance. Nothing to suggest he passes GNG any other way. Seasider91 (talk) 23:56, 7 February 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) 10:47, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 18:48, 8 February 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. It has been shown that Sean Maye meets WP:NTRACK. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:24, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sean Maye

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

Does not assert significance. Rollingcontributor (talk) 20:56, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. A search reveals that Maye won a gold medal at the 1997 IAAF World Indoor Championships on the American 4x400 relay team, and thus meets WP:NTRACK. /wiae /tlk 02:27, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 02:27, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as that seems convincing enough. SwisterTwister talk 05:12, 13 February 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. Nominator is urged to read, mark and learn from WP:BEFORE, WP:NPP and WP:CSD. JohnCD (talk) 11:44, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Cornwall Park, Auckland

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

Article does not assert significance. Rollingcontributor (talk) 19:29, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Appears to be a substantial park, and I see no benefit from deletion here. --Michig (talk) 20:43, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ Article subjects aren't required to be "significant", so they certainly aren't required to assert it. They are required to be able to show notability, which they do with coverage in other sources. This does so: sources from 1901, sources from today. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:53, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Emphasise this as a 'snow keep to a very dubious nomination (see below). Andy Dingley (talk) 22:32, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:14, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep Article clearly passes GNG. IMO an Afd within hours of creation is not constructive editing. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 22:02, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for spotting that, I'd also note that the nominator had earlier speedied it as WP:CSD#G1 " patent nonsense, consisting purely of incoherent text or gibberish with no meaningful content or history". Even for an editor with only a few hundred edits, this is far from the level of WP:COMPETENCE we require. This repeated deletion attempt was either less than competent, WP:POINTY or something deeper. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:32, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This request for help from administrators has been answered. If you need more help or have additional questions, please reapply the {{admin help}} template, or contact the responding user(s) directly on their own user talk page.

Could an uninvolved admin please close this AfD? The creation of this park is one of the most significant events in Auckland's history. I can't call myself uninvolved, as I have extensively edited related pages; otherwise, I would have closed the AfD myself. Schwede 66 07:54, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Andy, I have marked it under G1, and immediately undid the action, as I felt it was not suitable. And perhaps I wasn't constructive by marking it for Afd very soon, but the G1 tag was removed immediately, in the next minute, as you can see in the edit log. Rollingcontributor (talk) 10:55, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 21:25, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Joshua Perez

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

Concern was that the article fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. PROD contested by IP user without providing a reason. – Michael (talk) 19:17, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. – Michael (talk) 19:18, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~. With 25 caps and participation in a continental tournament, even at the U-17 level, ~~it looks like he does meet WP:NFOOTBALL~~. —C.Fred (talk) 19:23, 7 February 2016 (UTC) (edited 20:06, 7 February 2016 (UTC))[reply]

Capping at the youth level does not meet WP:NFOOTBALL. – Michael (talk) 19:35, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2016 February 7. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 19:28, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. If he's signed to Fiorentina, it stands to reason that there's coverage of him—but that hasn't been shown in the article. Obviously, the situation would change if he goes into the game for Fiorentina's A squad (i.e., not the reserves), but at this point, that's looking into a crystal ball. After rereading WP:NFOOTBALL, I've reconsidered my position. —C.Fred (talk) 20:06, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - He has not played in a fully pro league or received significant coverage, meaning the article fails WP:NSPORT and WP:GNG. Youth football is explicitly excluded as a source of notability by WP:NSPORT. Sir Sputnik (talk) 20:07, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No senior club or international appearances, no other indication of notability. Seasider91 (talk) 01:15, 8 February 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) 10:47, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 18:48, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete not notable yet. Inter&anthro (talk) 05:04, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 21:20, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Alessandro Hirata

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

Article about a non notable Brazilian professor (It does not seem to meet WP:PROF). The article was also deleted from Wikipedia in Portuguese, Wikipedia in Japanese and Wikipedia in Italian. The sources are either self published (Lattes is a self published currriculum) or have conflict with the professor (and some of them are offline). Nothing indicates notability. Bilhauano (talk) 19:14, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. Bilhauano (talk) 19:14, 7 February 2016 (UTC) Bilhauano (talk) 19:14, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 19:27, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 19:27, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. His specialty (ancient law) appears to be a low-citation subject, but even so I can't find any of his publications that has more than low single-digit citations in Google scholar. That's not enough for WP:PROF#C1 and I don't see anything else. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:53, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete at best as this seems questionable for the applicable notability. SwisterTwister talk 06:21, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per reasons above. Most online sources are self-published or very brief. giso6150 (talk) 21:45, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 21:17, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Bert Wollersheim

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

Per our WP:BLP policies, I'm not convinced that the sourcing is adequate for such a negative article. Ϣere SpielChequers 19:07, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The current BLP has some extraordinarily iffy sourcing including sources which rank somewhat lower than the Daily Mail in veracity, and some sources which do not make the claims they are supposed to support. The person has no notability in any English language sourcing, and not a lot in the German tabloids either. http://www.bild.de/regional/ruhrgebiet/sophia-wollersheim/berti-schaute-finale-im-tabledance-laden-44378242.bild.html is the latest "BILD" article - if this is a "notable person" per Wikipedia standards, then please tell us <g>. Collect (talk) 19:19, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:02, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:02, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:02, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as the article is questionable at best. SwisterTwister talk 05:21, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete insufficiently sourced to pass GNG.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:44, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:26, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Absolute Whores

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

Does not pass WP:NMUSIC or WP:GNG. Unsourced since 2009. Article reads like a fansite. Mr. Guye (talk) 18:14, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Mr. Guye (talk) 18:15, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Mr. Guye (talk) 18:15, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. Mr. Guye (talk) 18:17, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Full disclosure: I'm the original creator here. Our rules about the notability of bands and the citing of sources were very different in 2004, when I created this, than they are now — at the time, any band that had at least one independently notable member was an eligible topic on that basis alone, and we were nowhere near as strict about requiring the sources to be in the article as long as they were locatable. And the promotional tinge here wasn't written by me, but was added later on by a user named Jptrash (WP:COI, if you look carefully at the names of the band's members). But both WP:NMUSIC and WP:GNG have been tightened up considerably in the past twelve years, and my own sense of what belongs here and what doesn't has evolved right alongside them — under the standards that apply today nothing here passes NMUSIC, and while I checked ProQuest just now and got a handful of hits, none of them were substantive enough to satisfy GNG. So it was a legitimate article at the time I created it — but today, it's a delete. Bearcat (talk) 18:43, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as none of this suggests better applicable notability. SwisterTwister talk 21:37, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Michig (talk) 08:28, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Zakaria Polash

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

The cited sources are written by the subject or contain only a brief quote from him. Searches of the usual types found only more of the same: [1] and [2] (for non-subscribers: "JU student also JUDO members Zakaria Polash, Shakayat Jamil Saikat and Jafor Sadik were adjudged the competition."). These do not add up to in-depth coverage that is independent of the subject, so fails WP:BASIC. Worldbruce (talk) 20:11, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. Worldbruce (talk) 20:12, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Worldbruce (talk) 20:14, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as currently questionably solidly notable for the applicable notability, delete and restart at best. SwisterTwister talk 02:58, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 18:06, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unless someone can locate secondary sources that discuss this scholar/journalist - as opposed to material he has authored. I could not source it.E.M.Gregory (talk) 22:18, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Parsley Man (talk) 02:09, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:32, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Tarl Knight

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

Article was previously deleted but promptly recreated by a single-purpose account that, judging by the username, is connected to the subject of the article. Subject is a singer who does not meet the notability criteria at Wikipedia:Notability (music). Article does not demonstrate in-depth coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources. Citobun (talk) 16:52, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete at best as none of this currently convinces better applicable notability. SwisterTwister talk 03:06, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 03:06, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wisconsin-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 03:06, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 18:06, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per the lack of significant coverage in Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources. The article contains two reliable sources, but both are passing mentions: http://www.greenbaypressgazette.com/story/news/local/door-co/entertainment/2015/06/09/steel-bridge-songfest-celebrates-th-anniversary/28774573/^WebCite and https://doorcountypulse.com/steel-bridge-songfest-kicks-off-with-appreciation-night/^WebCite.
There is insufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Tarl Knight to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 22:12, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete and redirect to Topmodel (cycle 1). Sandstein 10:46, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hanne Baekelandt

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

This article is about a person who may not meet notability guidelines Linguist111 (talk) 13:17, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Musa^Talk ☻ 15:48, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Belgium-related deletion discussions. Musa^Talk ☻ 15:48, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. Musa^Talk ☻ 15:49, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hardly any news coverage. Linguist111 (talk) 19:17, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as questionably better for WP:CREATIVE. SwisterTwister talk 03:16, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 18:05, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Topmodel (cycle 1): No particularly significant coverage apparent after her Topmodel win. ^~~Hydronium^~Hydroxide^~(Talk)~~ 09:08, 9 February 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. (non-admin closure) sst✈^(conjugate) 13:55, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Red Caps (TV series)

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

Fails WP:GNG. Article has had only one source since its creation.. Electric Burst^{(Electron firings)}_(Zaps) 21:05, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per the lack of third party sources. --Rubbish computer (HALP!: I dropped the bass?) 23:10, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. clpo13_(talk) 23:26, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. clpo13_(talk) 23:26, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Finland-related deletion discussions. clpo13_(talk) 23:26, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. clpo13_(talk) 23:26, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Move to Santa's Magic Crystal. I can't find any articles specifically focused on Red Caps, but the Variety article, already incorporated as a reference here, mentions the series in relation to the feature film Santa's Magic Crystal. A Google News search for that film title, paired with the name of film's director, yields an actual review of the film, published by The National [3], as well as this short piece by Animation Magazine, [4] which lists the film (under the truncated title The Magic Crystal) as an entry in a European film festival. --Jpcase (talk) 13:38, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, possibly move to Santa's Magic Crystal. While the film seems more notable than the series, both have received some reliable coverage. While I think that one article covering both the topics is enough, I am not sure under which title it should be (the title of the film, which seems to be more sourcable, or the title of the series which originated it). Cavarrone 07:08, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for now at best and draft & userfy to start any future article, as it seems clear there is currently nothing. SwisterTwister talk 02:43, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep sourcing appears to be a matter of language. There are third party sources although they are not easy to find. It is a Finnish program so the sources are mostly in Finnish. It also appears to have been popular in Hungary under the title "Télapó pirossapkás koboldjai", a search for which yields more results (in Hungarian, of course). So, keep if it can be expanded using the foreign language sources.--William Thweatt ^Talk^Contribs 06:55, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 18:04, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 10:42, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dasharath giri

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

Article subject isn't even mentioned in any of the given "references". Emotionalllama (talk) 16:19, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 17:00, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nepal-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 17:00, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as questionable for WP:CREATIVE. SwisterTwister talk 19:35, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as the sources are now provided. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bikashgiri016 (talk • contribs) 15:23, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I am unable to find significant coverage in reliable sources to demonstrate that the subject is notable. — JJMC89 (T·C) 19:54, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep as it is clear that such schools are notable and there's not further need for AfD thus unlikely further time is needed for this considering there's a clear consensus (NAC). SwisterTwister talk 06:18, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Akbarpur Inter College

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

Non-notable school: nothing but promotional material, cited sources are mostly promotional. Deserves nothing more than a merge to wherever it is located at. Kingoflettuce (talk) 16:07, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 16:59, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 16:59, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It is accepted practice that all high schools are considered notable -- this is part of a longstanding compromise to avoid thousands of these AfDs (the other half of the compromise is that all primary schools are not considered notable, unless there are special factors). DGG ( talk ) 19:19, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Long standing consensus is that high schools and institutions awarding degree are generally kept. —UY Scuti ^Talk 12:19, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a secondary school per longstanding consensus and precedent. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:57, 10 February 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. All high/secondary schools are kept per WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 22:14, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

C.D.Girls Inter College

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

Non-notable school: nothing but promotional material, cited sources are mostly promotional. Deserves nothing more than a merge to wherever it is located at. Kingoflettuce (talk) 16:07, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 16:59, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 16:59, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It is accepted practice that all high schools are considered notable -- this is part of a longstanding compromise to avoid thousands of these AfDs (the other half of the compromise is that all primary schools are not considered notable, unless there are special factors). DGG ( talk ) 19:19, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for the same reasons. Ireneshih (talk) 06:04, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Long standing consensus is that high schools and institutions awarding degree are generally kept.—UY Scuti ^Talk 12:20, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a secondary school per longstanding consensus and precedent. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:57, 10 February 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. All high/secondary schools are kept per WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 22:14, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Galuapur Inter College

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

Non-notable school: nothing but promotional material, cited sources are mostly promotional. Deserves nothing more than a merge to wherever it is located at. Kingoflettuce (talk) 16:07, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 16:57, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 16:57, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It is accepted practice that all high schools are considered notable -- this is part of a longstanding compromise to avoid thousands of these AfDs (the other half of the compromise is that all primary schools are not considered notable, unless there are special factors). DGG ( talk ) 19:19, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Long standing consensus is that high schools and institutions awarding degree are generally kept.—UY Scuti ^Talk 12:20, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a secondary school per longstanding consensus and precedent. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:57, 10 February 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. All high/secondary schools are kept per WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 22:15, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jawahar Navodaya Vidyalaya Kanpur Dehat

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

Non-notable school: nothing but promotional material, cited sources are mostly promotional. Deserves nothing more than a merge to wherever it is located at. Kingoflettuce (talk) 16:07, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 16:57, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 16:57, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It is accepted practice that all high schools are considered notable -- this is part of a longstanding compromise to avoid thousands of these AfDs (the other half of the compromise is that all primary schools are not considered notable, unless there are special factors). We do delete advertising, but this articles is not all that highly promotional . DGG ( talk ) 19:27, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Long standing consensus is that high schools and institutions awarding degree are generally kept. I've fixed the promo bit.—UY Scuti ^Talk 12:24, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a secondary school per longstanding consensus and precedent. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:56, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:17, 12 February 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. All high/secondary schools are kept per WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 22:15, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Kendriya Vidyalaya, Dahi Chowki Unnao

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

Non-notable school: nothing but promotional material, cited sources are mostly promotional. Deserves nothing more than a merge to wherever it is located at. Kingoflettuce (talk) 16:06, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 16:53, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 16:53, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It is accepted practice that all high schools are considered notable -- this is part of a longstanding compromise to avoid thousands of these AfDs (the other half of the compromise is that all primary schools are not considered notable, unless there are special factors). We do delete advertising, but this articles is not all that highly promotional . DGG ( talk ) 19:23, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Long standing consensus is that high schools and institutions awarding degree are generally kept. I've fixed the promo bit—UY Scuti ^Talk 12:35, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a secondary school per longstanding consensus and precedent. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:56, 10 February 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. All high/secondary schools are kept per WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 22:15, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Kendriya Vidyalaya Guna, Madhya Pradesh

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

Non-notable school: nothing but promotional material, cited sources are mostly promotional. Deserves nothing more than a merge to wherever it is located at. Kingoflettuce (talk) 16:06, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 16:49, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 16:49, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It is accepted practice that all high schools are considered notable -- this is part of a longstanding compromise to avoid thousands of these AfDs (the other half of the compromise is that all primary schools are not considered notable, unless there are special factors). We do delete advertising, but this articles is not all that highly promotional . DGG ( talk ) 19:24, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Long standing consensus is that high schools and institutions awarding degree are generally kept. I've cleaned up the article —UY Scuti ^Talk 12:44, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a secondary school per longstanding consensus and precedent. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:56, 10 February 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. All high/secondary schools are kept per WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 22:15, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Kendriya Vidyalaya, NTPC Dibiyapur

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

Non-notable school: nothing but promotional material, cited sources are mostly promotional. Deserves nothing more than a merge to wherever it is located at. Kingoflettuce (talk) 16:06, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 16:46, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 16:46, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It is accepted practice that all high schools are considered notable -- this is part of a longstanding compromise to avoid thousands of these AfDs (the other half of the compromise is that all primary schools are not considered notable, unless there are special factors). We do delete advertising, but this articles is not all that highly promotional . DGG ( talk ) 19:24, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It is one of the school operated by the Government of India. The question we are left at the moment is to have multiple individual pages for every branch (more than 1000 branches exists), or to create redirect pages for the school. Ireneshih (talk) 06:02, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Long standing consensus is that high schools and institutions awarding degree are generally kept. I've fixed the promo bit —UY Scuti ^Talk 13:05, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a secondary school per longstanding consensus and precedent. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:54, 10 February 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. All high/secondary schools are kept per WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 22:15, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Kendriya Vidyalaya, Mati

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

Non-notable school: nothing but promotional material, cited sources are mostly promotional. Deserves nothing more than a merge to wherever it is located at. Kingoflettuce (talk) 16:06, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 16:47, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 16:47, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It is accepted practice that all high schools are considered notable -- this is part of a longstanding compromise to avoid thousands of these AfDs (the other half of the compromise is that all primary schools are not considered notable, unless there are special factors). We do delete advertising, but this articles is not all that highly promotional . DGG ( talk ) 19:24, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Long standing consensus is that high schools and institutions awarding degree are generally kept. I've fixed the promo bit —UY Scuti ^Talk 13:00, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a secondary school per longstanding consensus and precedent. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:54, 10 February 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. All high/secondary schools are kept per WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 22:15, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Puranchandra Vidyaniketan

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

Non-notable school: nothing but promotional material, cited sources are mostly promotional. Deserves nothing more than a merge to wherever it is located at. Kingoflettuce (talk) 16:06, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 16:45, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 16:45, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It is accepted practice that all high schools are considered notable -- this is part of a longstanding compromise to avoid thousands of these AfDs (the other half of the compromise is that all primary schools are not considered notable, unless there are special factors). We do delete advertising, but this articles is not all that highly promotional . DGG ( talk ) 19:22, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Long standing consensus is that high schools and institutions awarding degree are generally kept, albeit a fix on the promo bit of the article is needed—UY Scuti ^Talk 13:10, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a secondary school per longstanding consensus and precedent. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:53, 10 February 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. All high/secondary schools are kept per WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 22:17, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

R P S Inter College

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

Non-notable school: nothing but promotional material, cited sources are mostly promotional. Deserves nothing more than a merge to wherever it is located at. Kingoflettuce (talk) 16:06, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 16:44, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 16:44, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It is accepted practice that all high schools are considered notable -- this is part of a longstanding compromise to avoid thousands of these AfDs (the other half of the compromise is that all primary schools are not considered notable, unless there are special factors). We do delete advertising, but this articles is not all that highly promotional . DGG ( talk ) 19:23, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Long standing consensus is that high schools and institutions awarding degree are generally kept, albeit a fix on the promo bit of the article is needed —UY Scuti ^Talk 13:18, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a secondary school per longstanding consensus and precedent. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:52, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a highschool/secondary school due to current consensus related to schools. RickinBaltimore (talk) 14:54, 10 February 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. All high/secondary schools are kept per WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 22:18, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Kendriya Vidyalaya Shivpuri, Madhya Pradesh

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

Non-notable school: nothing but promotional material, cited sources are mostly promotional. Deserves nothing more than a merge to wherever it is located at. Kingoflettuce (talk) 16:05, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 16:40, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 16:40, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It is accepted practice that all high schools are considered notable -- this is part of a longstanding compromise to avoid thousands of these AfDs (the other half of the compromise is that all primary schools are not considered notable, unless there are special factors). We do delete advertising, but this articles is not all that highly promotional . DGG ( talk ) 19:26, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Long standing consensus is that high schools and institutions awarding degree are generally kept, I've fixed the promo bit —UY Scuti ^Talk 13:20, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a secondary school per longstanding consensus and precedent. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:52, 10 February 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. All high/secondary schools are kept per WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 22:18, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

JDVM Inter College

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

Non-notable school. All but promotional material. Kingoflettuce (talk) 16:03, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 16:35, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 16:35, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Long standing consensus is that high schools and institutions awarding degree are generally kept and the article is not promotional —UY Scuti ^Talk 13:22, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a secondary school per longstanding consensus and precedent. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:52, 10 February 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. All high/secondary schools are kept per WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 22:20, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mahatma Gandhi Inter College

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

Non-notable school. Nothing but an advert! Kingoflettuce (talk) 16:02, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 16:33, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 16:33, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Long standing consensus is that high schools and institutions awarding degree are generally kept. I've cleaned up the article —UY Scuti ^Talk 13:28, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a secondary school per longstanding consensus and precedent. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:52, 10 February 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. All high/secondary schools are kept per WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 22:20, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

S C G M Inter College Madhupur Sonebhadra

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

Non-notable middle school. Deserves a merge with geographical location at the most. Stand-alone article? Nope. Kingoflettuce (talk) 16:00, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 16:32, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 16:32, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Inter colleges are high schools. Can you please explain how you determined this to be a middle school? Long standing consensus is that high schools and institutions awarding degree are generally kept. The existence of this school can be verified by a quick Googling —UY Scuti ^Talk 13:56, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a secondary school per longstanding consensus and precedent. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:51, 10 February 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. All high/secondary schools are kept per WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 22:20, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Pt. Deen Dayal Upadhyaya Sanatan Dharma Vidyalaya

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

Does not mean notability guidelines, and is simply an advert for the school. Nothing substantial about it. Kingoflettuce (talk) 15:59, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 16:32, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 16:32, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Long standing consensus is that high schools and institutions awarding degree are generally kept and the article is not promotional —UY Scuti ^Talk 14:15, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a secondary school per longstanding consensus and precedent. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:51, 10 February 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. All high/secondary schools are kept per WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 22:20, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

B N S D Shiksha Niketan

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

Inherently non-notable school; promotional material (peacock language: "one of the most famous" etc). Nothing but an advert. Kingoflettuce (talk) 15:58, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 15:59, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 15:59, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Long standing consensus is that high schools and institutions awarding degree are generally kept. I've cleaned up the article —UY Scuti ^Talk 14:12, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a secondary school per longstanding consensus and precedent. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:51, 10 February 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. All high/secondary schools are kept per WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 22:20, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jawahar Lal Nehru Inter College kalyanpur

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

Non-notable school. Page deserves a title change while we're at it too. Kingoflettuce (talk) 15:57, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 16:48, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 16:48, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, Kingoflettuce, likely with other AFD's this is again a keep. Please review DGG comments on your talk page before nominating any further. Ireneshih (talk) 06:26, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure on this one I have not been able to find a source that even shows real existence, besides what can be inferred from likes on Facebook. Nor can I find unambiguous evidence that this is actually a high school. I consider a school website generally sufficient to show real existence, but I cannot find even that. DGG ( talk ) 07:02, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The school apparently exists per this and intermediate colleges (inter colleges) are actually high schools in some states of India. Long standing consensus is that high schools and institutions awarding degree are generally kept.—UY Scuti ^Talk 12:55, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a secondary school per longstanding consensus and precedent. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:55, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 10:47, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

GIS and Remote Sensing Lab,Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Forest Department Peshawar,Pakistan

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

Reads like a press release, not fit for an encyclopaedia JMHamo (talk) 14:23, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 04:14, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as looks like news article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by GeeAichhBee (talk • contribs) 15:48, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as clearly not yet a better notable article. SwisterTwister talk 07:38, 13 February 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. Already deleted with reference to this discussion ("closed as delete"); I believe the deleting admin just forgot to close. Bishonen | talk 11:43, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Arjun Prabhakaran

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

Article about a director of one film. The few reliable sources merely mention him in passing. Fails WP:DIRECTOR. - Mr X 13:27, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I subscribe to the views expressed by MrX. The director may not be notable according to Wikipedia guidelines. Rollingcontributor (talk) 13:50, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 14:18, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that Tony3322 is a CU-confirmed sock of Aparna tutu, who created the article. See here. GAB^Hello! 17:59, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as not yet better satisfying WP:CREATIVE. SwisterTwister talk 21:27, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I am unable to find significant coverage in reliable sources to demonstrate that the subject is notable. — JJMC89 (T·C) 20:04, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 10:52, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Amit Jha

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

Not yet notable per WP:CREATIVE. He did jointly win an Indian Telly Award four years ago, but I can find no coverage of that online apart from the awards' website, and nothing else about him online in WP:Reliable sources. NeemNarduni2 (talk) 13:08, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. NeemNarduni2 (talk) 13:10, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. NeemNarduni2 (talk) 13:10, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as not satisfying WP:CREATIVE, I reviewed this and planned to AfD for exactly this. SwisterTwister talk 18:36, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:BLP1E as only known for co-winning an Indian Telly Award. No other coverage, and as a result, fails WP:GNG. Joseph2302 (talk) 22:46, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 10:53, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Pirate Park

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

fails WP:GNG. I could find coverage for other Pirate Parks in the world but nothing in-depth for this one. Let's see if the usual suspect turns up to this AfD LibStar (talk) 11:17, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 14:18, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now unfortunately as my searches found nothing immediately better. SwisterTwister talk 07:39, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per SwisterTwister. Searching with "Pirate Park" alone reveals mostly false positives, while narrowing it to "Pirate Park Malaysia" fails to find enough significant coverage, just travel guides and review sites. I found some coverage from blogs for a Malacca-based attraction called "Pirate Adventure", which may or may not be the same as this, but even if this and that were the same attraction, all I could find were reviews in unreliable blogs. Just an aside, but it seems Pirate Park has received several negative reviews on TripAdvisor and elsewhere. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 14:30, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 21:10, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ambassador of Colombia to Russia

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

all the article says is what any ambassador does and that the ambassador to Russia also is ambassador to other countries. This would be an endless series of articles of ambassador X to country Y. Let's see if the usual suspect pops up here to comment LibStar (talk) 10:03, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- An article that says nothing more than "The ambassador of Derpsylvania to Blongoland performs ambassadorial duties between Derpsylvania and Blongoland" is completely pointless. Are we going to have 40,000 articles of the same kind, all the same but with the names of the countries changed? Reyk _YO! 10:26, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Kazakhstan-related deletion discussions. Bharatiya 29 11:10, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Kyrgyzstan-related deletion discussions. Bharatiya 29 11:10, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Tajikistan-related deletion discussions. Bharatiya 29 11:10, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Turkmenistan-related deletion discussions. Bharatiya 29 11:10, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Uzbekistan-related deletion discussions. Bharatiya 29 11:10, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Belarus-related deletion discussions. Bharatiya 29 11:10, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. Bharatiya 29 11:10, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. Bharatiya 29 11:10, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Colombia-related deletion discussions. Bharatiya 29 11:10, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete Article content is largely tautological. Not notable in its own right. Would be good for one list all of the country's ambassadors perhaps. This needs to be nipped in the bud. Looks like the tip of a proposed ice berg of ambassadors. (By the way - which of the two people shaking hands is the amabassador?) Aoziwe (talk) 12:46, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable article, agree with previous suggestion for one page for the country's ambassadors instead of endless articles on each one.Atlantic306 (talk) 03:10, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete perhaps then, as still questionable. SwisterTwister talk 07:36, 13 February 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 List of Mini-Cons. (non-admin closure) sst✈^(conjugate) 13:55, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Knockdown (Transformers)

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

Minor character from the Transformers universe. No evidence of real-world notability. Josh Milburn (talk) 09:26, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to List of Mini-Cons. Mathewignash (talk) 13:33, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as suggested with redirect. VMS Mosaic (talk) 14:47, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and I would've also closed this myself as such. SwisterTwister talk 07:35, 13 February 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 List of Transformers: Super-God Masterforce characters. (non-admin closure) sst✈^(conjugate) 13:43, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Lander (Transformers)

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

Minor character from the Transformers universe. No evidence of real-world significance. Josh Milburn (talk) 09:25, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Very strong delete (and all such similar articles). The request to delete is more notable than the article subject itself . . . Just merge them all in one list/table article. Aoziwe (talk) 12:55, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Nonsense, do not overplay your statements, it defeats their validity. You say strong delete, then your text says merge, make up your mind. Mathewignash (talk) 13:32, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - Sorry I thought I was saying the same thing. I think these types of articles should not exist at all. This is not to say their minimalistic content should not be somewhere else in Wikipedia, hence my merge them [as one liner entries] into a list. (I have just returned to Wikipedia after a seven year absence so if my terminology is not Wiki-idiomatically current, I am happy to stand corrected.) (WP:AGF) Aoziwe (talk) 14:50, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of Transformers: Super-God Masterforce characters. Mathewignash (talk) 13:32, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as suggested with redirect. VMS Mosaic (talk) 14:49, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:08, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:08, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and I would've closed as such myself. SwisterTwister talk 07:38, 13 February 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 List of Beast Wars II: Super Life-Form Transformers characters. (non-admin closure) sst✈^(conjugate) 13:42, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Tripledacus

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

Apparently a very minor character from the Transformers universe. No evidence of real-world notability. Josh Milburn (talk) 09:20, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to List of Beast Wars II: Super Life-Form Transformers characters. Mathewignash (talk) 13:30, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:17, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge as this is best and there's no serious needs for deletion. SwisterTwister talk 07:34, 13 February 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) 09:11, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Flukysnap

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

Doesn't appear to meet our notability guidelines set out at Wikipedia:Notability (web). Whilst the article claims this to be "one of the biggest picture and video platforms in the world" this claim does not seem to be substantiated at all. Alexa puts it at the 4,011,554 most popular website. I can find no significant coverage in any reliable sources. _└^UkPaolo/_talk^┐ 08:24, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·C) 10:31, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Strong (speedy?) delete. An article on another website by the same creator, JustEntertainmnt, was already speedy deleted. This article could probably go the same route. I certainly don't see anything that shows this site is notable enough to keep an article on. —C.Fred (talk) 20:40, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not notable. --Fixuture (talk) 22:21, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as still questionable for the applicable notability. SwisterTwister talk 07:35, 13 February 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. Clearly notable per WP:FOOTYN and historic AfD consensus. No need to keep this open for purely administrative reasons. Fenix down (talk) 10:42, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Eirobaltija Riga

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

Not notable. Edgars2007 (talk/contribs) 07:56, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Bharatiya 29 11:10, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Latvia-related deletion discussions. Bharatiya 29 11:10, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep Club has played in both a national league (second division) and the national cup, meeting WP:FOOTYN. Article needs a lot of improvement, but that isn't a reason to delete. Number 5 7 12:39, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep Article clearly meets WP:FOOTYN - perhaps User:Edgars2007 should withdraw it. Nfitz (talk) 19:31, 7 February 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) sst✈^(conjugate) 13:40, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

List of bombs

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

No coherent classification; mixing types of bombs, individual bombs, and ingredients. The list of different weights is particularly bizarre and dates to 2009. I made an attempt to clean it up but reverted those changes as I'm not even sure what a "bomb" is anymore. Looking at the talk page comment from over six years ago, it seems like there's little chance of improvement here. Qzd (talk) 06:50, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:TNT. A list could be created, but this definitely isn't it. Yikes! Herbicide, atomic and logic bombs all lumped together? Why not throw in Howard the Duck too? Clarityfiend (talk) 09:54, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It is our policy that pages may be imperfect and WP:TNT is not policy. For a demonstration that the topic passes WP:LISTN, see British standard bombs in the Encyclopedia of Weapons of World War II. Andrew D. (talk) 12:29, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That list has a much narrower scope than just "bombs". This article suffers inherently from WP:OVERCAT. Rather deletion, perhaps it should redirect to Lists of weapons (which incidentally does not include this list). For example, List of cars redirects to a more reasonable list of automobile articles. Qzd (talk) 00:01, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 14:14, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Reluctant keep: I can envision a list of "bombs", defined as "exploding weapon", as being notable, sourced and generally within the scope of WP:SAL. It would actually be a list of the types of bombs rather than the bombs themselves, though (unlike List of nuclear weapons which can aim at exhaustivity).

It would be a nightmare to maintain, and it is quite far from the current article, but that means standard editorial process and talk page discussion, not deletion. WP:TNT is only an essay, and I would apply it only to case where the article to be created is on a different subject despite sharing the same title (say, if the current articles was a list of occurences of a football move). Tigraan (talk) 16:39, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep It needs a lot of work, but if done properly could be quite encyclopedic and useful reference article, but poor quality as it stands. Aoziwe (talk) 13:00, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:37, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:37, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Pretty useless as it is. Best approach might be to move to List of explosive devices and limit to entries that fit that description. At present it's just a list of bombs, explosive materials, and things with 'bomb' in the name, which is not coherent enough for a list. --Michig (talk) 08:17, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 10:48, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sophy Robson

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

Article only has a borderline claim to notability. Nathan2055^{talk - contribs} 06:36, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 07:33, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 07:33, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 07:33, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as still questionable for WP:CREATIVE. SwisterTwister talk 07:33, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nom. Arthistorian1977 (talk) 14:51, 14 February 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 G11 after I tagged it as such (NAC). SwisterTwister talk 19:27, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Business service visualization

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

No evidence of notability. Neither of the cited sources (second link is dead, but can be accessed by the wayback machine) mentions the phrase "Business service visualization". Very little coverage not just in reliable sources, but in any sources other than WP mirrors. There is one exception I could find: a brief from 2011 put out by CA Technologies, which uses the phrase twice in total. I don't think this coverage is sufficient to meet WP:WORDISSUBJECT (although this is a phrase the above guideline still seems to apply). Given that there is little evidence of this phrase meeting any other notability guidelines, like GNG, I think this page should be deleted. Everymorning (talk) 06:34, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 06:34, 7 February 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/redirect per WP:SNOW. I'm closing this early, given that the actress and her mother have both requested that the page be removed and there's a consensus that at this point in time she does not pass WP:NBIO outside of her appearance in Peter Pan. Since she is known for portraying Tiger Lily I'm going to delete the article and turn it into a redirect to Peter Pan (2003 film), which Gray has stated she is fine with. Because of the harassment, I'm going to protect the redirect against any future edits - if any one does want to re-create the article, they will have to request permission through an admin in this situation. Ms Gray is also in the process of sending an e-mail through the official channels to confirm her identity, which should also hopefully add an extra level of protection to the page. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 18:11, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Carsen Gray

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

Fails WP:NACTOR, which calls for multiple notable rolls. In addiition, we are facing a claim that the subject is being harmed by the bio, which should be given some weight in a case of borderline notability. --Nat Gertler (talk) 06:27, 7 February 2016 (UTC) Nat Gertler (talk) 06:27, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, clearly fails NACTOR and GNG. Security concerns only puts additional weight to the decision.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 06:36, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: At the very least I'm going to give Carmalita1010 a WP:NOTHERE block as adding info like this and this shows some seriously bad faith on her part. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 08:39, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Gave them a BLP block. If we can confirm that the performer herself wants the information removed, this could speed up the process. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 08:41, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I've reached out to the performer via her Facebook page with a brief explanation of the situation and gave her the contact information listed here. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 08:50, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
She's confirmed that this was her mother and that she wants the page down, so she's going to submit a request through the official channels. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 10:45, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy and SNOW Delete: Was never even remotely notable enough anyway, and wants the article deleted. Softlavender (talk) 15:18, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
SNOW delete, as per above commenters. --GRuban (talk) 16:02, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as above. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 16:03, 7 February 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 Active Directory#Active Directory Services. (non-admin closure) sst✈^(conjugate) 13:39, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Active Directory Services

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

The article's subject is not notable on its own. The content is better suited at Active Directory#Active Directory Services. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 05:51, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge as proposed by GeoffreyT2000. Clearly even the author did not find much to say about the subject that would be of value to be written up in Wikipedia.AppliedStatistics (talk) 06:14, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:23, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge also at best. SwisterTwister talk 07:32, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 10:38, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Transit of Venus from Uranus

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

I am batch-nominating 21 pages that all fall under "Transit of X from Y". These pages are nearly carbon-copies of one another, varying only with details such as the actual transit times/dates and minor trivia. The wording and the tone of these implies some very heavy OR and borders on a lack of a NPOV. The fact that none of these transits have been observed, coupled with the fact that they may never be observed, leads to an unnecessary set of pages with little more than crufty information.

I should mention that there are some pages that are actually decent (the full list is here, and those will be left alone. Primefac (talk) 05:15, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all as gross failures of WP:N and WP:OR/WP:SYNTH. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 05:24, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Astronomy-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 14:10, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all but one as they're unreferenced speculation on something that has little-to-no chance of being observed any time soon. Not notable and mostly original research. However, Transit of Venus from Saturn does seem to have been observed by Cassini (spacecraft) e.g. [5]. I've not checked to see how extensive the results were, but it does seem to have received media coverage. Modest Genius ^talk 13:54, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all as "unencyclopedic" (no notability). (Disclaimer: I checked only 5 of them randomly + the Venus-Saturn one, and I am ready to change my !vote on others - I trust the nominator on the "all are similar" claim.)

I am not convinced that the Cassini observation of Venus-Saturn is relevant: the subject of those articles is how powerful the spectrometer aboard Cassini is, not the event that was used for the test. I would argue the astronomic event in itself is pretty much insignificant, and falls under WP:MILL. This being said, the event certainly warrants a mention on Transit_(astronomy). Tigraan (talk) 16:10, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all. There's no evidence of notability for these transit events, and as others have said, there appears to be a large amount of original research. With regard to Transit of Venus from Saturn, I agree with Tigraan's analysis; the media coverage discussed the transit as a test of Cassini's instrumentation, not as a notable event. Astro4686 (talk) 06:18, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all and merge into one rationalised reduced and encyclopedic article for off Earth visible transits. I think overall this is mildly interesting. Individually all WP:MILL but aggregated together, not. Aoziwe (talk) 13:11, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I would think Transit (astronomy) is a good place for that (though it is currently a rather poor article). I do not see strong merge material in the nominated article. Tigraan (talk) 08:57, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: there's already a couple of statements about this on Transit (astronomy), so anything worth preserving could be added there. Perhaps some of the external links would be worth copying as well? Praemonitus (talk) 22:44, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Whether or not anyone has seen these events is irrelevant, they still occur and are notable as such.XavierGreen (talk) 16:03, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Out of curiosity, how is "this object passed in front of that object" a notable event? <insert pithy comment about a tree falling in the forest with no one around> Primefac (talk) 16:10, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Primefac, that comment is somewhat cynical given that Solar eclipses are generally considered notable. As list articles, I doubt there is even a need to delete them. -- Kheider (talk) 18:02, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You make a fair point (up until you added the list bit), and my sarcasm/cynicism was probably not necessary, but we've observed all of the solar eclipses, and those articles actually have data and images and references (and OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, of course). I should have instead referenced ITEXISTS as not being a valid reason for inclusion, but I had the whole "tree in the forest" metaphor stuck in my head. As response to the (edit conflict), these are not currently list articles, and we don't need 21 separate pages to have a list of the transits. Primefac (talk) 18:17, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Then Merge the content into one useful list article. They look like list articles to me. -- Kheider (talk) 18:25, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think merging them all into one article is an acceptable solution.XavierGreen (talk) 22:18, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The merge target would likely be Transit_(astronomy), and it would be quite dumb to have a subsection listing all possible "transits of X from Y" for any two values of X and Y, with 99% of individually non-notable items with no further information. (I guess that is not what you had in mind.) Having not been observed by humans eyes is indeed irrelevant, but an astronomical event that no human studied is likely non-notable. Tigraan (talk) 13:02, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Regarding Kheider's analogy of solar eclipses being notable, I would argue that the reasons for this notability aren't applicable to transits/eclipses viewed from elsewhere in the solar system. Solar eclipses are notable when viewed from Earth because they (1) receive widespread, detailed attention in reliable secondary sources, (2) are frequently observed by millions of people, and (3) are of historical significance. These considerations don't exist for transits/eclipses viewed from other celestial bodies. Accordingly, I think that these articles need to establish that transits of X viewed from Y meet WP:N, but I don't think that they can do so. As for XavierGreen's original point, there are hundreds of thousands of known bodies in the solar system, and it seems inevitable that at some point, a transit could be observed from almost every one of them. These transits are so ubiquitous that I don't think that notability can be presumed. Indeed, I'm skeptical that this material should even be merged. Best Regards, Astro4686 (talk) 22:47, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

While there are hundreds of thousands of known bodies in the solar system, there are only 8 known planets and the transits of the outer planets are such an exceedingly rare event that such an occurrence is notable in itself.XavierGreen (talk) 14:11, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, they've only occurred thousands if not millions of times since the formation of the solar system. What makes those happening around t = 3.5 billion years since the solar system has formed so special? Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 14:22, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You would create a list article called List of solar transits and those that wp:I just don't like it could walk away. Planets transiting the solar disc are fairly rare events. -- Kheider (talk) 14:32, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

We could, but the difference between IDONTLIKEIT and GNG is pretty significant. The argument so far seems to be that these specific transit pages don't meet GNG. Primefac (talk) 15:20, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia has a specific definition of notability that may not match any one person's particular view of the term. Best to stick with WP:GNG. Praemonitus (talk) 16:30, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Transwiki to Wikiversity. These look to be thinly referenced, but sre still of interest to some, but they look to be too close to Original research to stay here. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 14:54, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Move to draft. (non-admin closure) Spirit of Eagle (talk) 05:57, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Piirus

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

The article appears to be advertising for a web site. It doesn't cite any reliable unaffiliated sources. Notability is not established. The citations are to the site itself and its affiliated promoters. The one cited source that might appear unaffiliated, something called Science Business, seems to be an affiliated promotional advertising service (see the site's "About us" information). The text in the article seems to be mostly copied from the website's promotional material (e.g., at http://www.birmingham.ac.uk/research/activity/ias/piirus.aspx) – see, especially, what it said before I started trying to remove some of the non-neutral and non-notable information from it. This, of course, suggests a potential copyright problem as well as a lack of neutrality. The article has mostly been edited only by anonymous IPs that seem to repeatedly try to give it a more promotional tone (and do not respond to comments on their Talk pages asking them whether they work for the company). The article has apparently been speedily deleted before, per remarks on the Talk page of the article's creator. The article's creator also seems to have a number of messages on their Talk page indicating a pattern of copyright issues, and the user does not appear to have ever responded to the comments on their Talk page. I may as well also mention that the article about this website's "sister site", jobs.ac.uk, appears to be similarly weak in evidence for notability and also self-sourced. —BarrelProof (talk) 03:58, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. —BarrelProof (talk) 04:18, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: indeed there hasn't been much coverage as of right now ([6], [7], [8]) so maybe move it to the draftspace until it has been covered by a few more sources. --Fixuture (talk) 22:19, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 07:31, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to University of Warwick at best perhaps because this would actually be acceptable but perhaps still somewhat questionable, there are likely no serious needs for deletion. Notifying DGG for education analysis. SwisterTwister talk 07:32, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Move to draft, but the connection with the university is too minor to move it there DGG ( talk ) 09:55, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Note that I am also open to drafting. SwisterTwister talk 18:13, 13 February 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. Speedy deleted by Bbb23, CSD A7: No credible indication of importance. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 08:31, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Malik Hinds

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

Non-notable individual lacking non-trivial support. CSD removed by assumed ANON. Speedy candidate. reddogsix (talk) 02:56, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Author has acknowledged on the talk page that they work for the subject. —teb728 t c 09:51, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete has not reached the level of notability. Wikipedia is not to be a place to launch a career or advertise.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:30, 9 February 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. No consensus for a particular action has emerged in this discussion. A few people have suggested the possibility of a merge, which can be further discussed on a talk page. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:04, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hart Legacy Wrestling

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

Basically a WP:COATRACK to Hart wrestling family, Stampede Wrestling and related topics. The article is loaded with sources of dubious reliability or relevance to demonstrating the topic's notability, to the point of offering the impression that the promotion's tenuous relationship with the Hart family is its claim of notability, rather than anything which actually occurred. From reading the article, I was able to determine that they've held one wrestling event, which was not financially successful. The article and its sources dwell on that one event while leaving plenty of doubts as to whether they've actually held as opposed to merely announced any other events. When I was growing up, your typical wrestling promotion held 300–350 events per year, year in and year out, so whoop-dee-fucking-doo about this promotion maybe holding two or three events per year, if that. Last I checked, we're supposed to be here to reflect notable occurrences, not serve as another social media site promoting bottom feeders, regurgitating press releases and the like. Pacific Northwest Wrestling includes mentions of (loosely-)related successor promotions which are not independently notable. As such, this promotion and the countless others that have laid claim to being Stampede's successor in Calgary since its 1989 demise could easily fit within a paragraph or two towards the bottom of that article. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 18:54, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I disagree with pretty much everything that you've said. This page wasn't made to promote anything. I made it mostly because of the fact that it's had two relatively big controversies and has been covered by CBC.ca, the Calgary Herald and the Calgary Sun. If you think it doesn't deserve it's own article and should be included in the Stampede Wrestling article that's one thing, but don't claim that this articles intent was to be a "social media site promoting bottom feeders" as you said. I have absolutely no interest in making the people who handle this promotion any favours. I personally feel that it is notable enough that it can have it's own article but it's up to other people to say if they agree.*Treker (talk) 21:12, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 18:55, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2016 January 30. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 19:17, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - AfD is not the place to suggest merging articles, although I would oppose that as well. This is not Stampede Wrestling, and it does not seem sufficiently connected with Stampede to be included in the article. The rest of the nominator's rationale is a series of WP:IDONTLIKE it complaints ("Things were better back in the good ol' days.") that are not based in policy or guidelines. GNG is satisfied because of the extent of coverage in independent reliable sources (no, not all of the sources present are reliable, but the ones that are more than satisfy GNG). GaryColemanFan (talk) 21:38, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I forget how many years ago it was that Maclean's put Madonna on their cover. I do remember the furor which ensued over how Canadian media should be about Canada and not the United States. Considering that, there must be lots of slow news days in Canada, because this absolutely reeks of "slow news day article". Unfulfilled promotional hype and unpaid bills are a fact of life in the wrestling business, even at a lot higher levels than this. That the project has chosen to categorically avoid sources which portray certain (read: uncomplimentary) views of the business, regardless of the editorial oversight of those sources, doesn't excuse away that fact. Speaking of the "good ol' days", Bill Watts wrote that he was able to start Mid-South Wrestling because of the political connections he developed in Louisiana. There once was a time when athletic commissions were a very real thing, and wrestling promotions had to conform to their desires and pay for the privilege, too. The state of Louisiana was one of a number of jurisdictions which granted an exclusive franchise to promote professional wrestling. According to Watts, the state was tired of dealing with different promoters in every town or region, with unpaid bills being one of the chief reasons why. Watts was talking about the 1970s. So this promotion is more notable than any other financially unsuccessful local promotion for what reason? As I deal a lot with topics related to sparsely populated regions of the earth, saying that something having to do with Calgary is a bigger deal than some dude promoting the East Bumfuck War Memorial Auditorium amounts to systemic bias. Otherwise, it's continuing to validate my concerns of WP:COATRACK. I didn't even bring up WP:NOTINHERITED, while we're at it.

The mere existence of a few reliable sources here and there is no indication of notability or suitability for inclusion. By this criteria, every local wrestling promotion and traveling wrestling huckster in history receiving more than trivial media coverage, even if for skipping town with financial obligations, is entitled to a Wikipedia article. I was researching magazine and newspaper articles on professional wrestling back in the 1980s when there were no web search engines. Various wrestling historians have published newsletters and websites over the decades which track the appearance of professional wrestling in reliable sources throughout the early and middle 20th century. Even if those sources lack a URL, they still qualify under editorial oversight, and it would be no problem to expand our coverage in that direction. As a strictly practical matter, however, we're not going to do that. Once again, what makes this particular promotion special? Whatever fleeting connection it has to the Hart family? The lead makes it pretty clear that this is what we're hinging its notability upon. If Bret Hart has nothing to do with the promotion, he doesn't need to be mentioned, period. The lead mentions other members of the Hart family as "operators" of the promotion while a different set of names are listed in the infobox as "owners", and only confuses the relationship between those two entities the further along it goes. Either you're unconcerned about a general audience who is unfamiliar with the people and particulars involved, or it's further evidence of my concerns, or both.

While I don't necessarily agree with the unreliable sources satisfying GNG, do they satisfy BLP? Last I checked, I'm allowed to raise BLP concerns regardless of whether or not this is the most apprpriate forum for it. I'm reading a lot of names and specifics in connection with malfeasance in the article text, not mentioned in such detail in the CBC story but mentioned in detail in perhaps unreliable sources. I've read plenty enough over the years to suggest that Smith Hart lacks credibility in certain circles, but I'm not rushing to include any of that in a BLP article. However, he makes an announcement of a match which never happened, with no evidence presented that the associated event ever happened. There's a heap of ref tags surrounding questionable sources "verifying" this. So the reaction to the announcement is what's notable here? I ask because I see little or no evidence that any of the events announced actually occurred. I think it's important we get something like that straight, otherwise we validate the criticisms of Wikipedia as wannabe newspaper or TMZ. Any one of us can be on a blog or on Facebook all day long, stirring shit in the hopes that a media organization will take notice of what we're saying, further allowing us to have a "reliable source" with which to game Wikipedia's coverage. There's evidence of that all over the encyclopedia. Is that a solid approach to building an encyclopedic information resource? No.

Back in 1985, when in my late teens and too dumb and eager to know any better of what I was getting myself into, I became briefly involved with the business in an utterly minor role. My mother worked for a guy named Bruce Kendall and my older sister and I both worked for one of Kendall's closest business associates. One of the multitude of enterprises that guy engaged in was promoting professional wrestling, in conjunction with a former wrestler. They also set up a wrestling school. The venture lasted all of six months (August 1985 to February 1986) and was fraught with problems from the get go. However, they were affiliated with the AWA, which was really more an excuse for Verne Gagne to go on a fishing trip than anything else. Still, we had guys like Zbyszko and the Freebirds who performed in front of more fans in a single show than Smith Hart ever did in a month of Sundays, excepting perhaps his few tours of Japan and Puerto Rico. This promotion also received some amount of local media buzz for being the first pro wrestling in Alaska in well over a decade (Don Owen Promotions announced an upcoming show in Alaska in May 1983, but I've yet to find any evidence of whether it actually took place). From what I can tell, the promotion held more events and drew more paying fans, either per event or total, in six months than Hart Legacy Wrestling has in nearly four years of existence. The point here is that I could dig up all sorts of reliable sources related to that promotion and plaster together an article, and you would still view it the same way that I'm viewing this. Do different standards apply because I happen to view a URL which happens to point to a media outlet which qualifies as a reliable source? The Anchorage Times is also a reliable source, but since it went out of business in 1992, there's no URL to be had were I to do what I just described. As there's plenty of attitudes of "no URL = no WP:V" to be found on here, this is also a systemic bias issue which needs to be acknowledged. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 14:42, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry I don't see how any of these arguments make sense or how your story about being involved in the industry when you were younger is relevant at all. You simply don't seem to like this article and want it gone. Since when does it matter if it was a slow news week as you say.*Treker (talk) 16:32, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps it's just a difference in perspective. Here's another one. I make my living in a very results-driven, boots-on-the-ground line of business. Therefore, I'm flabbergasted someone would believe that the notability of a company boils down to how much media buzz the company generates for themselves, all the while said media and other ostensibly reliable sources tell us that the company is as long on media buzz and name recognition as it is short on actual accomplishments. Notability is what we're discussing. Last I checked, we're supposed to give more weight to accomplishments than to announcements in determining notability. I've been through a number of AFDs of articles constructed by patching together sources but not patching together a coherent narrative or clear claim of notability to tie everything together. Eventually, some editor will argue that the mere existence of the sources constitutes notability, but that hasn't saved the article from being deleted. As I said before, this is at the level of suggesting that any one could write a Wikipedia article about themselves. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 18:41, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I still don't see how anything you've said supports the deletion of this page. I don't care for what businesses you have worked with or for, it isn't relevant. This article isn't meant to promote any media buzz for the promotion or support it. It's here because the events surrounding it, both controversies and charity events has been covered by notable news sources in Canada and in the pro wrestling sphere, PWInsider, PWTorch, F4W and Canoe are all decently reliable sources for news about pro wrestling. I also wouldn't suport including the material in Teddy Hart since the controversy appears to be more surrounding the promoter, the Hart Family's wikipedia page since the event only seem to have included about three or four of it's members, or the Stampede Wrestling's page since this clearly isn't that promotion.*Treker (talk) 19:50, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion has already reached the point of being too polluted by the perspective of wrestling fandom. Plenty of editors will be happy to beat you over the head with their contention that we're here for a general audience, period. To that end, there will be readers who won't be viewing this article through fanboy goggles. If they view this promotion as simply a company and not expressly as a wrestling promotion, we leave lots of doubt as to just what the fuck the big deal is, anyway. I also should point out that my line of business is heavily competitive. Compounding that, Trump's rise to prominence is entirely too appropriate, as the predatory, dog-eat-dog economic environment which has kept New York City afloat all these years has spread throughout the rest of the country. Resultantly, I don't need Casey Kasem to tell me to "keep reaching for the stars". As I've been working for a living since I was 16 years old, I already know that I need to keep reaching for the stars, otherwise I don't eat or sleep as well the next day. I've also been involved in politics in years past. I think I can safely say that you don't stick around that long in either business or politics if all you do is issue press releases. You have to go out and do something, and the article's text and sources are painfully short of describing what they've actually done. It's little surprising that the project hates on Ring of Hell so much, as it dwells on the less noble aspects of the Harts, with one chapter entitled "Turd Polish". Go read it and you'll think that this promotion is just the next episode in a lineage of such behavior. At least Stu Hart had willing guinea pigs and a healthy business to boot. Anyway, I didn't feel like it before, but I guess it's necessary to invite other perspectives on this. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 20:26, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 20:26, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 20:26, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that you've been working since you've been 16 or what you work with has no relevance to anything. Don't turn this into being about me and you and insulting me. The only one here with an obvious bias is you. I don't have any "fanboy goggles" and if you think the writing is sub-par you can chose to fix it. If other editors think the article deserves to be deleted due to lack of notability they can gladly do so but stop questioning my intent in creating it and tossing information about yourself and your credibility towards me.*Treker (talk) 20:54, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I got my first job when I was 11, so that somehow proves that this Wikipedia article should be kept. GaryColemanFan (talk) 02:52, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, has held a total of three shows ot looks like. Coverage for not paying and for lying about the Benoit kid.... yeah I am not seeing that being about the company but a section in articlez on Teddy etc. MPJ-US 16:30, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It is true that most of the coverage of the promotion is about the controversies but the charity event in December 2015 was covered by both the Ottawa Citizen, Edmonton Journal and the Calgary Herald.*Treker (talk) 17:06, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't wish to dwell about inherent media bias. Here in the United States, I can tune in 24/7 to any number of media outlets masquerading as the Trump News Network for all the minutiae I can stomach. That doesn't mean that every little last bit of it is appropriate to encyclopedic coverage of Trump or the presidential race or any other related topics. Same applies here, except that minutiae is needed in this case to fill up content, so that you have anything at all. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 18:41, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't wish to dwell on media bias either but since you brought it up, I'm not Canadian nor have I ever lived in Canada. The fact that some Canadian news sources have chosen to write about pro wrestling instead of something else doesn't matter, the sources may be from somewhere but they're available everywhere through the internet. Of course every detail about the presidential campaign cannot be included in the article, it would end up being ridiculously long and cluttered, but by that logic a lot of articles should not be deemed relevant because they don't have as large amount of media coverage as Trump. As far as I'm concerned notability has been covered.*Treker (talk) 19:50, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"...but they're available everywhere through the internet." – Yeah, I get it. It's a new world order, the Internet has made us one big world now, etc. etc. Doncha know that you're only here to consume content? You want a contextually coherent and relevant understanding of the topic, too? Sheesh, you kids today are so demanding... RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 20:26, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - It doesn't matter how many shows they've had, it's still a notable promotion, because if that's the case then delete Wrestling Society X. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.214.94.65 (talk) 15:23, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. There's not much here: two events and some money troubles following on from the first of these. I'm unconvinced this organization meets the GNG. Mackensen (talk) 23:52, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 02:29, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Hart wrestling family Lots of routine coverage about their events and promotional controversies, but I don't think this deserves its own article. It's only the family connection that generates any coverage so a redirect seems like a better idea.Mdtemp (talk) 01:21, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect perhaps at best as this may be best connected to the family and may not yet be solidly independent. SwisterTwister talk 06:38, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, I would not oppose a merging/redirect but there are enough contents and coverage to sustain a separate article from Hart wrestling family. CBC Radio, Canoe.ca, Calgary Herald, Calgary Sun etc. are reliable sources and most of the coverage is significant and covers events promoted by this federation, so I don't see where the coatrack is supposed to be. Cavarrone 22:29, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 17:16, 11 February 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 two "keep" opinions are by a person with a COI and by a new account with 22 edits. Sandstein 12:56, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Animal Charity Evaluators

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

This article is actually pretty good overall, but after doing some research, the article topic (Animal Charity Evaluators) seems unlikely to meet Wikipedia notability standards. The sources cited are almost all primary, and two of the secondary sources are from personal blogs (Nonprofit Chronicles and The Ultimate Fundraiser) and therefore not reliable. The remaining secondary source is by Peter Singer, and after some digging I found several other such articles (and mentions in books) by Singer, but Singer is on the ACE board of directors (cite) and therefore not independent. I was able to find a mention in a secondary source here, but this is only a bare mention, and there doesn't seem to be anything else in Google Books, Google News, or the Google newspaper archive. Spectra239 (talk) 10:36, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:34, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:34, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organisms-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:34, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Discussed at some length in this book. Since this is a pseudoscience group, this is also a good source per WP:PARITY. If not enough sources are found I strongly suggest that, per WP:PRESERVE, the correct choice would be to Merge to effective altruism. This organization has a great deal of currency in the US animal rights movement, and Wikipedia can perform a valuable service by debunking its claims. --Sammy1339 (talk) 22:24, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Woah there. Merging might be a reasonable choice, but the purpose of Wikipedia is not to "perform a valuable service by debunking claims". Wikipedia can record the debunking of claims, but only if these claims have already been debunked elsewhere by a consensus of reliable sources, which seems pretty unlikely to be the case here. See WP:SOAPBOX, WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. Spectra239 (talk) 23:43, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's identified as promoting pseudoscience in the two sources I linked. It's standard practice to include such commentaries, per WP:FRINGE. And the purpose of Wikipedia is to inform people, hopefully with accurate information. I understand where you're coming from, though, because I myself have gotten caught in the crossfire of the soapboxing anti-fringe folks. --Sammy1339 (talk) 23:53, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That isn't what the sources say, though. The first says that "ACE is highly interconnected with professionalized advocacy organizations, which seems to influence perceptions of efficacy.", which is essentially a conflict-of-interest claim. The second says that "the conclusions drawn are of questionable validity because the data used in the determination of effectiveness are nonexistent or faulty". In academic terms, claims that "Institute X is biased because it's friends with group Y" or "Institute X has reached questionable conclusions based on faulty data" (which scientists say about each other all the time) are very different from "Institute X is a fringe pseudoscience organization" (which you'd only expect to apply to eg. Flat Earther groups). In any case, it's fine to include claims of CoI or faulty data as claims ("person X says Y"), but the article itself can't say "Y", because the sources are clearly biased and of questionable reliability. Spectra239 (talk) 00:11, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, granted. But note that the second source actually uses the terms "pseudoscience" albeit not specifically about them, and "garbage in, garbage out" specifically about them. --Sammy1339 (talk) 00:19, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm not familiar with all of Wikipedia's policies, but I'd like to share some of my domain knowledge for your consideration. (1) There are numerous secondary sources discussing ACE's work. In addition to the ones you mention, the book (published by Penguin) "Doing Good Better", the book (published by John Wiley & Sons) "How to Be Great at Doing Good", Poker Update, 80,000 Hours, The Guardian, Huffington Post, The Dodo, Our Hen House, Raising for Effective Giving, and Charity Science. I am not sure where the notability cutoff for organizations like this, but just want you to be aware. (2) Corey Lee Wrenn, the person who wrote about ACE in that reference, is known as a contentious figure in the animal protection movement and for criticizing all groups that don't advocate an explicitly vegan strategy. Vegan Publishers, the second reference, is known for similar tactics. Also, I don't think ACE is connected with advocacy groups any more than is necessary to evaluate them properly, since that requires knowledge of their finances, strategy, accomplishments, mistakes, etc. It seems to make more sense to judge ACE based on the content of their work and use of evidence rather than opinions from sources we haven't established as reputable when discussing whether they practice "psuedoscience." (3) ACE acknowledges that they have limited evidence available in making their recommendations, e.g. "The field of animal advocacy has historically suffered from a lack of research attention. As a result, in our research ACE continually encounters questions not addressed directly by existing studies. While we conduct some studies ourselves to strengthen the evidentiary basis of our evaluations, we have limited research capacity and experience." It's unclear to me why working on difficult questions with limited evidence makes an organization "psuedoscience" or what other concerns could point in that direction. I mean, ACE even has a research library devoted to collecting academic research relevant to effective advocacy. --Not a Wikipedia user, just a concerned citizen. (Note: I am involved with ACE and/or the organizations it recommends, so please feel free to consider me biased. Just want to provide information.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:647:4100:6AE0:FD92:10:29F0:3520 (talk) 00:17, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The IP's comments have convinced me that the two sources in my initial comment (now struck) are WP:BIASED, and all of the sources mentioned by the IP are primary, closely connected to the subject, or non-RS. (The only possible exception is William MacAskill, author of the first book and the guardian piece which is just a passing mention; the second book is by Nick Cooney who is closely connected to two groups which are heavily promoted by ACE.) This means we have no hope of an article, even a stub, that satisfies NPOV. ACE currently has a brief one-line mention in Effective altruism#Other organizations, which is probably all we can do with the sources available. --Sammy1339 (talk) 01:21, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This was nominated for AfD under the idea that secondary sources are lacking, but later commenters then pointed out several relevant secondary sources. (Sammy1339 listed hostile sources, which means they are certainly secondary, and an unsigned commenter subsequently listed ten additional positive sources, nine of which are secondary.) Per WP:ORG, this article meets notability guidelines. — Eric Herboso 02:53, 5 February 2016 (UTC) [Note: I have worked with Animal Charity Evaluators in the past. — Eric Herboso 01:22, 9 February 2016 (UTC)][reply]

Let's go through those.

1. William MacAskill, very marginal popular book. He's affiliated with several effective altruism groups and is an associate of Peter Singer, who is on the ACE board. Somewhat unclear; this might be okay.

2. Nick Cooney, founder of one and current employee of the other of the two main groups that ACE promotes year after year. Also heavily promotional of ACE.

3. A passing mention in Poker Update.

4. Written by the "Secretary of the board of Animal Charity Evaluators".

5. MacAskill again, very brief passing mention.

6. Interview with someone from one of the groups promoted by ACE, passing mention only. Solely mentioned via the question: "Animal Charity Evaluators has rated MFA one of its top recommended charities for the second year in a row, and MFA has received many additional awards for its effectiveness. What makes MFA such a high-impact charity?" And not even mentioned in the answer to that question.

7. Advertizement.

8. Online-only talk-show interview with " the Executive Director of Animal Charity Evaluators".

9. I can't even tell what this is, but it's not an RS.

10. Charity Science - looks like another fringe "effective altruist" organization to me.

So no, there are hardly any secondary sources except the scathingly critical ones from my initial post. Better to leave this one out. --Sammy1339 (talk) 03:17, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Reasons I don't find (most of) these convincing:

1. I think a second-degree connection through a board members is a pretty weak affiliation, but you seem to agree.

2. I don't think "promotional of ACE" is a concern in itself; it just means he likes ACE. The employment/founding concern makes sense, although given how small the farmed animal advocacy community is, it's hard to find leaders in the community who aren't affiliated in some way with a given organization. Still, I agree this is the most non-independent.

3. Passing, but an independent, secondary source nonetheless.

4. Similarly to 2, the effective altruism community is also small and well-connected. Agree it's not very independent in absolute terms, but given the nature of the community, it's understandable.

5. The entire article is about ACE in a way, or at least, effective animal charities. See 1 for why I don't find the affiliation concerning.

6. Passing, and probably weaker than others due to the affiliation.

7. Why do you think it's an advertisement? Because it's so positive in tone? Everything on The Dodo is this positive. I'm not convinced.

8. Why is an online-only talk-show somehow not reliable or independent? And interviews with affiliated people seem fine as long as the source is secondary.

9. Raising for Effective Giving is a legitimate organization that supports ACE. Not sure what your issue is with this one.

10. I don't think being an effective altruist organization makes you non-reputable, but feel free to point me to something. Empamazing (talk) 04:04, 5 February 2016 (UTC)— Empamazing (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Keep. Agree with Eric Herboso. Even if a couple of those sources are authored by people with connections to the organization (and I think we should be sympathetic because charity evaluators are by their nature well-connected), there are still plenty of entirely independent reliable sources listed above.— Empamazing (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 3:23, 5 February 2016 (UTC).

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 02:28, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It looks like they do good work and they're in a laudable cause, but that's not what Wikipedia is about. I'm not persuaded by the quality of the sources, and to be honest the review above seems to be grasping at straws. When you have to construct an elaborate argument as to why something might be notable, then it probably isn't. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 02:46, 7 February 2016 (UTC).[reply]
Keep The Salon and Guardian articles in addition to the two books cited by the IP are enough to make me lean towards keeping it. πr² (t • c) 05:40, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Salon article is by someone on the board of directors and the Guardian article is just a very brief passing mention, and is by someone whose connection to the subject is questionable, who is also the author of the first book. The second book cited by the IP is by Nick Cooney, whose close connection to ACE is indisputable. --Sammy1339 (talk) 05:46, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, Cooney's connection to ACE is not my OR; the nature of it is made explicit in the book I cited in my struck comment above. --Sammy1339 (talk) 06:01, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Good point. I guess the Guardian article and Cooney might not count as indepdendent sources. I found other mentions of this nonprofit online, but not really in-depth (e.g. a brief mention in Vox - not sure if this is another author connected to the organization). It looks like it might not meet the notability criteria currently. πr² (t • c) 06:09, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, Dylan Matthews is a writer at Vox and fan of the effective altruism movement (although he's been critical at times). I feel that's about as independent as you can get for an organization like this, although the mention is brief (but it's not "a trivial mention," which seems to make it acceptable by WP:NOTABILITY). Empamazing (talk) 02:14, 8 February 2016 (UTC)— Empamazing (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

I'm curious if anyone has precedent to cite for another article on an organization in a similar situation (a well-connected group (e.g. evaluates other orgs), lots of mentions, but mostly either not in well-known publications or not authors entirely independent from the group) and what consensus was reached on it. If someone had such evidence, and the group was decided as non-notable, that'd convince me I was setting my notability standards too low. Empamazing (talk) 02:14, 8 February 2016 (UTC)— Empamazing (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Delete and draft and userfy if needed at best because this article would actually be acceptable but it can drafted and userfied for further work. Notifying DGG for analysis. SwisterTwister talk 07:30, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Coming on it fresh, I would have deleted it as G11 for blatant and unfixable advocacy. It could possibly be improved to be less of an advertisement for them by the removal of the entire sections 3, 4, 5, and 6, and the drastic rewriting of 1 ,2, and 7 for NPOV, but that's pretty much equivalent of having a new article together. DGG ( talk ) 09:51, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Citing G11 as though this article would fall under speedy deletion seems a bit harsh, but I might be biased since I have a loose connection to ACE irl. Would anyone not affiliated with ACE be willing to make DGG's suggested changes in the hopes of saving this article? — Eric Herboso 00:29, 14 February 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. (non-admin closure) sst✈^(conjugate) 02:30, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A Head Full of Dreams (song)

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

Fails WP:NSONGS, no indicator of independent third party notability as well as usage of unreliable sources like setlist.fm —IB ^{[ Poke ]} 09:10, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Musa^Talk ☻ 09:55, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Musa^Talk ☻ 09:55, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Per nomination reasons. There is no notability in the coverage of third party sources. — Calvin999 16:47, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. If we come to a consensus that there is not enough coverage, we should redirect to the album article, not delete. The redirect serves a purpose. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 18:13, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- There's not enough coverage, hence the reason for deletion. That is established already. Redirect not needed. Article has only had 159 in the last 90 days. People search the album article, not the song. — Calvin999 21:29, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - Sorry, but that is not correct. We don't delete redirects that serve a purpose. It is helpful to redirect songs to their respective albums. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 22:50, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    - If no one is searching for that title then no, it doesn't serve a purpose at all. — Calvin999 11:06, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      - WP:REDIRECT says, "If someone says they find a redirect useful, they probably do. You might not find it useful—this is not because the other person is being untruthful, but because you browse Wikipedia in different ways." The redirect serves a purpose. I am not sure why you feel such a strong need to suggest otherwise. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 16:48, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        Obviously you think a redirect is probably useful, otherwise you wouldn't be saying it. — Calvin999 11:20, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Question Are 11 inline citations not enough coverage?--DThomsen8 (talk) 00:12, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- No DThomsen8, they are just repetition of album review and chart info that can easily be contained inside the parent album article and the Coldplay discography article. —IB ^{[ Poke ]} 09:23, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Not necessarily, but I believe there is enough information about this song's recording, composition, reception, live performances, and charting history to justify an article. There are many, many more sources that could be used to expand this article. I added just a few. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 16:50, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - Well where is the notability then? Existence of source is one thing and them being present in the article is another. The key here is independent third party sources talking about the song, not passing mentions in album review. —IB ^{[ Poke ]} 20:36, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per nomination reasons. There is no notability in the coverage of third party sources. See Question above.--DThomsen8

Keep: This article should be kept. Deletion should be out of the question. Merger can be considered, but since the song for which the article is written happens to be the theme song on the album, it has a certain degree of prominence justifying its article here. Best to keep. Garagepunk66 (talk) 05:51, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 02:27, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Charting in at least three countries that we know of; title track on an album that reached numerous #1 or #2 positions; definitely enough material for an article, as has already been demonstrated. It's difficult to Google search for this song alone since the track title is the same as the album title, but it's clear there is enough material and enough notability. Softlavender (talk) 11:32, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as this seems convincing enough. SwisterTwister talk 07:29, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 10:51, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Cho (rapper)

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

Completely unsourced WP:BLP of a rapper, making no real claim of notability for anything more than existing. His only listed releases have been one single and a pair of mixtapes, so nothing here gives him an WP:NMUSIC pass — and the complete lack of any reliable source referencing at all means that he doesn't satisfy WP:GNG either. Possibly just WP:TOOSOON for an article about somebody who may become more notable in the future — but nothing claimed here entitles him to already have a Wikipedia article today. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 00:26, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no indication of notability. Curro2 (talk) 00:58, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This isn't Reverbnation or Bandcamp. edtiorEهեইдအီးËეεઈדוארई電子ಇអ៊ី전자ഇī😎 01:29, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Bharatiya 29 11:19, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. Bharatiya 29 11:19, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as although he may be notable being signed to a label, there's nothing to suggest a better notable article. SwisterTwister talk 21:40, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I came here looking to close this but as it stands we only have two arguments for deletion that deal with the issue of notability, another that can be given no weight whatsoever, and one that states he may be notable and appears to confuse notability with article quality. If people could start by stating whether they believe the subject is notable or not, and their reasoning and evidence why, it would be helpful. --Michig (talk) 08:10, 14 February 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 Surakarta. (non-admin closure) sst✈^(conjugate) 02:29, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jebres

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

The article's subject fails WP:GNG. It has been unsourced for 9 years. The article was deprodded by Tavix. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 00:26, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:GEOLAND, populated places are never deleted outright from Wikipedia, so long as they can be properly verified as real places rather than WP:HOAXes. However, if its simple existence is the only thing we can verify about it, and there's really nothing else properly sourceable to say, then the alternative that we do have is to redirect it to a larger related topic rather than leaving it as a permanently unsourced standalone topic. Since this is a subdistrict of the larger city of Surakarta, accordingly, the most appropriate solution here is to redirect it to Surakarta. Bearcat (talk) 00:33, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I see references that predate the creation of the Wikipedia article, so this is not a hoax. Curro2 (talk) 01:01, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody said or suggested that it was a hoax. But what it is, is an unreferenced article about a topic that could just as easily be addressed in the article about its parent topic rather than needing its own standalone article separately from the city it's in. Bearcat (talk) 06:56, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 13:57, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect as questionably solid and improvable as its own article. SwisterTwister talk 07:40, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 21:03, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ed Prosek

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

Advertorially-toned WP:BLP of a musician, with no strong claim to notability per WP:NMUSIC and no substantive reliable source coverage to support it. The strongest claim here is that he reached #1 on a music blog aggregator's charts — but we only permit IFPI-certified charts such as Billboard — and the only non-primary and non-bloggy source here is a 43-word blurb in Q. Wikipedia is not a free public relations platform on which emerging musicians are entitled to advertise themselves — it's an encyclopedia, on which the notability and the media coverage have to already be there or else it's WP:TOOSOON. Delete, without prejudice against recreation in the future if and when his notability and sourceability improve. Bearcat (talk) 00:20, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Curro2 (talk) 01:03, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~. This isn't Bandcamp. edtiorEهեইдအီးËეεઈדוארई電子ಇអ៊ី전자ഇī😎 01:21, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This appears to good in-depth coverage of his EP, so I'm changing my vote to a weak keep. edtiorEهեইдအီးËეεઈדוארई電子ಇអ៊ី전자ഇī😎 01:25, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Line of Best Fit is a blog, so it's not a source that can count toward WP:GNG. It's one of the more reputable music blogs and has several named contributors rather than just one, so it falls in the class of blogs that would be acceptable for some supplementary sourcing of facts after GNG had already been met by better sources — but it can't carry a person over GNG if it's the best, or the only, source there is. Bearcat (talk) 07:00, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Bharatiya 29 11:21, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete at best as still none of this solidly better satisfying the applicable notability. SwisterTwister talk 21:39, 7 February 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.