Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2016 June 2

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 1 June	3 June >

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The result was keep, withdrawn with the only support for the delete being based on the withdrawn OTRS request. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:16, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Pratibha Gai

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

OTRS Team Member (verify) - The subject of this article has requested deletion, via OTRS (Ticket# 2016052010015078). Procedurally opening this discussion to allow the community to decide if this article meets the necessary criteria for deletion. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 23:57, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 00:02, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 00:02, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 00:02, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~. High citation record on GS and other achievements would lead to a keep for WP:Prof, but I support subject's request to delete. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:20, 3 June 2016 (UTC).[reply]

Keep on basis of new OTRS information. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:59, 4 June 2016 (UTC).[reply]

~~Hmmm~~, could somebody from OTRS comment in more detail on the stated reasons for the subject's request? Certainly, in terms of notability, the subject is eminently notable, even famous, and passes WP:PROF, WP:BIO and WP:GNG. Apart from various awards listed in the article (being a Fellow of the Royal Society is already enough to pass WP:PROF#C3), there are many examples of specific in-depth biographical coverage in the newsmedia, e.g. [1], [2], [3], [4]. We usually don't delete articles with that level of notability. Nsk92 (talk) 00:28, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- OTRS Team Member (verify) - We can't comment on specifics regarding private communication; the most I can tell you is that they requested it be taken down. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 03:04, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I understand the reasons for confidentiality, so won't ask you to confirm this here publicly, but from the article history I suspect that the subject's objection might be to the inclusion of her year of birth, and the year of her doctoral thesis from which her approximate age can be calculated. Maybe you could ask whether she would be happy with the retention of the article without these details? 86.17.222.157 (talk) 10:17, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If that is indeed what she is concerned about, the issue could in principle be handled without deleting the article. The edits containing year of birth in the article history were problematically sourced anyway, and they could be oversighted. It is a bit harder to see how providing the year of the PhD could be a problem, but ultimately that's not a particularly important detail and that info could also be removed from the article and the corresponding edits could be oversighted. The name of her PhD alma mater is included in her official faculty profile page at her school, her FRS bio page and many news articles about her, so that name would probably have to be included if the article is kept. Nsk92 (talk) 15:56, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The reason I asked is that sometimes the subject does not realize that there are alternatives to deletion, such as revdel and oversight, in case there is concern about specific edits. I hope OTRS has explained this to her. Nsk92 (talk) 12:28, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep, per above discussion (the subject's notability is self-evident here), and since the nomination has been withdrawn. Nsk92 (talk) 15:20, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
delete subject is FRS, and so undoubtedly notable, but the encyclopedia is not damaged by one less CVesque science bio that the subject wishes were not here. Pete.Hurd (talk) 05:45, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Being in a dictionary such as this goes with the territory for someone who chooses to accept election as FREng, FRS etc with all those public distinctions entail. A reason beyond personal disinclination (eg serious errors, vandalism) or evidence of similar requests being agreed to should be provided before deletion. GooglerW (talk) 14:22, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
OTRS note (verify) - It appears the article's subject was confused about what they were requesting, and have now retracted their request to delete the article. Any of my fellow admins can feel free to close this. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 18:53, 3 June 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 Speedied per WP:CSD#G3 among other issues. FWIW I do not believe that IPs should be able to decline CSDs.. Rs chen 7754 18:40, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Georgia State Route 39 Spur (Jakin)

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

Twice declined CSD. Unsourced and fails WP:GNG. Georgia DOT maps, which would be an authoritative source on if this road is on the state highway system, show this as a county-maintained road. –Fredddie ™ 22:59, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 23:01, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Poble Espanyol

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

advertising The Banner talk 22:58, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Said to be the fourth most popular tourist attraction in Barcelona,[5] discussed in numerous academic and popular books. Examples: [6][7][8][9] Article doesn't seem to be especially more promotional than many others about tourist attractions, and can be improved by the usual editorial process.--Arxiloxos (talk) 23:43, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, obviously. I would have thought that, having taken part in so many deletion discussions, the nominator would be aware of WP:BEFORE by now. How many such timewasting nominations are required before action is taken to prevent them? 86.17.222.157 (talk) 20:13, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Did you even look at the article? The Banner talk 08:30, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yes. It has plenty of factual non-promotional content, so the promotional bits can simply be removed leaving an acceptable article on a clearly notable topic. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 17:43, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    - Then good luck with editing The Banner talk 18:09, 8 June 2016 (UTC) But my experience is that nobody will do anything.[reply]
      - I don't operate an edit-on demand service. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 18:17, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and improve as I'm happening to see this article, it seems to be an actual landmark and there's certainly enough to suggest improving may be best including with some familiar attention. SwisterTwister talk 06:26, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Museums and libraries-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:58, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:58, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:59, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and copy edit. Quite notable per available sources about the topic. The one-word "advertising" rationale for deletion is ambiguous and subjective; the entire article does not read as an advertisement. A few sections could use some copy editing to address promotional tone, but WP:AFDISNOTCLEANUP. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:00, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Strange, you never seem to find advertising. The Banner talk 20:17, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - < yawn > While you spend time typing out WP:ADHOM statements that have nothing to do with the topic, I've been improving the article. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:39, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You simply cannot be nominating articles like this for deletion on subjects that are obviously notable and exist on SIXTEEN other language wikipedias. Tag it as advertising if you want, but there is no end date for the project. It may not get fixed for 250 years, and that's ok, as long as its notable. (Also, hello to editors of 2266 reading this edit!) --Milowent • ^hasspoken 21:23, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, primarily per citations provided by Arxiloxos, the subject appears to meet guidelines for general notability. There issues with advertising and unsourced content may be dealt with through the normal editing process. Regards, Yamaguchi先生 (talk) 22:04, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:17, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

List of Representative of the Philippines to Miss Supranational

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

List of candidates to a not notable pageant. The representatives aren't notable either. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 22:38, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 22:41, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 22:41, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Miss Supranational (2nd nomination). This article is effectively dependent on the article Miss Supranational, which was deleted because that pageant is non-notable -- and if the pageant as a whole is non-notable, a list of its representatives from one country must be even less notable. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 01:05, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 02:20, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: as per @Metropolitan90's rationale. Quis separabit? 19:51, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as there's nothing to suggest there's substance for its own notable article, delete as there's nothing to even begin suggesting better. SwisterTwister talk 00:40, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Did not meet notability guidelines.--Richie Campbell (talk) 02:01, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. List not notable. Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 02:28, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I can't even find an article on Miss Supranational, let alone more. (And you know I'm an inclusionist in general, so really my !vote should count twice, lol!) Montanabw ^(talk) 03:01, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sarahj2107 (talk) 13:36, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Niyas Chola

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

Doesn't pass WP:GNG or WP:NACADEMIC. Created by now-blocked sock, but not eligible for CSD because he wasn't blocked when this was created. Received some coverage for winning a national teaching award, but that's WP:BLP1E. ~ Rob^Talk 21:42, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 22:24, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 22:24, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Does not pass WP:Prof, little else. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:59, 2 June 2016 (UTC).[reply]
I note that Chola was one of sixteen teachers from Kerala given this award in one year, so presumably several hundred teachers in the whole of India receive it each year. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 11:00, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The award he recived is not prestigious or limited enough to confer notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:13, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as I have watched this article from the start, and not only with the obvious signs of nothing convincing for anything else for applicable notability, there's nothing at all to suggest saving this one path or another, such as Draft or userspace thus delete altogether. SwisterTwister talk 06:27, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sarahj2107 (talk) 13:35, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Fran Villalba Segarra

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

BLP of a college student who has written some blog articles. Does not appear to meet notability standards. ☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(ring-ring) 21:40, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:GNG and even WP:V, as third party reliable sources seem to be basically nonexistent. The only sources that seem to exist are those written by the subject or places he's worked at/published for and the likes of blog posts. Hut 8.5 21:54, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I included the article in Wikipedia because, after reading the notability standards, I believe it would be a good idea to create a Wikipedia page for this person. At his young age he has been published scientific articles about aging in recognizable magazines and also plays a very important role in Hostinger, the biggest free web hosting provider if I am not wrong. I believe his page was deleted before because the references provided were not reputable enough, but after deliveration with the admin, the page met with the notability standards and it was agreed to reupload the page once better sources to prove the information could be provided. The current links to those scientific articles he published are from totally independent magazines. Levante TV is the biggest local Valencian TV Channel, where they interviewed the subject. Just seen a similar page, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fran_Villalba I objectively do not think he meets the notability standards more than what https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fran_Villalba_Segarra does.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Gsgsf343 (talk • contribs) 18:02, 2 June 2016‎

These are the sources currently cited by the article:

[10]: very brief profile of the subject hosted by an organisation he wrote an article for once, likely provided by the subject and so not an independent source.
[11]: piece of advertising from a company the subject works for which briefly mentions him. Not independent of the subject and not significant coverage even if it was.
[12]: I can't get this to load but I seriously doubt that a short interview on local TV news which may be largely about the company he works for would not demonstrate notability.
[13] and [14]: same article written by the subject published in two different places. Not coverage of the subject and doesn't confer notability.
[15]: brief profile of the subject as part of some youth business competition he entered. Even if it wasn't written by him it isn't significant coverage.
Having a management role in a company we don't even have an article on isn't going to confer notability either.

So no, I don't agree that the available sources indicate notability. While comparisons with other articles which exist don't make great arguments here, Fran Villalba has played for one of the most successful football teams in Europe and that alone would make him sufficiently notable to have an article here. Hut 8.5 23:41, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This article does meet with the WP:GNG and WP:V. I think the user above clarified the reliability of the sources - I do not think we can question those. On the other hand, if we check the average page notability in Wikipedia and the notability rules, we can see that the subject does surpass both.— 78.92.88.214 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 18:19, 2 June 2016 (UTC).[reply]

Unless this discussion opens again, it is concluded that this article does not qualify for deletion.— 145.90.65.112 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 15:51, 4 June 2016‎ (UTC).[reply]

Delete, Unrelible sources per above. KGirlTrucker87^{talk what I'm been doing} 21:08, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Talking about the sources:
The Institute for Ethics and Emerging Technologies is an independent source
ComputerHoy is one of the biggest tech magazines in Spain, which is used to prove that Fran has a role at HostMania
A TV interview about Fran and HostMania in the biggest Valencian TV channel does demostrate notability in my opinion
The two articles written by the subject demostrate he is currently intaking research into aging and immortality.
Made of Talent was one of the biggest youth business competition in Spain, backed by ClearChannel.

About Fran Villalba and Fran Villalba Segarra. Do you honestly believe that it's more notable a guy who played a few minutes for Valencia, than a guy who has two baccalaureates, is studying in the 4th best business University in Europe and plays a key role in the biggest free web hosting provider, both at a young age? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gsgsf343 (talk • contribs) 07:27, 5 June 2016 (UTC) — Duplicate vote: Gsgsf343 (talk • contribs) has already cast a vote above.[reply]

The IEET source is a one paragraph profile to accompany an article the subject wrote for them. It isn't significant coverage and I think it's highly likely that they asked the subject what they should put there. The Computerhoy piece is clearly advertising - it has a line at the bottom which says something like "computerhoy for hostmania" indicating that the company had something to do with writing or publishing it and the wording is blatantly promotional. Writing articles does not demonstrate notability, nor does entering competitions. The TV interview is better but an interview on local news is not much to base an article on. Hut 8.5 21:28, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete none of the sources come anywhere close to establishing notability. He may one day be notable, but is no where near such at present.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:48, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Why aren't the sources notable? Please refer to the explanation above on why they are. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 145.90.65.112 (talk) 07:32, 6 June 2016 (UTC) — 145.90.65.112 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Added reference to Tendencias21.net — Preceding unsigned comment added by 145.90.65.112 (talk) 10:18, 6 June 2016 (UTC) Added reference to infolibre.es, one of the biggest Spanish newspapers — Preceding unsigned comment added by 145.90.65.112 (talk) 19:51, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as there's still by far nothing actually convincing for any GNG or otherwise applicable notability, only shows expected information including of what would be found at his own website. SwisterTwister talk 06:32, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Many of the sources cited are short, promotional profiles produced by organizations this individual is affiliated with. Writing articles alone is not a shortcut to notability - it isn't an independent source, for one. Press releases, brief mentions, etc. are insufficient to meet GNG, and Hut 8.5 is correct here that even the non-promotional coverage is highly scant. GAB^gab 14:19, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as WP:TOOSOON. Stuartyeates (talk) 09:50, 10 June 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. J04n(talk page) 13:55, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Alexandra Kaur Bhathal

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

Fails WP:POLITICIAN as an unsuccessful candidate, and creation prior to an election is problematic as is suggests free advertising. Despite the long list of references, the subject is not notable for anything else, either. St Anselm (talk) 20:57, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Textbook Delete per nomination. Timeshift (talk) 21:00, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy. She is definitely not notable now per longstanding consensus, however; she is a candidate who could very plausibly win and this should be kept somewhere closeby for instant recreation in the extent that she does. My main concern with deleting as opposed to userfying is that she is never known by this name - every source I have ever read calls her "Alex Bhathal" - and I don't want it to get forgotten in the 50-50 scenario that she does win. The Drover's Wife (talk) 04:23, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy I agree with The Drover's Wife, it's actually pretty good content, and Bhathal is likely to win the seat, but just not appropriate in mainspace at this time. Is it just me or is there a kind of grassroots editing push from Greens staffers and supporters at this election? It's very subtle, and almost always related to Bhathal and Batman, but it's not against any rules or even overtly promotional. --Canley (talk) 06:17, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy under the name "Alex Bhathal" per The Drover's Wife. Frickeg (talk) 08:30, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Frickeg: thanks, I have no problem with the title being changed to Alex Bhathal. I'm very new to this sort of article as most of the other pages I created were scientists who usually prefer their formal name - and she uses her full name on the ballot paper. CanleyJust to clarify, I don't have any affiliation to the Greens or other party and wasn't asked by anyone else to make it. I just live in Batman and (naively) thought I'd try my hand at creating a page when I was googling Alex Bhathal and thought it would be helpful to have all the information on one page for someone who keeps popping up in the news. Same goes for my start at a page for Liberty Sanger - in both cases I thought I was helping the wikipedia effort by creating new pages, especially for women who I know are under-represented! (And I regret my stuff ups in both cases - I will stick to less controversial topics from now on!!) (and apologies if I shouldn't be posting this here - feel free to delete)Vsolomon (talk) 05:29, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You're fine (and completely encouraged to create articles, especially in underrepresented areas!) - Wikipedia just has notability guidelines that guide who does and does not warrant articles, and unfortunately someone who is solely known for a political candidate and somebody who (while clearly professionally important) is mainly publicly known as the wife of a Senator are not likely to meet that bar. The Drover's Wife (talk) 05:35, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Vsolomon: Thanks for your work and your enthusiasm. I realise it is disappointing when your work gets nominated for deletion. It has happened to me several times before. I especially agree on the importance of creating article for unrepresented notable women. I would urge you to take a look at WikiProject Women in Red which tries to increase the amount of biographies on notable women and has a list of articles to be created which you could get involved with. AusLondonder (talk) 06:07, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Grahame (talk) 08:46, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the encouragement and also pointing me in the direction of some other acceptably notable women where I can hone my skills.Vsolomon (talk) 11:54, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:55, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Userfy Per the others ukexpat (talk) 21:01, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I am slightly perplexed by the multiple comments (@Canley:, @Ukexpat:, @The Drover's Wife: favouring userfying. WP:POLOUTCOMES states these sort of articles "Are not moved to user space for fear of establishing a precedent that any premature article about an as-yet-unelected candidate for office can be kept in draftspace pending election returns, effectively making draftspace a repository for campaign brochures" AusLondonder (talk) 05:06, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Reasonable point. I personally have no problem if it's moved to Alex Bhathal and then deleted because the deletion notifications will take care of the issue and preserve the content so it can be undeleted if she wins the second someone goes to create an article. The Drover's Wife (talk) 05:32, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm pretty sure we had an AUSPOL consensus years ago (2010 maybe?) to "incubate" doubtful current election candidates. The userfied version would, of course, be deleted should she lose. I note that WP:POLOUTCOMES refers to "losing" candidates, and people are suggesting userfication based on her current candidature, not her past ones. Frickeg (talk) 07:23, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As not notable and not meeting WP:NPOL and WP:GNG. AusLondonder (talk) 05:06, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, without prejudice against recreation if she wins the seat. As noted, WP:POLOUTCOMES already explicitly precludes allowing unelected candidates to hold onto draft articles in userspace or draftspace pending the election results, precisely because we have to keep those namespaces from becoming overrun with campaign brochures for unelected candidates — so as always, it's worth remembering that if she wins the seat, she will then have cleared WP:NPOL #1 and any administrator will then be happy to restore the deleted article for updating. Until that happens, however, it's a clearcut case of WP:TOOSOON — and no, the fact that the election campaign is currently under way does not grant the candidates a temporary exemption from having to meet the same standards as they would at any other time. Bearcat (talk) 21:27, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete until she wins an election she will be unnotable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:05, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:Don't move articles at AfD – please keep this in mind in future. Jenks24 (talk) 05:53, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- That is an essay, and one not relevant here because of the considerable probability it will need to get recreated. ("Better to let the AfD play out before moving; if the article is deleted, there was no point in moving in the first place; if it's kept, it can be moved then, there is no deadline and a Wikipedian's work is never done!") No one is advocating that it be kept if she loses (so it can't just be a move discussion at the end of this AfD), but basically everyone is in agreement that it needs to be recreated at the right title if she wins and people need to find the damn thing. The Drover's Wife (talk) 09:32, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - WP:AFDEQ states "there is no prohibition against moving an article while an AfD discussion is in progress". In my view any discouragement of moving does not relate to a trivial change like this. AusLondonder (talk) 07:54, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as there's nothing solidly convincing for any applicable notability, quite detailed and sourced but still nothing else convincing. SwisterTwister talk 06:29, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nothing that makes me believe the subject is notable. --Cameron₁₁₅₉₈ ^(Talk) 02:16, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Insert CleverPhrase Here 22:07, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Elitzur Givat Shmuel

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

Does not pass the guidelines outlined at WP:Notability (organizations and companies), nor does it independently qualify for WP:GNG. Only ref is primary. Insert CleverPhrase Here 20:38, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The club is part of a league which already has it's own article on WP. The league, and therefore the clubs belonging to it, it would follow, are WP:NOTABLE The lack of current references is not of itself a reason for removal. It merely needs bringing up to scratch. Irondome (talk) 20:45, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"therefore the clubs belonging to it, it would follow, are WP:NOTABLE" is not true. It certainly would make sense to work the other way around, but this is, as far as I know, not part wikipedia policy. Insert CleverPhrase Here 21:54, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep Club played in the Israeli Basketball Premier League for a decade (most recently in 2008–09), reached the Israeli Basketball State Cup final in 2003. The fact that there are articles on four other Wikis should have been a clue that this is a notable subject. Numerous news articles covering the club on Google News. Number 5 7 20:53, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I was not aware that this team participated in the Premier League, as it is not stated in the article. I'll withdraw if you can provide a source for that. Insert CleverPhrase Here 21:55, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Here you go. Please do some research before nominating articles – you shouldn't take them at face value. Number 5 7 21:58, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I'll add that source to the article and I'll keep that in mind in the future. Insert CleverPhrase Here 22:03, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Insert CleverPhrase Here 22:12, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Elitzur Ramla B.C.

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

Does not pass the guidelines outlined at WP:Notability (organizations and companies), nor does it independently qualify for WP:GNG. Ro references. Insert CleverPhrase Here 20:37, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep Club played in the Israeli Basketball Premier League in the 1980s. Clearly notable. Number 5 7 20:56, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You can't just say that and not provide a source for it, certainly not as "speedy". The article makes no mention of the Premier League. Insert CleverPhrase Here 21:57, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, I can just say that because I am vaguely familiar with the subject. More importantly, I would expect someone nominating an article for deletion to at least have made a rudimentary attempt to see whether the subject was notable or not (for instance, had you gone through to the Hebrew interwiki, you would see that it states the club spent two seasons in the top division). If you want a source, here you go. Number 5 7 22:01, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I confirm deletion. The club fell apart because of financial problems, last season.Yaakov2 (talk) 07:16, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Insert CleverPhrase Here 21:59, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hapoel Haifa B.C.

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

Does not pass the guidelines outlined at WP:Notability (organizations and companies), nor does it independently qualify for WP:GNG. Insert CleverPhrase Here 20:37, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep Club played in the Israeli Basketball Super League for several seasons. Clearly notable. Number 5 7 20:54, 2 June 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. There is nothing to prevent anyone redirecting if they think there is a good reason to do so. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 17:26, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Emma Little

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

Delete: as non-notable actress. Quis separabit? 19:59, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:23, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Northern Ireland-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:23, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no evidence of Notability Samat lib (talk) 21:57, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as I have found nothing better at all, there's nothing minimally convincing of solid independent notability here. SwisterTwister talk 06:30, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, non-notable actress. Tom29739 ^[talk] 00:43, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails NACTOR / GNG. Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 02:30, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete: May be TOOSOON, has about 10 roles, but doesn't seem to be quite up to major standard. Willing to reconsider my !vote upon additional sourcing. Montanabw ^(talk) 03:14, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Ivan Little#Personal life as this title is a valid search term. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 09:26, 10 June 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 Robidoux family. (non-admin closure) SST flyer 03:26, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Manuel Robidoux

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

A number of articles on non-notable members of the Robidoux family have been created, because some descendants of them became notable. This violates WP:NOTGENEALOGY and the basic notability guidelines for biographies.

Manuel or Emmanuel Robidoux (or Robidou as he is also noted in genalogies) is not the subject of significant attention in reliable, independent sources, he only appears in genealogies. The same applies to the following members of the family (all nominated for deletion for the same reason):

André Robidoux (one of the two sources in his article is the Dictionary of Canadian Biography, but that page doesn't mention him.)
William (Guillaume) Robidoux
Joseph Robidoux I
Joseph Robidoux II (one of the three sources is this, which doesn't seem to mention Robidoux]
Joseph Robidoux III

Note that the apparent main source for these articles is a book published by Trafford Publishing, a publish-on-demand service.

Fram (talk) 14:51, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Joseph2302 (talk) 15:18, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. Joseph2302 (talk) 15:18, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Joseph2302 (talk) 15:18, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or Merge: per the other AfD's here. This family had a role in the fur-traping trade of their time. Some of these individuals are mentioned by Lewis and Clark, others worked fro John Jacob Astor. They are mentioned in historic works and articles, though small, are sourced. Though the articles could be better sourced and have improved footnoting, I think they meet WP:GNG for historic figures. That said, I am pinging KingJeff1970 who is an expert in this field, and if he disagrees with my analysis, I shall defer to his wisdom. Montanabw^(talk) 02:14, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Could you please explain what "keep per the other AFDs here" means? I have not started or referenced any other AFDs about this, so keeping these for that reason seems bizarre. The articles are sourced to self-published sources and sources that don't even mention the subjects.
- "Some of these individuals are mentioned by Lewis and Clark, others worked fro John Jacob Astor." This is plainly incorrect. One of these, Joseph Robidoux III, is mentioned by Lewis and worked at most one year for Astor (company founded 1808, Robidoux died 1809). None of the others are mentioned by Lewis or Clark, or can possibly have worked for Astor as they lived way too early. User:MontanaBW, can you please recheck your post wrt these facts? Fram (talk) 07:05, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Just to set the record straight, the references above were for related items in the articles. In the article about Andre, the source is providing information on his employer, Eustache Lambert. In the article about Joseph II, the source is about his wife's great-grandfather, Abraham Martin. (I know I should have used citations, but I'm new to Wikipedia and just learned how to use them.)

I did not know that my major reference was self-published, but it was used as sources for the Robidoux brothers (sons of Joseph III), and hopefully they are not also targets for deletion. Nevertheless, this book seems to be well researched and sourced. If you read the Preface and Introduction of this book, you can see why this is a family is of interest. The book seems to be based on legitimate research, with 30 pages of bibliography and nearly 200 pages of footnotes. One reader has pointed me to a newer book, The Brothers Robidoux and the Opening of the American West by Joseph Willoughby, published by the University of Missouri in 2012, which I have ordered and will use to update the articles, should they survive.

As the the comment above on Montanabw statement, I'm puzzled. Both Joseph Robidoux and his sons are mentioned in Meriwether Lewis' note (which I would like to find out more about), and the article in question says the Joseph III and his sons worked for the American Fur Company. It seems to me that the questionable word "some" is actually correct in this context.

The sons of Joseph Robidoux III are not up for deletion, so no, of "these individuals" (the 6 persons up for deletion), only one is mentioned in the Lewis' note and worked (perhaps, for one year at most) for the fur company (which doesn't convey any notability, but that's another discussion). So no, the questionable word "some" is not correct in this context at all (and the use of "some" and "others" was even worse). This discussion is about Joseph III and his ancestors, not about his descendants who are not up for deletion. Fram (talk) 16:10, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The Trafford book is self published and thus probably not a reliable source and not contributing to notability. Being included in a book that lists everyone in the family has little weight in terms of notability. Self publishing in this case opens the door to including coverage of many non-notable individuals. While it may be well researched and sourced I don't think it contributes to notability. Trivial mention in other sources is not a basis for notability. The relationship of the subjects to famous relatives does not contribute to their notability Gab4gab (talk) 08:53, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
While I am not convinced that we need individual articles about each of these individuals, I do believe it is more useful to have information about them here than to not have information about them. Merging them all into an article about the (clearly notable) Robidoux family could be better, keeping the information without pretending that we can write proper biographies of these people. —Kusma (t·c) 09:24, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge. I just looked at the Willoughby book on Google Books and it seems like there is enough material to justify a separate article on Joseph III. (He starts his book with Joseph III and doesn't say much about the ancestors.) Of the other five articles, Andre has the most information, the others not so much. I would propose merging the five into a single article under Andre's moniker since that traces the family from France to New France to America (Joseph II came to St. Louis with his son and promptly died). I should get the Willoughby book next week and can update references. There should be some good information to update the articles on the Robidoux sons also.

Comment arguments for merging are worth considering for the less-known family members. I have adjusted my !vote above. Robidoux family could work. (Example: McCormick family.) Montanabw ^(talk) 05:32, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, st170e^talk 12:26, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I took a stab at the consolidated article on the Robidoux family, leaving Joseph Robidoux III as a stand-alone for the time being. Just a first cut and I'll look at it again tomorrow when my brain is refreshed. Any comments are appreciated. Dr. Grampinator (talk) 23:03, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 19:46, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 02:58, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Steam into History

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

Does not meet WP:ORG, mainly WP:PROMO, and no assertion of notability. This was closed "no consensus" previously, but the article should either be deleted or redirected to Northern Central Railway, where a sufficient statement about it already exists. The article asserts notability via sources by conflating the Civil War-era history of the Northern Central Railway (which was a Class I interstate railroad from PA to MD that eventually had 380 miles of track) with the fact that this organization runs a ten-mile trip over a piece of the same line. They aren't related entities; Conrail absorbed Northern Central in 1976, which means this group is simply operating abandoned track as of 2013. All the local news covers the opening of the attraction, but all the NYT and major outlet coverage is about the Civil War era railroad, not the organization. Were that history to be trimmed out, only PROMO would be left. MSJapan (talk) 18:17, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:00, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:00, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:00, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:00, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note that Nom's assertion that material about the historic rail system these trains run is inappropriate padding appears to be incorrect. List of heritage railroads in the United States - includes many similar tourist attractions; they include similar history sections. See, for example Verde Canyon Railroad, and Valley Railroad (Connecticut). It appears to be part of what rail history buffs expect in such attraction articles and, certainly, is apropos to understanding why this particular stretch of rail is being preserved as a museum.E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:03, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note Note that notability is neither conferred nor asserted. WP:N states, "Notability is a property of a subject and not of a Wikipedia article." Unscintillating (talk) 04:38, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I'll accept the assertion that this page was created to promote a tourist railroad on an abandoned stretch of track in Pennsylvania. But I am frankly puzzled by this nomination. This tourist attraction is real. The 2013 opening was covered in major dailies like the Baltimore Sun [16]. It gets regular newspaper coverage in reliable dailies, news google search [17]. That search was on "new freedom" + steam + railroad, but it turned up articles in multiple newspapers. A search on "Steam into History" turns up other articles in other papers and media [18]. Coverage in RS is significant, in-depth, and ongoing, with stories not only about the museum's opening, but about it's new acquisitions in the time since it opened, [19] and about it as a tourist attraction near Gettysburg that appear in papers further afield.[20] It passes WP:GNG.E.M.Gregory (talk) 12:12, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - If you "accept the assertion that this page was created to promote a tourist railroad", then you see why I nominated the page, so I don't particularly appreciate the ad hominem as to how you can't understand my actions. The news articles you cite as GHits are all local, and by the way, you can do that search from the top of the AfD - you're not breaking new ground or creating an aha! moment that you insinuate I forgot. As for ongoing "stories" (plural), I see one local story on one locomotive, not multiple sources talking about this acquisition - don't misrepresent the extent of coverage. As for "news farther afield" GNG still requires substantial coverage, and a few lines in a larger travel article on the area is not substantial coverage. That's the crux of the notability problem - local coverage is still local coverage, and WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS isn't valid - there's quite a few redlinks on that heritage railroad list, too, because WP:ENN.

MSJapan (talk) 18:28, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

1.) A page can be created by an interested party and still be notable. 2.) A "few lines," as you describe the Buffalo News article can support WP:GNG: "Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material."E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:22, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You wrote: "All the local news covers the opening of the attraction, but all the NYT and major outlet coverage is about the Civil War era railroad, not the organization." An inaccurate statement, perhaps merely careless writing, but certainly not accurately describing the sources found in basic searches. The Buffalo News and The Baltimore Sun are not "local papers". The York Dispatch, and York Daily Record are, but their coverage is not limited to the opening, as clearly seen in the searches I linked to not only for the convenience of other editors, but so that it will be clear to other editors hat mine was not a drive-by vote. Looking further afield a regional radio and TV stations WITF and WPMT ,cover it pretty often: [21], [22], as does the Harrisburg The Patriot-News, near enough for a day-trip, but not the "local" paper. I'll let other editors run their own searches; to me it looks like quite a lot of coverage for a new attraction, certainly enough to support notability.E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:53, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note that the previous AFD was 3 years ago, just after this attraction opened.E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:14, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep - Had a hard time with this one, but ultimately I think I'm weakly in favor of keeping. I'm typically not in favor of keeping articles when only local sources are available, but there's just enough regional coverage, in addition to plentiful local news, to push me over the edge. Baltimore Sun (and photos), Central Penn Business Journal, WFMZ, a Moon travel guide... meh. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 13:12, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Clear keep after some review. There is no theoretical case for a notability deletion as the attraction is a significant element in a town of 4000 with a long railroad history, and the article topic would be retained as a redirect if the topic were not considered notable. Likewise, the nomination stipulates that the article topic is covered at NCR. York County Heritage Rail Trail has two pictures of "Steam Into History". WP:BEFORE searches establish no need to go looking for sourcing, and the books already showing up satisfy WP:SUSTAINED. My review of WP:PROMO shows that WP:NOT does not reject the aspect here of promotionalism, as we are here to build an encyclopedia; not to self-inflict damage on the encyclopedia so as avoid the promotional effects of writing articles. Unscintillating (talk) 04:38, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sarahj2107 (talk) 13:19, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Magnum (Transformers)

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

Minor character in the Transformers universe. No evidence of real-world notability. Josh Milburn (talk) 18:15, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I don't see significant coverage in independent reliable sources. The most obvious redirection target, Transformers: Timelines, is itself a redirect. I guess we could redirect it to List of Autobots, but he's apparently too minor to even be listed there. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 01:54, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as I also concur there's simply nothing to suggest its own encyclopedia article apart from the obvious Transformers connections. SwisterTwister talk 06:35, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not notable Argento Surfer (talk) 22:20, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sarahj2107 (talk) 13:19, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Space Jump X

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

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

No independent third-party sources, fails WP:GNG. Prod removed by article creator. shoy (reactions) 18:10, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom, no actual sources found. Not much more to say here. GAB^gab 18:31, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as the original PROD-er. No reliable sources, no article. RA0808 ^talk _contribs 19:09, 2 June 2016 (UTC); edited 19:11, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. RA0808 ^talk _contribs 19:10, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The game has substantial fanbase. The facebook page has thousands of followers. 20:45, 3 June 2016 (UTC+8); — Preceding unsigned comment added by Greateducator (talk • contribs) — Greateducator (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Delete Couldn't find anything either. Fails WP:GNG. -NottNott|talk Notify with {{re}} 12:50, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep a popular game in vietnam, china 13:00, 3 June 2016 (UTC); — Signatures comment added by Astalavistaproducer (talk • contribs) — Astalavistaproducer (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Checkuser note: Greateducator and Astalavistaproducer are Confirmed sock puppets. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Quantum1988.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:29, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as there's nothing to suggest there's the needed long-lasting coverage for such a newly started game like this and only listed with their own links. SwisterTwister talk 06:40, 8 June 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. Unconvincing non-policy based Keep arguments. J04n(talk page) 13:53, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Avi Dorfman

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

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

Promotionally written violation of ONEEVENT DGG ( talk ) 17:14, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Avi is a well-known pro-Israel activist and terror survivor whose story is very known across Israel. I do not understand your reason for deletion. I am not related to him in any way, I was one of the journalists who covered this story. I was just surprised he wasn't on there given the incredible amount of coverage he had received. He is known for:

his survival of the zikim terrorist attack after being deemed "mortally wounded" which made him known as the "#1 medical miracle in IDF history"
his being credited for having saved lives in the attack
His work with StandWithUs
Him coming out in an extremely controversial piece in the Algemeiner in 2016, accusing Hillel of allowing spies to come and interrogate him disguised as IDF soldiers.

Any suggestions on what I can do to make it not promotional-sounding? In the mean time, I added some information about the UCLA controversy, to make it less promotional and include the other side of the story. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AlexandraMichelleMarkus (talk • contribs) 17:58, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

~~Please do not make those sorts of personal attacks~~ Personal attack now removed. The deletion rationale is referring to both WP:PROMO and WP:BLP1E policies. GAB^gab 17:42, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Highly promotional tone ("computer genius"... "A precocious child"... "good-looking, gregarious, kind-hearted and humble, always eager to help people where he was needed...") is one issue I noticed. Furthermore, besides some brief info on a lawsuit he filed, I see little coverage of him beyond his business dealings, and even this hardly discusses him as a person. As impressive his survival was, I would say we are probably in BLP1E territory. GAB^gab 17:54, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I deleted the parts you advised. Even though they were based on actual quotes from the article I cited. I have also mentioned his accusations against Hillel. I don't think the lawsuit was noteworthy, but the accusation made a big splash in the Jewish community and led to a huge can of worms opening about anti-Israel activity within Hillels, and is featured in the article I cited. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AlexandraMichelleMarkus (talk • contribs) 18:05, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as simply nothing convincing here aside from apparent sources for those vents but none of it suggests a solid article. SwisterTwister talk 19:09, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: As it now stands, this article appears to conform to Wikipedia standards. The sources are cited, and the events in which he was involved are significant and of interest to many people. The material that sounded "promotional" has been edited. Quoting a nickname that was bestowed on him by others is not promotional. PA Math Prof (talk) 20:57, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I think this article should not be deleted as it's according with Wikipedia's standards, he's a well known pro-Israel activist. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PatrickMtz97 (talk • contribs) 22:09, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

— PatrickMtz97 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Keep: He seems perfectly notable to me. Catmando999 Check out his talk page! 01:45, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. DGG is correct: this is a person noted only for one single event, no matter how much the author of the article tries to make him notable--in this article and in the references list. I've pruned two sources: one doesn't substantially discuss the subject, the other is not in a reliable source. Both were used to make the subject appear more important. And despite assertions to the contrary, the article remains promotional in tone. Drmies (talk) 17:27, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:49, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:49, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:10, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: both the terror attack and his survival were quite newsworthy in Israel. The article can benefit from minor changes in language to make it compliant with WP:NPOV and I have made a few already. Drmikeh49 (talk) 18:30, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Sure, Drmikeh49, but that doesn't mean it's not still a case of BLP1E... Drmies (talk) 15:17, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Why would this be a case of BLP1E but not Gilad Shalit who is also known for one event (his capture as a POW and release)? — Preceding unsigned comment added by AlexandraMichelleMarkus (talk • contribs) 00:41, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The cases are clearly not comparable, but, anyway, this discussion is about the article on Avi Dorfman, not any other article. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 20:31, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
User:AlexandraMichelleMarkus, it's about broadness of coverage also, about lasting impact. For Dorfman, there doesn't seem to be any. Drmies (talk) 00:04, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wikipedia is not a news paper. We do not have articles on everyone who gets mentioned in news cycles.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:27, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A clear case of someone whose only coverage in reliable sources is as the result of being caught up in one event. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 20:31, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- The Algemeiner is not a reliable source? Really? It's a Jewish newspaper with events that are of relative importance to the Jewish community! — Preceding unsigned comment added by AlexandraMichelleMarkus (talk • contribs) 00:00, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - But the article in the Algemeiner is not independent, as required to contribute towards notability, being written by Dorfman himself. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 05:58, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Avi Dorfman has overcome incredible odds. His story of recovery from such a severe injury is an inspiration to many others who find themselves facing similar challenges. His exposure of the problems at UCLA was also extremely important. — Preceding unsigned comment added by KarenJD01 (talk • contribs) 02:08, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

— KarenJD01 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Keep: He's well-known in Israel for his actions during the Zikim attack, and the other things described are notable. The article is sourced and meets normal Wikipedia standards. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Minjitthemidget (talk • contribs) 08:00, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: No doubt about it, he’s well known, his story is well known and of common interest. The article is well sourced and well written. It is only malicious attacks that seek to take it down. Brianoflondon (talk) 08:21, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If you are going to accuse anyone of malicious attacks then you need to provide evidence. I see no such attacks above. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 08:42, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The subject meets Wikipedia's notability guidelines. Parts of the article should be edited for style. Adamreinman (talk) 10:58, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: His survival and recovery were major news in Israel and in the Jewish press internationally. The topic does meet notability Guidelines and is well sourced. Mr. Dorfman's work as an activist since recovery only adds to the fact that he is now well known. I agree that some further improvement to make it more neutral and encyclopedic in nature can and should be made but it should not be deleted. Caitlynmaire (talk) 16:13, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Sufficient references to establish notability.--Geewhiz (talk) 20:52, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – WP:BLP1E, no single suitable redirect target. SST flyer 03:32, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sarahj2107 (talk) 13:12, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A.H Yarnold

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

Biography of a prep school headmaster, making and sourcing no credible claim of greater notability than the norm among the thousands of other such people who have also existed over the years. The referencing here relies on a single news article in the local newspaper, and the school's own primary source website about itself, and the writing tone skews in a surprisingly advertorial direction for a guy who's dead. None of this suggests that he warrants an encyclopedia article for it. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 16:40, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:40, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:40, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A.H Yarnold was the first headmaster of Mosman Preparatory School he was a leader in education and one of the most influential people at his time. Wikipedia is a place to share all information not to just choose the important or well known stuff. Yarnold was not just a normal person as he founded a school. Wikipedia needs to remind itself why it was created, Wikipedia is there to share information and not to make people and places forgotten. DO NOT REMOVE — Preceding unsigned comment added by Halljo22 (talk • contribs) 02:04, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- ? Which policy do you invoke for notability? Xxanthippe (talk).
- No, Wikipedia is not a place to share "all" information; it's a core principle of Wikipedia, in fact, that we are not "about everything". We are a place to share information which complies with our rules around notability and the use of reliable sources, and those are criteria that include some classes of information while deliberately excluding many others. We're an encyclopedia, not a free platform to write minimally sourced articles about every single person who ever got their name into their local newspaper once. Bearcat (talk) 14:39, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, essentially per nom. Borderline A7 case, no indication of passing any relevant notability guidelines. Nsk92 (talk) 14:58, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WP:Prof not passed. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:48, 4 June 2016 (UTC).[reply]
Delete/merge useful information to the article on Mosman Preparatory School.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:02, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as nothing at all convincing there's the needed substance for his notable information, clearly no means of gathering better information either. SwisterTwister talk 06:42, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

How many damn references do you want? Wikipedia is a place to research all topics thats what makes it unique and unlike other websites and encyclopedias it lets random people from all around the world share information on different topics not for them to come share information and have it taken down. DO NOT REMOVE

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

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

The result was delete. Consensus that the subject is not notable after relisting. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 17:47, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Star Arcade

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

I prodded it with the following rationale: "The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline and the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (companies) requirement. " It was deprodded by User:Kvng with the following rationale "depth of coverage is debatable, this is not an uncontroversial deletion, please use WP:AFD". I do not consider coverage here to be sufficient. 16 references but they don't seem to be sufficient. They have reliability issues - and that's discounting several which are very much self-published (PR announcements from company's own blog, etc.). Many of the reminder are niche online trade journals-like equivalents. And many focus on routine coverage ("startups that got fnding this week are..."), or are based on rewriting company's PR stuff (ex. [23]: "Finland-based mobile social gaming network Star Arcade has announced its games have been downloaded more than 5 million times.... Source: http://www.star-arcade.com/corporate/view/press/StarArcade-5milliondownloadsPressRelease-18July2011.pdf )". The company seems to have been nominated or won some awards which however are niche and don't establish notability. There are As I discussed in my Signpost Op-Ed, this is a good example of Yellow-Pages like company spam. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:06, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 06:24, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 06:24, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Finland-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 06:24, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as noticeably detailed but summarily nothing actually convincing for the applicable notability, nothing else noticeably convincing overall. SwisterTwister talk 22:21, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:00, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vipinhari || talk 16:21, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I put two good sources on the talk page, but it's not enough to constitute significant coverage. czar 19:28, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, does not pass the general notability guidelines. Tom29739 ^[talk] 00:29, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Appears promotional and not notable. Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 02:36, 10 June 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 Dreezy. General consensus is to redirect after two relists, as the nominator suggested. (non-admin closure) st170e^talk 00:12, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Body (Dreezy song)

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

Non-notable song: Lacks significant coverage in reliable sources. — JJMC89 (T·C) 03:27, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·C) 03:27, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for Now It's a charting song that may become notable over time, but there's not enough specific, detailed, coverage about the song for it to have its own article yet. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 04:38, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 05:36, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vipinhari || talk 16:20, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment (Nom): Songs should only have an individual article when there is enough material to warrant a detailed article,^{{{R from song}} per WP:NMUSIC} so as a valid search term the article should be redirected to Dreezy. — JJMC89 (T·C) 01:44, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Dreezy per nominator's comment above. Charting notwithstanding, there's no actual coverage of the song itself to never be anything more than the stub it is. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 20:02, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect perhaps at best as I nearly also suggested deleting but the charts may be enough at best. SwisterTwister talk 06:44, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:20, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Petter Darin

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

Actor with questionable notability. From what I can tell he has only done 2 films (one uncredited according to the IMDB even-which the film does not even have a page on here, checked its English title and nope does not have one either which both have people link to) Anyway, I say delete. Wgolf (talk) 02:03, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 02:33, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - while both the films he acted in are notable movies, Darin did not have a significant role in either of them. He doesn't meet WP:NACTOR or WP:GNG. I have searched for sources in Swedish and not found anything to meet WP:SIGCOV. --bonadea contributions talk 20:21, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 05:36, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vipinhari || talk 16:20, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete with only one film role that might fall under a requirement that requires two, he does not pass notability guidelines for actors.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:21, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as by far nothing to suggest he has obtained any solid independent notability from his works, nothing at all convincing. SwisterTwister talk 06:46, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails NACTOR / GNG. Primary source (IMDb) is also unreliable. Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 02:37, 10 June 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. Discussion can continue on talk page as to where to move to J04n(talk page) 19:34, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

2017 WGC-Cadillac Championship

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

Event won't be played by this name due to Cadillac no longer sponsoring per this[24]. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 16:00, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 16:01, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 16:01, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Golf-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 16:01, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Question. According to the main article about this tournament, WGC-Cadillac Championship, it's not the first time the sponsor has changed or the location has moved. Why isn't the appropriate action here a rename of the article (and presumably also of the main article) rather than deletion? The article does need updating in any case, since we already know they're moving it to Mexico City next year and renaming it as the WGC-Mexico Championship. [25] --Arxiloxos (talk) 16:24, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Seconded. I would think that the recent announcements increase notability. pʰeːnuːmuː →‎ pʰiːnyːmyː → ‎ɸinimi → ‎fiɲimi 19:13, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now perhaps at best until it can be established this will be an actual likely search, because if not, it's it's deleted as an unlikely chance. If it is likely, it can then be redirected later. SwisterTwister talk 06:48, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Move to 2017 WGC-Mexico Championship or possibly just 2017 WGC Championship. pʰeːnuːmuː →‎ pʰiːnyːmyː → ‎ɸinimi → ‎fiɲimi 04:24, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, --Cameron₁₁₅₉₈ ^(Talk) 02:17, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 05:37, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Casper Crowell

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

BLP1E Article fails to show notabilty, except for the fact that he's in jail and a white supremist. Delete recommended. KoshVorlon 16:10, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:39, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect This [26] explains why he is perhaps notable, and should be added to the article. This racist is actually running and recruiting for a weird white-supremacy "holy" order - from his cell in a maximum security prison. Redirecting to an appropriate target article on the grounds that a wikipedia page is flattering to this troglodyte, and may even help him attract followers.E.M.Gregory (talk) 00:41, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 11:48, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Paganism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 11:48, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 11:48, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 11:48, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The SPLC is the antithesis of a reliable source for anything, and its use to support that anyone is notable I will question long and hard. The SPLC engages in attempts to smear their political opponants by connecting them to extremists that they do not at all support. It's methods are inflamatory and have been a key cause is some killings, so there is no reason to use it as a source for anything, especially the claim that someone serving life in prison is running a network that matters at all.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:03, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note There is coverage. National Geographic : [27].E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:44, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, st170e^talk 12:26, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vipinhari || talk 15:56, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Tough call. One one hand, I strongly disagree that we should delete simply to "no platform" him, no matter how despicable he is. At the same time, I found very little in the way of quality sourcing. Ultimately, I'm leaning towards a Weak Delete, since the coverage ([28][29][30]) is not terribly strong. Even the SPLC source says little about him besides that he does recruiting, fundraising, web activity, etc. GAB^gab 18:38, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as there's still by far nothing at all to suggest how he's independently notable as a separate article, nothing convincing at all. SwisterTwister talk 06:49, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, non-notable. Tom29739 ^[talk] 00:40, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Subject is not independently notable --Cameron₁₁₅₉₈ ^(Talk) 02:19, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:26, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Chronos Digital Game Clock

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

per WP:PROMOTION, fails WP:GNG. Sophia91 (talk) 15:50, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:31, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:31, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There are a few trivial mentions scattered around, but I don't see significant coverage in reliable sources. Results seem to be mostly online stores and self-published chess fan sites. I'm not really very familiar with reliable sources for chess, so it's possible I passed over something. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 02:09, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Appears to serve no other purpose than product promotion. Digital game clocks are generically and adequately covered at the article Chess clock. Brittle heaven (talk) 14:15, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as searches found nothing better and there's nothing particularly convincing for an independent article. SwisterTwister talk 06:54, 8 June 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. with default to keep J04n(talk page) 19:31, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Eurasia Pacific Boxing Council

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

Another new boxing organization. The only reference is to its own home page. I don't know why this article contains a list of another organization's champions--unless the organization just figured using someone else's champions is easier than creating their own.Mdtemp (talk) 18:17, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:23, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:23, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

~~Weak~~ Keep - Searching google news comes up with plenty of articles from reliable sources covering people winning this championship. That looks like notability to me, ~~although it might smell of the inheritability argument (hence "weak").~~ Obviously, it would need major cleanup, reduction down to a stub, and then re-expansion with relevant information. Fieari (talk) 23:38, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm upgrading my !vote from weak keep to keep. Improvements have been made to the article, it's sourced sufficiently for me, and I'm now convinced notability has been established. Fieari (talk) 04:32, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Which championship is that. I don't see a connection between the Championship listed and the organisation.Peter Rehse (talk) 08:42, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Just going to copy and paste the items that show up in google news, not even clicking into the articles, straight from the leading sentences:

- "He fought for the WBC Eurasia Pacific Boxing Council Light Heavyweight title in February but was stopped by German Serdar Sahin, and his ..."
- "... battle for both the WBC Asian Boxing Council featherweight title and WBC Eurasia Pacific Boxing Council featherweight title held last May 8, ..."
- "... featherweight title and WBC Eurasia Pacific Boxing Council featherweight title held last May 8, 2015 at Expo Garden Hotel in Kunming, China ..."
- "Francisco and Suzuki will vie for the vacant WBC Eurasia Pacific Boxing Council bantamweight title in their 12-round battle. The 24-year-old ..."
- "Davor wird auch das Titel-Duell zwischen Serdar Sahin („WBC Eurasia Pacific Boxing Council Light Heavyweight Title“) und Konstantin ..."

And so on, and so on. It actually goes on for 5 pages of these sorts of results. This is to say, again, I'm not finding articles about the organization per se, but there are plenty of articles about the winners and challengers to those winners. Fieari (talk) 02:13, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

So I am assuming that listing the Championships as OPBF is an error/typo??Peter Rehse (talk) 08:17, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Firstly I want to state as you all know I made this page. Secondly yes it was a typo which I have fixed. Thirdly I made this because PABA is set up very similarly with only reference of its own official website. This is a relatively new Boxing Organisation but it is part of the World Boxing Council which should make this notable, as well as ABC, OPBF and PABA with the WBA. Lastly I added some more citations to help it. Let me know if I should do anymore. --Bennyaha (talk) 01:36, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That sounds more like an argument to delete PABA's article than a reason for keeping this one (WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS). Papaursa (talk) 15:21, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

- Well, there's probably more that COULD be done, but what you HAVE done I think is sufficient for notability claims. I've upgraded my vote above. Thank you for your cleanups. Fieari (talk) 04:32, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I noticed this organization is not listed among the 9 "continental federations" at the WBC website [31]. Funny, I didn't even know there were 9 continents. It's no wonder there are some many boxing titles. Are there any independent sources that talk about this organization besides saying "X fought Y for the EPBC title"? That seems more like passing mentions and/or routine sports coverage. Papaursa (talk) 15:21, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
EPBC is fairly new but WBC do recognize in the rankings when one person holds the title for example Firat Arslan Cruiserweight ranking --Bennyaha (talk) 23:17, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I just read a statement from WBC regarding EPBC. "Eurasia Pacific Boxing Council is not a WBC Federation. It is only a committee affiliated with the WBC, ..." [32] it goes on to say "Any request for a new federation or commission to affiliate to the WBC is a matter that must be addressed by the WBC Board of Governors in the annual conventions of the WBC." --Bennyaha (talk) 23:37, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vipinhari || talk 15:47, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Question Has anyone actually posted a link to an independent reference that gives significant coverage to this organization? Everything seemed to be a passing mention and/or routine sports coverage. Notability isn't inherited from being a committee connected to the WBC. Perhaps a redirect to the WBC might be in order. Papaursa (talk) 18:14, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- here is two search results in WBC that talk about EPBC and as you can see there are over 50 results if you combine the two: WBC EPBC Search Results WBC Eurasia Pacifc Search Results. This is a more specific article that says EPBC is affiliated with WBCMBC is not Affiliated. In google here is 203 results Google results WBC EPBC and here is 118 more articles in google Google Search Results WBC Eurasia Boxing Council --Bennyaha (talk) 23:35, 4 June 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 editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 17:18, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Rami Jaber

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

Submitting for deletion discussion after an IP-editor contested both WP:BSD and WP:PROD. The article’s subject lacks basic notability, and most of its claims are either unsourced or dubious. The subject is an unimportant yellow paper showbiz celebrity in Finland, and the producer of three self-funded short films distributed on YouTube. The subject is totally unknown internationally.

In Finland the subject was best known for his “golden Mercedes”, one of only three in the world as he claimed, which later became confirmed to be is a standard 2005 MB500S, with golden foil and a spoiler kit. The article has already been removed once, but has reappeared, with unpublished details that could origin only from the subject himself. Caygill (talk) 16:29, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as I myself tagged this, nothing at all actually convincing of any applicable notability. SwisterTwister talk 18:23, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Maintain as I'm familiar with the sport and Rami Jaber is indeed notable as the most successful driver of Palestinian ancestry. He is well known throughout the MENA territories and his driving films are popular among enthusiasts. The existence and the notability of these films are well-cited and can be found in reputable databases such as IMDB. The subject meets the notability criteria on the basis of his career as a director alone. The driving accolades are poorly cited, but that doesn't make this article a candidate for deletion. Other users should be encouraged to improve the article with additional citations. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.0.216.67 (talk • contribs)

— 108.0.216.67 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

~~Delete~~(striking because that opinion is implied by the nomination. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 22:58, 25 May 2016 (UTC)) not notable as media producer or entrepreneur, and most certainly not as an athlete of motorsport. --Caygill (talk) 19:00, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Don't Delete Subject's rally career is well documented and his driving films are among the most notable and widely recognized in the industry. Subject is notable enough on the basis of his film career alone for inclusion. The article is poorly cited in places, but is not a candidate for deletion based on Wikipedia's guidelines. Instead, editors should suggest places for additional citations and help to improve.ZLisabeth (talk) 21:07, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ZLisabeth, these discussions are not supposed to be based on personal opinions, but on evidence. Could you please give us the evidence from independent reliable sources, not the press releases and other self-published sources that are in the article, that supports your claims that Jaber's rally career is well documented and his driving films are among the most notable and widely recognized in the industry. If you can provide that evidence then the article can be kept. Otherwise you will not, if Jaber had any sense when agreeing the contract, receive your fee for writing this. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 21:51, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

While I certainly disdain your unfounded accusation that I would accept payment for a Wikipedia aritcle, I'd like to address the substance of your comment. My interest in the Rami article is as a fellow palestinian and Finnish speaker. It appears that Rami is being targeted on the basis of his Palestinian ancestry, and that's just wrong. Even though the sources cited on the page are not in English, that does not mean they can't be used to substantiate both his career as a rally driver and a director. I think we can have this discussion without you impugning my integrity. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ZLisabeth (talk • contribs) 22:11, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It only takes a quick look at your other contributions here to see how implausible your claims are, but you can easily prove me wrong by, as I said, providing some independent reliable sources that back them up. Nothing has been said anywhere that in any way implies that Jaber's (this is an encyclopedia, not a chat among friends, so we refer to people by their surnames once the full name is known) Palestinian ancestry or Finnish residency is a factor in this discussion. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 22:26, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure what the purpose of your ad hominem might be. Almost every one of my other articles has been checked and approved and remains live on Wikipedia. Regarding the issue at hand, though, there are several independently published sources that verify the subject's status as an accomplished rally driver and director. Might there be a more nefarious political motive at play with this deletion attempt? That's not for me to say. Read the cited articles. Many are in Finnish because, as the article states, Jaber is a Finnish national. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ZLisabeth (talk • contribs) 01:03, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

To make the long story short. I contest the rally career, it's fake and unsourced - and I can prove it. No number of Finnish first hand interviews will make these claims true. And I thank you for implying rasist motives for this discussion. Let's start with proving your article notable and accurate, shall we? --Caygill (talk) 02:12, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Here is Rami Jabber's complete international rally career: eWRC-Database. The only entry corresponds with the article's Qatar Rally 2010 with the difference that he didn't win that rally but place last, driving literally half the speed of the winner. --Caygill (talk) 02:22, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

For the remaining claims, you can listen to an English interview with the subject: Prince Rami. It aired on Radio Rock, a department of Finland's biggest media house Sanoma Group.--Caygill (talk) 02:46, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ZLisabeth, thanks for drawing attention to the other articles that you have created. None remains live now, with one being redirected and the rest deleted as spam. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 09:20, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep While some of the rally claims in Jaber's article are poorly cited and disputable, the film citations appear sound. IMDB is reputable database and as a Finnish speaker I can also confirm that the sources support the claims in the article. Jaber is a notable enough producer of driving content to merit inclusion. His name is certainly recognizable in Scandinavia. I don't think this article is a candidate for deletion pursuant to Wikipedia's policy on biographies of living persons, but it could be improved with additional citations. If specific rally claims are demonstrably false or unsubstantiated, those individual claims should tagged and removed. Not sure what his Palestinian ancestry has to do with anything. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 45.48.227.170 (talk) 16:54, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

— 45.48.227.170 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

IMDB is not considered a reliable source for this purpose. Although I don't find it disputed that Jaber has produced a couple of high quality YouTube videos, these productions has nothing to do with feature films or anything distributed through theaters or commercially. Also 45.48.227.170, please don't just remove problem templates from this article. --Caygill (talk) 18:03, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

May I suggest that the following first time IP editor from CA (socket puppy) will not use the phrase "article is poorly cited" in defending the subject's notability?--Caygill (talk) 18:18, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Firstly I note that this is a promotionally worded article created by a proven spammer, so if there is any presumption in favour of keeping that should be abandoned in this case. Looking at the sources cited in the article I can't see anything that appears independent and reliable and has significant coverage of Jaber, which are the kind of sources that can contribute to notability, but I may be hindered in my search for other sources by the fact that Finnish is one of the few European languages that I can't make any sense of, and I so rely on machine translation. Can anyone identify any sources which meet that definition? If so I might change my opinion, but they would have to be sources that discuss Jaber from a neutral point of view rather than just report his outlandish claims. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 21:14, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There is one journalistic long article by Helsingin Sanomat, Finland's leading newspaper. It's written with plenty of sarcasm, which is hard to catch by a machine translation. I however took the freedom of translating the last part of it [33]:

"And so ends the story of the handsome prince, who had by strange coincidences ended up in the cold North.

The prince walks out of the building holding a diamond in his hand. He looks towards the evil men, who have in their hands small machine guns, and now the take is going well.

The film will be completed, it will get a billion spectators and the City of Oulu huge publicity.

The prince becomes a Hollywood star, his children are proud of their father and the people of Oulu of their own prince. Nordic film production rises to prosperity, and no one mind digging through the small inaccuracies in the prince's background.

And so they all lived happily ever after." --Caygill (talk) 14:35, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Google Translate isn't very good between unrelated languages such as Finnish and English, but it's enough to get the point that, if this article contributes to notability, that notability is as a fantasist rather than as a rally driver or actor or film producer. I don't think that it would be possible to write a neutral BLP on the basis of that source, so my "delete" opinion still stands. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 16:40, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - almost everything in this article either fails WP:V or the GNG. By and large, the stuff in the article that would make Jaber notable isn't sourced, and the stuff in the article that is sourced isn't enough to make Jaber notable. ✤ Fosse 8 ✤ 10:08, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User talk:Vipinhari#

unfamiliar with the closing process, how does it work - 7 days has passed. --Caygill (talk) 14:48, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vipinhari || talk 15:39, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Vipinhari || talk 15:42, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Palestine-related deletion discussions. Vipinhari || talk 15:42, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Finland-related deletion discussions. Vipinhari || talk 15:42, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Since we are debating an article, with unsourced claims of notability, I take the freedom of adding a verifiable but unsourced claim myself: Jaber is purchasing followers and post likes for each of his posts on Instagram. I've conducted research in the subject and have given the statistical proof to a journalist covering the case in Finland. Just another piece in the puzzle that everything about Jaber is fake, and he isn't famous because he's famous. He's totally unknown outside his small circle in Oulu, Finland. And all that said, I highly mislike the fact that socket puppetry seem to be allowed in defending this article. --Caygill (talk) 17:07, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have asked the relister to reconsider that action and leave the closure to administrator who has access to ZLisabeth's deleted contributions, as they show that that editor is a proven serial spammer, which should be taken into account when evaluating his contributions. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 17:35, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I note that Vipinhari has not been editing since I asked him to revert this relisting, so maybe a passing admin could take a look at whether relisting was a good idea? I'm pretty sure that I would be entitled to revert the relisting myself, but am reluctant as I get enough grief for performing normal editing actions without being logged-in without having to cope with the flaming that would undoubtably come if I was to do so. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 18:32, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I hear you 86.17.222.157, but after my initial hesitations, I have learned to respect your consistent and knowledgeable contributions. --Caygill (talk) 13:55, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I certainly didn't mean to aim my last comment at you. You have been a model of civility compared to other editors, including at least one administrator, who have taken exception to the fact that a non-logged-in editor might actually be contributing more usefully to Wikipedia than they are. Just take a look at my talk page for confirmation. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 19:09, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG. Tom29739 ^[talk] 00:27, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. A clear consensus for deletion. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 18:33, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Civilian Defense Agency

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

Possible hoax. Searching for "Civilian Defense Agency" gives about 80 hits, almost all about defense agencies that are civilian. The article makes it appear as if this is a US government agency, but the website is a single page at a .us address, not a .gov address. The homepage states "Providing contract defense services for military, foreign aid workers, shipping services and more", suggesting perhaps that this is a company, not a government agency. The only hit on Google that is not generic, is this one, which refers to a Texas-based "Civilian Defense Agency, Inc." Whatever this is, a government agency or a company, the lack of sources (reliable or not) indicates a lack of notability. Does not meet WP:GNG, WP:CORP, or WP:ORG. Hence: Delete. Randykitty (talk) 15:31, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Further information is being supplied - A FCC lookup of another FRN associated with the CDA at https://apps.fcc.gov/coresWeb/searchDetail.do?frn=0025608365 shows the agency listed as a government agency. Sources are available to indicate this is noteworthy in the interest of government transparency and how it conducts business. Additionally, as the article states, the headquarters are in Virginia and the Training facility in South Texas so I assume they have licensed radios for use in training and public service.

To the original complainant Mr. Kitty - this is my fist contribution and you haven't even given it a chance to develop. I appreciate your diligence but your request for deletion is not only premature and without proper research but also acting a a tool to suppress information about agencies operating within the confines of the U.S. under authority of U.S. based agencies and operating in a clandestine manner.

If you look at the CIA for example, it is a "CIVILIAN" based entity yet with government authority - an oxymoron in verbiage. I have discovered the CDA is positioned similar and the structure is complex and I truly believe this is noteworthy. I have spoken with a source from the CDA when I had seen personally their personnel in the area. I spoke to one of their personnel and they gave me info I researched and verified. I am gathering information and reporting as I find it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Giosue725 (talk • contribs) 15:46, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, whereas there's a plethora of sources about the CIA, it's rather difficult to even establish whether this CDA even exists. At best, that suggests a lack of encyclopedic notability. In addition, what I get from the FCC, says "Applicant is a security company and will use radios to support their business activities". No mention anywhere of the government. The link you just now provided says "State or Local Agency , State or Local Commission", whereas I would expect that a national organization with a presence in several states would be a "federal agency or commission". --Randykitty (talk) 15:57, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I listed one of 10 FRN's I found above... A FCC lookup of another FRN associated with the CDA at https://apps.fcc.gov/coresWeb/searchDetail.do?frn=0025608365

Additionally, the article is pretty clear as to their status - I was clear in relaying that I am not sure of the government status in the article since there is conflicting information but with government FRN's I know by that they are operation within some form of governmental authority and I only reported information that was given directly to me and corroborated with in-depth research - not some simple "google" search. I worked in intelligence for 15 years so while I am sure you have the best intention, I would speculate your investigatory prowess is not within the realm of being able to uncover clandestine operations. My intent is to not only uncover this operation but several others I have found throughout my career. In my opinion I believe people have a right to know what is really going on.

Also, regarding the site, just last week it was up and multi-page with quite a bit of info. I can only assume they are updating as the site reports but I don't know since I don't work for their IT department...

I agree than in researching tax filings, I find CDA in Texas, Virginia the Carolinas and several other places. Some listed as CDA holdings and others as CDA, Inc. and some with simply Civilian Defense Agency, that their status is a bit confusing. It is obviously large and recently came out of the shadow - I find it curious as to why so the article reports what I know so far. Perhaps if given the chance others who know more can contribute.

Like I said, I admire your dedication to helping keep Wikipedia a source of reliable knowledge but I still most humbly believe you did little to no research and prematurely requested deletion which is a disservice to the Wikipedia community.

Kind regards... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Giosue725 (talk • contribs)

Your comment raises several points. 1/ Tax filings, FRNs, etc are not really good sources. They can establish that something exists, but not that it is notable. We call this primary sources. What is needed are secondary sources independent of the subject of the article. 2/ When things cannot be sourced ("I am not sure of the government status"), we cannot put them in an article. You claim that you got information from a source (not admissible), which was "corroborated with in-depth research". The latter is potentially admissible, if that in-depth research turned up reliable sources (please read the linked policies and guidelines in the foregoing, they may not mean what you think). In summary: I could not find any sources about this putative government agency. You claim to have information: please provide your evidence, supported by independent reliable sources and we're done here. --Randykitty (talk) 17:10, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This whole article appears to be the original research of the article creator. I have looked different ways for information about this agency and found nothing. If this is really a US Government agency that has been operating since 2004, there would be something that would be available on the internet about it. According to this the domain name was registered on 10 Oct 2015 by a Gio Michell and it is hosted out of Houston, TX. The Whois for the site is registered to Rick Thomas with a PO Box in Alexandria VA and the phone number that is listed on the website but the registration date is the same. -- GB fan 18:37, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't know how I missed this before, the creator of this article is Giosue and the first listing I found for the website says it was registered by a Gio Michell. It seems to be suspicious that both these people are Gio. -- GB fan 01:42, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:49, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:49, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:49, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Does not seem to meet the most basic general notability guidelines for inclusion. Most of it seems to be original research. EricSerge (talk) 01:28, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There's no way that a stand-alone US intelligence agency will get zero useful Google hits, and the premise of the article is dubious given that various other US government agencies have the functions attributed to it. This appears to be a hoax. Nick-D (talk) 06:19, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- I'd also note that Google searching for the supposed logo of this agency produces zero hits. Nick-D (talk) 10:34, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As hoax. Hawkeye7 (talk) 08:46, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as easily no comprehensible information for any solid notability, nothing else convincing and thus there's no simplicity for basic notability. Best restarted if better available, SwisterTwister talk 06:58, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I have seen several "advertisement" attempts, but this one takes the cake. Someone starts a private security (or detective) firm, makes it look like a US Govt agency, puts up a website, Logo that appears to be Govt and creates page on Wikipedia. Full marks to Randykitty for marking this for deletion; I would have missed this. Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 02:43, 10 June 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 16:50, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

List of prefects of Brașov County

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

First, a bit of background is in order:

The Prefects of Romania hold a purely administrative position. They are unelected and serve at the pleasure of the central government, usually for a year or two. They are not notable by virtue of their office, and the great majority are not notable for any reason.
A few of them - see Category:Prefects of Romania - are notable, but almost invariably for other reasons. For example, Armand Călinescu ended up as prime minister, while Alexandru Macedonski was a very important poet.

Which takes us to the present article, a list of prefects of one Romanian county. I would say it should be deleted for two reasons: first, no individual on the list (except for one, who held a similar but distinct position before the area became a part of Romania) is notable or likely ever will be notable, and it says something about the notability of a list when all the entries are perpetual red links. Second, the topic itself lacks notability: the office is of a routine bureaucratic nature, a list of its holders beyond our scope.

I suppose, if there's a real desire for accessibility to this information, a link to the list could be added to Brașov County - I for one would not object. - Biruitorul ^Talk 15:10, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep First of all, just because those people don't have pages yet doesn't make them less notable. Many of the interbelic prefects were notable people (by their achievements outside the office, as you say) and I assume the Hungarian ones were as well. Besides, how many of the Romanian politicians have their own page here and yet many of them are unknown to the large world, not to mention that they have done much less in their lives? Second, how less administrative must a job be to make it worthy of an article? Would you compare the prefect, which is the link between the Government and the local administration, an office established in the Constitution of Romania (article 123), to a councilor named by the same government in some state company? Would a list of kings or chieftains, which were not elected and many of them were not notable in any way, pass your administrative treshold? Third, the list on prefecturabrasov.ro is outdated and incomplete and thus less relevant. Fourth, there are plenty of such lists on wikipedia, for similar positions in other countries, why does this one bother you? --Alex:D (talk) 06:20, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

- I don't exclude the possibility that a handful of the 70 or so red links in the list point to notable individuals, but the vast majority are very likely to be encyclopedic nonentities. Feel free to supply evidence to the contrary.
- As to the argument about other Romanian politicians, I urge you to consult WP:WAX. Anyway, most (ideally all) of those pass WP:POLITICIAN, which the prefects don't.
- In terms of exactly which administrative functions are notable, there is no general rule aside from cabinet members, but WP:GNG is always applicable when other criteria are lacking. The comparison to kings is absurd, but one to the Prefects of France is perfectly appropriate. First, because the Romanian prefects are modeled on the French office, and second because, as you highlight, it's an office established in the Constitution of France (article 72). And guess what? The French prefects are also not notable. The office is notable, both in France and Romania - after all, I am the author of Prefect (Romania) - but individual holders or lists of holders, not so much.
- About the list on prefecturabrasov.ro - yes, it's true there has been no update to reflect the fact that the oh-so-notable Ciprian Marius Băncilă, whose previous job was as head of the Brașov Environmental Protection Agency, has been prefect for the past two months, but anyone truly interested in that morsel of information and not willing to wait until the Prefecture's site operator remembers to update the list could easily navigate here. The point is that the list is essentially up to date, and the information on the allegedly notable interwar prefects is not subject to change.
- I'm not responsible for managing all of Wikipedia or for justifying my inaction in other spheres, only for arguing why this list should be deleted, which I have done quite thoroughly. - Biruitorul ^Talk 17:11, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is cruft. Officeholders of that rank are not notable in themselves (no need for the redlinks), and the infor itself can be easily retrieved from the source that was dumped into the list, should anyone feel a passion for reading all the names of the non-notable prefects. Dahn (talk) 21:33, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Most of them are notable because they held other offices (mostly of which were Members of Parliament), before or after. I have created articles for three of them, there are plenty of others on that list who are notable. bogdan (talk) 20:55, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- First, you've made an unproven assertion: "most" of about 70 names would be over 35, and you've tentatively shown notability for 3 or 4. Second, what is at stake is not whether this list contains a handful of notable names, but whether the topic itself - a list of Brașov prefects - is notable. And it isn't - it is, as exhaustively explained, cruft. - Biruitorul ^Talk 03:09, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - There are only 50 something names there, 35 would be well over half. There are lists of prefects of Croatia and of similar positions which are appointed and represent the Goverment in that county (including governors, minister-presidents, Lords Lieutenant, voivodes, kaymakams etc.), wikipedia is full of them. So your argument about notability is invalid. Besides, the list on prefecturabrasov is incomplete for the years 1938-45, while this one has exact dates (with a couple of exceptions). --Alex:D (talk) 13:23, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    - Actually, you are the one who is throwing up invalid WP:WAX-type diversions in a desperate attempt to deflect from the fact that a list of minor officeholders isn't notable, no matter how much special pleading you invoke. As I said many times, the office of Romanian prefect is notable, but lists of these really quite routine functionaries are outside our scope. - Biruitorul ^Talk 13:02, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:05, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:05, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:05, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete instead as, at best, there's nothing to suggest this cannot be moved as needed to the other article instead of having this all entirely about the people listed. SwisterTwister talk 00:33, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - similar to county judge/commissioner or town(ship) supervisor. Bearian (talk) 17:24, 10 June 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) 18:22, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Brigitte Barclay

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

This is an article for somebody best known for being kidnapped by aliens. The sourcing is a train-wreck of WP:BLPSOURCES-violating tabloid journalism, or otherwise just plain old "stuff on the internet", and it's saying something when the most respectable sources are The Sun and The Daily Mail. While she might be a colourful figure to listen to (if you're into that sort of thing), I can't see how this is a realistic subject for an encyclopedia. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 14:44, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Entertaining article, and though while the Sun and the Mirror can occasionally be sort-of RS for celebrity info here, absent any particular GNG sourcing, the existing sources cited don't even verify the "best-known" tag (source cited speaks warmly of her, but "best-known" is not there, hence WP:SYNTH). Half the cites merely appear to verify that she's apparently been photographed in a state of inadequate clothing insufficient to keep the poor girl warm. Can't be having promotion of such dangerous behavior, poor girl might catch a cold! Montanabw ^(talk) 18:33, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:48, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:48, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Total lack of sources to support an article on such a fringe figure.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:38, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:06, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nominator and Montanabw. Sourcing is inadequate per WP:BIO and WP:42.--Ddcm8991 (talk) 22:33, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:SENSATION. Non-sensational sources from which to write an objective biography simply do not exist. - LuckyLouie (talk) 18:59, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete it's a funny article, but I don't think she's notable and the whole alien abduction thing seems to have been an attention-getting hoax. White Arabian Filly ^Neigh 20:26, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete keep it in the tabloids, not this encyclopedia. ^{Atsme📞📧} 04:59, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
SNOW Delete as there's enough consensus, all questionable claims and information and nothing thoroughly convincing thus, with nothing else to suggest better, delete by all means. SwisterTwister talk 00:29, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There is nothing in this article that remotely qualifies the article (only gossip covered in several sources). Just another attention hungry person looking to stay in news after her career as model is over. Not notable. Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 02:47, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe Ms Barclay had anything to do with writing this article, far more likely some random bloke thought "zomg boobies" and put fingers to keyboard. Indeed, I get the impression from the talk page and edit summaries that she is upset at all the "glamour" magazine cites and wants them removed. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 06:28, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, thats exactly how they seek attention and stay in news ;). In anycase, that was not the original point. Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 16:10, 10 June 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 Imelda Marcos. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 23:01, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

List of awards and honors bestowed upon Imelda Marcos

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

4 not very notable awards do not justify this article which was created by a SPA. Pincrete (talk) 14:08, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think it should be merged rather than deleted. FunkMonk (talk) 14:24, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Imelda Marcos per FunkMonk Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 15:23, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Imelda Marcos. The Imelda Marcos article is not so long that this information couldn't fit in there. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 01:07, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Imelda Marcos, then delete. — MShabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 14:30, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per all of the above. Montanabw ^(talk) 18:24, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt. _Muffled ^Pocketed 09:09, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Whilst I have no objection to a merge, I question whether these awards are notable and therefore merge-worthy. At least some appear to have been ritually handed out on state visits or to ambassadors. Pincrete (talk) 09:57, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Imelda Marcos. Anything which is worth keeping can easily fit in that article. Alsee (talk) 09:28, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: This content will only clutter the main article and should not be returned there.Imeldific (talk) 10:26, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

nb Imeldific is the article creator

Delete as there's nothing to suggest there's anything imaginably different for independent notability. SwisterTwister talk 07:00, 8 June 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) 18:20, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Malaysia Local Streetwear

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

Can't think of an appropriate AfD tag...I don't see this as a notable topic, and the almost total lack of content does not persuade me otherwise. TheLongTone (talk) 13:54, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:24, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. appears to have been written to justify the promotional article Stoned & Co, which I just deleted as A7/G11. DGG ( talk ) 17:03, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The intention here is to promote a brand. This can be safely deleted. We don't seem to have articles about "streetwear" by country anyway. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 07:27, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as by far nothing acceptable at all, nothing basically notable. SwisterTwister talk 07:01, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Having been myself to Thailand, Hong Kong, Singapore, Malaysia, and Indonesia, and knowing my domestic partner from the Philippines, I don't see any differences in how young men dress in any of those Southeast Asian countries. They all dress in the same "street clothes" -- old blue jeans and worn T-shirts -- and tend to be more modest than North American men. Conformity to social norms, such as gendered dress, is extremely important in all of those countries. Even men of different religions tend to dress alike in larger cities and resort areas (although I noticed more "ethnic" differences in the small city of Port Kelang, and older men would not be caught dead in a t-shirt). I don't understand what's notable and different from the 200 million young men in any similar country. Am I missing something that I don't get? That does not say that ethnic clothing or tribal dress might be different from any old street wear (see, e.g., sarong, Malaysian cultural outfits, batik, Peranakan beaded slippers, and Barong Tagalog, all of which are notable and unique cultural expressions of those individual nations). Bearian (talk) 17:41, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 05:37, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

John Cardillo

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

Non-notable radio personality lacking non-trivial support. Not sure the award provides enough to support WP:N. Borders on advert. Article created by subject's intern and edited by subject. reddogsix (talk) 13:54, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not enough sources to establish notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:36, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as searches clearly found nothing better at all, nothing basically convincing here. SwisterTwister talk 07:04, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 05:37, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Black Diamonds (band)

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

'Youngest Profesional Band' according to the Guiness Book of ~~Pointless Trivia~~ oops, records. This is obviously a claim of notability, but one that is liable to vanish into thin air..."They were once in the GBPT but can no longer stake the claim" seems likely given time and obviously is a very slender claim to notability. There is nothing else of substance to suggest notability. And the band are hardly new... TheLongTone (talk) 13:46, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Vipinhari || talk 16:26, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Vipinhari || talk 16:26, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The Band passes notability guidelines for music bands. Moreover Guiness Book of Records is a World Record, None in the world like them, it makes them more notable. Akuhiltyion (talk) 21:03, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

How can a band which has gained no attention whatsoever in five years be considered notable???TheLongTone (talk) 12:43, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

& note that above is the opinion of the article creator.TheLongTone (talk) 12:46, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment : Pls go through the article, before commenting . They have won various prestigious awards other than Guiness Records, and was nominated for many awards and have performed live in many national and international concerts. Moreover The band was founded in 2009 ie; 7 years old band. Even a 1 month or 1 year band can be notable according to how people like them. Thank you Akuhiltyion (talk) 18:22, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Do you know what the word @prestigious' means? I thought not. As it stands the article fails to make any credible claim to notability. Just a bunch of wannabees.TheLongTone (talk) 14:03, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment : Dont go personal here, And dont try to teach me english pls. Moreover I noticed you removed contents from the article. I doubt you have some hidden agenda to put this page down ! Akuhiltyion (talk) 11:23, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I have to say that there is no particular reason to keep the page. The notability is not there, there are no current news stories and even the page itself is lackluster and devoid of pertinent information about the band. Kaobear (talk) 12:14, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Articles from The Eagle-Tribune , Haverhill Gazette, Boston.com proves notability Akuhiltyion (talk) 18:37, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as even with the Guinness World Record, this is still questionable for anything else including for notability apart from that, so this would be best mentioned at, say, the World Records list, until there's better sources for this band since my searches found nothing better. SwisterTwister talk 07:24, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment : According to WP:BAND, the band proves its notability as it passed not only 1 createria but 7+ criteria for WP:Band notability. It passes criteria 1, Criteria 9 , Criteria 4 ,Criteria 5 , Criteria 10 , Criteria 11 and 12. Akuhiltyion (talk) 07:59, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Local rags in Boston, Mass. And it's "criterion", not "criteria" in the singular. Try and substantiate these claims....I don't think you'll be able to.TheLongTone (talk) 14:41, 10 June 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 "delete" arguments are strongly based in Wikipedia policies and guidelines, while the "keep" arguments aren't. Several of the "keep" arguments amount to saying either that amphoras of this type are collectively notable as a class or that some amphoras are notable, not that this particular one is notable in its own right. Then we have "it gets 78 hits on Google": even if the number of google hits were a measure of notability (which it isn't) 78 would be a derisory number. Then we have a link to a book which gives a brief three sentence mention of the amphora, in a passage primarily about another one. It is not Bearcat who "seems to misunderstand the GNG". The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 17:49, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Two Sided Amphora 63.1515

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

Article about a museum artifact, which simply describes its physical characteristics. No indication whatosever is given here of what would make it uniquely deserving of its own encyclopedia article, over all of the hundreds or thousands of other amphoras that are held in other museums around the world -- and the only source here is one deadlinked entry in an online directory of museum accessions. As always, Wikipedia is not a directory of every single thing that exists at all -- but nothing here suggests or sources any reason why an encyclopedia should maintain an article about it. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 13:40, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The article name makes an internet search unfeasible, and I would further imagine that anything which established the notability of this thing would in all probability be in an academic journal. But at present, the article's museum catalogue entry merely proves that it is of sufficient quality to be in a museum.TheLongTone (talk) 14:14, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Museums and libraries-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 01:24, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 01:24, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 01:24, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The academic interest in Greek vases has been so great that notability is effortlessly demonstrated (not necessarily online) for large numbers of them - see Corpus vasorum antiquorum (which is online). TheLongTone would imagine wrongly, and very clearly HAS'NT TRIED an internet search! "Boston amphora 63.1515" gets 78 hits, 76 relevant. To make such a confident and totally wrong assertion without trying is a bit pathetic really. This is doubtless one of the more important vases - yes if only because of the sex interest, it is actually pretty well known it seems. I will try to dig for info on this one - and a picture of course. The article is not very helpful in its present state, but that is at least as true of most of our articles on Renaissance paintings, and a couple of million on other subjects. Bearcat seems to misunderstand the GNG - there is so much published on Greek vases that thousands would easily meet it but, perhaps fortunately, there are only one or two editors who write such articles, and this is only our 29th. Johnbod (talk) 02:36, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Meh. None of the hits I got had anyting of interest to say, and some were for snecking hotels. And try not to be condescending.TheLongTone (talk) 12:40, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Johnbod (talk) 13:27, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The Perseus and MFA references are substantive and satisfy general notability. Another potentially useful reference is Warren Moon's discussion of Boston amphora 63.1515, comparing it to Rycroft Painter works in Greek Vases in the J. Paul Getty Museum: Volume 2, p. 62. 24.151.10.165 (talk) 17:17, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is a very surprising nomination. As highlighted by Johnbod above, works of this kind have been the subject of extensive scholarship, and this is a fine example. Also noting 24.151.10.165's recent, valuable, and source based additions to the page. Perhalps TheLongTone needs to think before he urges delete. Ceoil (talk) 11:11, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete instead as this could've been accepted since it's at a museum, but there's simply nothing else either so it's unlikely this can be better improved as its own article. SwisterTwister talk 07:27, 8 June 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. -- RoySmith (talk) 22:03, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Audio Imagery

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

Declined Prod. Delete reason was "Lots of history, but not enough notability (the best is an article in a college newspaper)". Prod declined with "Notable for charting albums, will add refs", but sadly nothing was added (this was more than 2 months ago) and I can't find evidence of said chart success. Fram (talk) 12:49, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:23, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as failing WP:GNG as unfortunately couldn't find any reliable sources and still can't Atlantic306 (talk) 22:22, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as searches found nothing better and there's simply nothing else convincing. SwisterTwister talk 07:30, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 05:38, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Tim Raphael

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

No evidence of notability. I can't access source 1 (a who's who) and 2 (a specialist directory), source 3 is about another priest where Raphael is quoted at length but isn't the subject of any attention about him, source 4 is a passing mention, and source 5 I can't access but is a section of routine reporting. Many other passing mentions can be found online, but nothing that looks to be significantly about him. Fram (talk) 12:41, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Do not support deletion, Wikipedia would be poorer without this article. Many, if not most deans have articles and for the sake of completeness and being able to follow succession in the office of dean the article should remain. Wayne Jayes (talk) 14:11, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. If the other deans have similar notability, perhaps their articles should be deleted as well instead. Fram (talk) 14:37, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I understand the non-binding guideline WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. However I can't see how Wikipedia will be improved by the deletion of this article. It is factual, has a neutral point of view and has adequate adequate references. I don't believe that just blindly follwing the WP:Notability guieline is always the right thing to do. Wayne Jayes (talk) 09:16, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete He is an Anglican priest with no actual claim to notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:08, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as I'm not seeing anything particularly suggestive of his own notable article. SwisterTwister talk 07:35, 8 June 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 16:53, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

American Yard

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

No evidence of any notability. Prod declined without an actual reason or improvements. Fram (talk) 12:31, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Newly formed band who have yet to make any waves; clearly fail WP:GNG TheLongTone (talk) 14:18, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:46, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as I have found nothing better at all from my searches and there's nothing else solidly convincing. SwisterTwister talk 07:38, 8 June 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. J04n(talk page) 00:27, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Gareth Paul Jones

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

This biographical article is about a software engineer who I believe is not notable enough for Wikipedia. Although references are given for this person, it does not point to notability, in my view. Seaweed (talk) 12:08, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete article on a non-notable software engineer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:52, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as there's nothing at all for any solid independent notability. SwisterTwister talk 07:39, 8 June 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) 18:17, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Cornelius Edison (American football)

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

WP:BLP of a football player, who has to date only made the practice squad of an NFL team. WP:NGRIDIRON, however, does not confer notability until they've actually played at least one game in the main league, and the sourcing here is not strong enough to get him over WP:GNG as a substitute. Delete, without prejudice against recreation in the future if he gets called up to the big time. Bearcat (talk) 22:21, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:30, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Has not made the notability requirements for football players.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:00, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:11, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:11, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:11, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. My searches did not turn up significant coverage in multiple, reliable, and independent sources of the type needed to pass WP:GNG. Articles published by the Chicago Bears at chicagobears.com are not independent and therefore do not confer notability. Also, posts from the "Sports Agent Blog" do not confer notability unless the author of the blog posts is a recognized expert in the field. Finally, the subject does not appear to pass WP:NGRIDIRON or WP:NCOLLATH. (He did win the Rimington Award as the top center at the FCS level, and I am not aware of any consensus as to which FCS-level awards qualify under NCOLLATH.) Cbl62 (talk) 16:17, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A simple news search shows failure of WP:GNG. I can find no other notability measure for inclusion. What we have here is a college athlete that is attempting to make it at the professional level but has not yet. Therefore, we must look at the college production. College football centers rarely meet the notability threshold and I see no reason to make an exception here.--Paul McDonald (talk) 19:28, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as there's simply nothing for anything solidly notable, he's not made the official permanent team yet. SwisterTwister talk 07:39, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:23, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Carlena Britch

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

Advertorially toned WP:BLP of a dancer, whose most substantive claim of notability is having appeared in music videos -- and who is sourced entirely to YouTube copies of said videos, with no evidence of any reliable source coverage about her in media shown at all. But a dancer gets into Wikipedia by being the subject of published coverage which satisfies WP:GNG, and does not gain an automatic entitlement to have a Wikipedia article just because user-generated video sharing or social networking sites verify that she exists. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 21:45, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:30, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, as Bearcat said, absolutely no coverage at all, linking to youtube videos does not count as adequate sourcing. ThePlatypusofDoom (Talk) 12:01, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, completely non-notable. I notic ethat the article is tagged for cleanup; a cleanuop of this guff which can only have been written by a particularly dumb pr drone, would leave nothing.TheLongTone (talk) 14:26, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:30, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:30, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete That we have youtube clips of her dancing is not enough to pass any notability criteria.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:47, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as by far nothing at all comprehensible to suggest an actual independently notable article, only puffed by names and articles of others. SwisterTwister talk 07:43, 8 June 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 2013 Asian Youth Games. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 23:01, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yemen at the 2013 Asian Youth Games

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

Empty article with no info that is not visible on the main page Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 19:30, 26 May 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 May 26. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 21:15, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as nothing here for any actual convincing solid independent notability. SwisterTwister talk 07:40, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 17:51, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 17:51, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Yemen-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 18:12, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to the main games article. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 08:48, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to the main games article. This could have been done boldly without bringing this and others here. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 11:02, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Middle East-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:15, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and then Redirect perhaps at best, since there's particularly perhaps not a large amount of content, and this can easily be repeated at the other article. SwisterTwister talk 07:45, 8 June 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 2009 Asian Indoor Games. This didn't need a discussion .... anyway closing as Redirect (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 23:02, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yemen at the 2009 Asian Indoor Games

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

Empty article with no info that is not visible on the main page Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 19:16, 26 May 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 May 26. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 21:15, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as not at all convincing for its own article, 7 years ago now. SwisterTwister talk 07:40, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 17:51, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 17:51, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Yemen-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 18:13, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to the main games article. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 08:48, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to the main games article. This could have been done boldly without bringing this and others here. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 11:02, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Middle East-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:14, 6 June 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 2002 Asian Games. This didn't need a discussion .... anyway closing as Redirect (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 23:02, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yemen at the 2002 Asian Games

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

Empty article with no info that is not visible on the main page Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 19:38, 26 May 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 May 26. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 21:15, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as nothing at all convincing of its own article. SwisterTwister talk 07:39, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 17:51, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 17:51, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Yemen-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 18:13, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to the main games article. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 08:49, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to the main games article. This could have been done boldly without bringing this and others here. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 11:03, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Middle East-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:13, 6 June 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 2006 Asian Games. This didn't need a discussion .... anyway closing as Redirect (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 23:02, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Vietnam at the 2006 Asian Games

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

Empty article with no info that is not visible on the main page Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 19:39, 26 May 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 May 26. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 21:14, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as not all independently notable. SwisterTwister talk 07:39, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 17:56, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 17:56, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Vietnam-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 17:56, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to the main games article. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 08:49, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to the main games article. This could have been done boldly without bringing this and others here. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 11:04, 3 June 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 1998 Asian Games. This didn't need a discussion .... anyway closing as Redirect (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 23:02, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Vietnam at the 1998 Asian Games

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

Empty article with no info that is not visible on the main page Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 19:39, 26 May 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 May 26. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 21:14, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as there's nothing at all for independence. SwisterTwister talk 07:41, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 18:01, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 18:01, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Vietnam-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 18:01, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to the main games article. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 08:49, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to the main games article. This could have been done boldly without bringing this and others here. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 11:04, 3 June 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 1982 Asian Games. This didn't need a discussion .... anyway closing as Redirect (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 23:03, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Vietnam at the 1982 Asian Games

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

Empty article with no info that is not visible on the main page Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 19:39, 26 May 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 May 26. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 21:14, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as there's nothing to suggest this information as its own article. SwisterTwister talk 07:41, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 18:02, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 18:02, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Vietnam-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 18:02, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to the main games article. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 08:49, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to the main games article. This could have been done boldly without bringing this and others here. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 11:05, 3 June 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 2013 Asian Youth Games. This didn't need a discussion .... anyway closing as Redirect (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 23:03, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Uzbekistan at the 2013 Asian Youth Games

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

Empty article with no info that is not visible on the main page Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 19:30, 26 May 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 May 26. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 21:14, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as not convincing for its own article. SwisterTwister talk 07:42, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to the main games article. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 08:49, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to the main games article. This could have been done boldly without bringing this and others here. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 11:05, 3 June 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 2009 Asian Indoor Games. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 23:23, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Uzbekistan at the 2009 Asian Indoor Games

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

Empty article with no info that is not visible on the main page Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 19:16, 26 May 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 May 26. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 21:13, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as not convincing for independence. SwisterTwister talk 07:44, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 18:02, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 18:02, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Uzbekistan-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 18:02, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to the main games article. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 08:49, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to the main games article. This could have been done boldly without bringing this and others here. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 11:05, 3 June 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 2002 Asian Games. This didn't need a discussion .... anyway closing as Redirect (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 23:03, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Uzbekistan at the 2002 Asian Games

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

Empty article with no info that is not visible on the main page Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 19:40, 26 May 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 May 26. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 21:13, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as not convincing for independence. SwisterTwister talk 07:45, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 18:03, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 18:03, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Uzbekistan-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 18:03, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to the main games article. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 08:50, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to the main games article. This could have been done boldly without bringing this and others here. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 11:05, 3 June 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 1998 Asian Games. This didn't need a discussion .... anyway closing as Redirect (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 23:07, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Uzbekistan at the 1998 Asian Games

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

Empty article with no info that is not visible on the main page Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 19:40, 26 May 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 May 26. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 21:13, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as not at all convincing for independence. SwisterTwister talk 07:44, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 18:03, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 18:03, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Uzbekistan-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 18:03, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to the main games article. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 08:50, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to the main games article. This could have been done boldly without bringing this and others here. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 11:06, 3 June 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 2013 Asian Youth Games. This didn't need a discussion .... anyway closing as Redirect (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 23:05, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

United Arab Emirates at the 2013 Asian Youth Games

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

Empty article with no info that is not visible on the main page Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 19:30, 26 May 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 May 26. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 21:13, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as not at all convincing for own article. SwisterTwister talk 07:46, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to the main games article. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 08:50, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to the main games article. This could have been done boldly without bringing this and others here. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 11:06, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Arab Emirates-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 14:57, 3 June 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 2010 Asian Beach Games. This didn't need a discussion .... anyway closing as Redirect (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 23:05, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

United Arab Emirates at the 2010 Asian Beach Games

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

Empty article with no info that is not visible on the main page Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 19:41, 26 May 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 May 26. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 21:13, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as not at all convincing for a separate article. SwisterTwister talk 07:46, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to the main games article. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 08:50, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to the main games article. This could have been done boldly without bringing this and others here. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 11:07, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Arab Emirates-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 14:57, 3 June 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 2009 Asian Indoor Games. This didn't need a discussion .... anyway closing as Redirect (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 23:05, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

United Arab Emirates at the 2009 Asian Indoor Games

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

Empty article with no info that is not visible on the main page Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 19:16, 26 May 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 May 26. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 21:13, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as not at all convincing for a separate article. SwisterTwister talk 07:46, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 18:03, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 18:03, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Arab Emirates-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 18:03, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to the main games article. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 08:50, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to the main games article. This could have been done boldly without bringing this and others here. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 11:07, 3 June 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 2008 Asian Beach Games. This didn't need a discussion .... anyway closing as Redirect (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 23:06, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

United Arab Emirates at the 2008 Asian Beach Games

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

Empty article with no info that is not visible on the main page Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 19:41, 26 May 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 May 26. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 21:13, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as not at all convincing for a separate article. SwisterTwister talk 07:46, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 18:04, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 18:04, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Arab Emirates-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 18:04, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to the main games article. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 08:50, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to the main games article. This could have been done boldly without bringing this and others here. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 11:07, 3 June 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 2006 Asian Games. This didn't need a discussion .... anyway closing as Redirect (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 23:06, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

United Arab Emirates at the 2006 Asian Games

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

Empty article with no info that is not visible on the main page Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 19:41, 26 May 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 May 26. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 21:13, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as not at all convincing for a separate article. SwisterTwister talk 07:46, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 18:05, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 18:05, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Arab Emirates-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 18:05, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to the main games article. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 08:50, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to the main games article. This could have been done boldly without bringing this and others here. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 11:08, 3 June 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 2002 Asian Games. This didn't need a discussion .... anyway closing as Redirect (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 23:06, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

United Arab Emirates at the 2002 Asian Games

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

Empty article with no info that is not visible on the main page Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 19:41, 26 May 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 May 26. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 21:13, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as not at all convincing for a separate article. SwisterTwister talk 07:46, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Arab Emirates-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 20:29, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to the main games article. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 08:50, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to the main games article. This could have been done boldly without bringing this and others here. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 11:08, 3 June 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 2002 Asian Games. This didn't need a discussion .... anyway closing as Redirect (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 23:06, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Turkmenistan at the 2013 Asian Youth Games

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

Empty article with no info that is not visible on the main page Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 19:30, 26 May 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 May 26. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 21:13, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as not at all convincing for a separate article. SwisterTwister talk 07:47, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Turkmenistan-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 20:30, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to the main games article. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 08:51, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to the main games article. This could have been done boldly without bringing this and others here. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 11:08, 3 June 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 2010 Asian Games. This didn't need a discussion .... anyway closing as Redirect (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 23:06, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Turkmenistan at the 2010 Asian Games

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

Empty article with no info that is not visible on the main page Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 19:42, 26 May 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 May 26. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 21:12, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Nothing notable nor dignified about winning no medals (Ajf773 (talk) 09:01, 27 May 2016 (UTC))[reply]
Delete as not at all convincing for a separate article. SwisterTwister talk 07:47, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to the main games article. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 08:51, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to the main games article. This could have been done boldly without bringing this and others here. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 11:09, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Turkmenistan-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 14:59, 3 June 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 2009 Asian Indoor Games. This didn't need a discussion .... anyway closing as Redirect (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 23:06, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Turkmenistan at the 2009 Asian Indoor Games

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

Empty article with no info that is not visible on the main page Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 19:16, 26 May 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 May 26. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 21:12, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as not at all convincing for a separate article. SwisterTwister talk 07:47, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to the main games article. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 08:51, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to the main games article. This could have been done boldly without bringing this and others here. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 11:09, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Turkmenistan-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 14:59, 3 June 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 2006 Asian Games. This didn't need a discussion .... anyway closing as Redirect (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 23:06, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Turkmenistan at the 2006 Asian Games

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

Empty article with no info that is not visible on the main page Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 19:42, 26 May 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 May 26. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 21:12, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as not at all convincing for a separate article. SwisterTwister talk 07:47, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to the main games article. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 08:51, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to the main games article. This could have been done boldly without bringing this and others here. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 11:10, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Turkmenistan-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 14:59, 3 June 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 2002 Asian Games. This didn't need a discussion .... anyway closing as Redirect (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 23:06, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Turkmenistan at the 2002 Asian Games

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

Empty article with no info that is not visible on the main page Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 19:42, 26 May 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 May 26. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 21:12, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as not at all convincing for a separate article. SwisterTwister talk 07:47, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to the main games article. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 08:51, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to the main games article. This could have been done boldly without bringing this and others here. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 11:11, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Turkmenistan-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 14:59, 3 June 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 2002 Asian Games. This didn't need a discussion .... anyway closing as Redirect (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 23:06, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Turkmenistan at the 1998 Asian Games

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

Empty article with no info that is not visible on the main page Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 19:42, 26 May 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 May 26. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 21:12, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as not at all convincing for a separate article. SwisterTwister talk 07:48, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to the main games article. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 08:51, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to the main games article. This could have been done boldly without bringing this and others here. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 11:12, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Turkmenistan-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 14:59, 3 June 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 per WP:BOLD to 2014 Asian Games. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 12:39, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Timor-Leste at the 2014 Asian Games

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

Empty article with no info that is not visible on the main page Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 19:25, 26 May 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 May 26. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 21:12, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as not at all convincing for a separate article. SwisterTwister talk 07:48, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to the main games article. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 08:51, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to the main games article. This could have been done boldly without bringing this and others here. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 11:12, 3 June 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 2013 Asian Youth Games. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 23:08, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Timor-Leste at the 2013 Asian Youth Games

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

Empty article with no info that is not visible on the main page Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 19:31, 26 May 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 May 26. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 21:12, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as not at all convincing for a separate article. SwisterTwister talk 07:48, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to the main games article. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 08:51, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to the main games article. This could have been done boldly without bringing this and others here. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 11:12, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:18, 6 June 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 2013 Asian Youth Games. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 23:08, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thailand at the 2013 Asian Youth Games

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

Empty article with no info that is not visible on the main page Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 19:31, 26 May 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 May 26. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 21:11, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as not at all convincing for a separate article. SwisterTwister talk 07:48, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Thailand-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 20:36, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 20:40, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 20:40, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to the main games article. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 08:52, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to the main games article. This could have been done boldly without bringing this and others here. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 11:12, 3 June 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 2009 Asian Indoor Games. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 23:09, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thailand at the 2009 Asian Indoor Games

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

Empty article with no info that is not visible on the main page Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 19:16, 26 May 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 May 26. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 21:11, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as not at all convincing for a separate article. SwisterTwister talk 07:48, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Thailand-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 20:36, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 20:40, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 20:40, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to the main games article. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 08:52, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to the main games article. This could have been done boldly without bringing this and others here. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 11:12, 3 June 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 2005 Asian Indoor Games. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 23:09, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thailand at the 2005 Asian Indoor Games

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

Empty article with no info that is not visible on the main page Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 19:29, 26 May 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 May 26. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 21:11, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as not at all convincing for a separate article. SwisterTwister talk 07:48, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Thailand-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 20:36, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 20:36, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 20:36, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to the main games article. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 08:54, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to the main games article. This could have been done boldly without bringing this and others here. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 11:13, 3 June 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 2013 Asian Youth Games. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 23:09, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Tajikistan at the 2013 Asian Youth Games

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

Empty article with no info that is not visible on the main page Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 19:31, 26 May 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 May 26. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 21:11, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as not at all convincing for a separate article. SwisterTwister talk 07:49, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to the main games article. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 08:54, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to the main games article. This could have been done boldly without bringing this and others here. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 11:13, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Tajikistan-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 15:00, 3 June 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 2009 Asian Indoor Games. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 23:09, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Tajikistan at the 2009 Asian Indoor Games

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

Empty article with no info that is not visible on the main page Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 19:15, 26 May 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 May 26. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 21:11, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as not at all convincing for a separate article. SwisterTwister talk 07:49, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to the main games article. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 08:54, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to the main games article. This could have been done boldly without bringing this and others here. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 11:14, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Tajikistan-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 15:00, 3 June 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 2006 Asian Games. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 23:09, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Tajikistan at the 2006 Asian Games

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

Empty article with no info that is not visible on the main page Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 19:43, 26 May 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 May 26. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 21:11, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as not at all convincing for a separate article. SwisterTwister talk 07:49, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to the main games article. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 08:55, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to the main games article. This could have been done boldly without bringing this and others here. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 11:14, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Tajikistan-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 15:00, 3 June 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 2002 Asian Games. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 23:09, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Tajikistan at the 2002 Asian Games

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

Empty article with no info that is not visible on the main page Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 19:43, 26 May 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 May 26. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 21:11, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as not at all convincing for a separate article. SwisterTwister talk 07:50, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to the main games article. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 08:55, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to the main games article. This could have been done boldly without bringing this and others here. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 11:15, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Tajikistan-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 15:00, 3 June 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 2013 Asian Youth Games. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 23:10, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Syria at the 2013 Asian Youth Games

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

Empty article with no info that is not visible on the main page Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 19:32, 26 May 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 May 26. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 21:10, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as not at all convincing for a separate article. SwisterTwister talk 07:49, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to the main games article. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 08:56, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to the main games article. This could have been done boldly without bringing this and others here. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 11:17, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Syria-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 15:01, 3 June 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 2009 Asian Youth Games. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 23:10, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Syria at the 2009 Asian Youth Games

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

Empty article with no info that is not visible on the main page Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 19:45, 26 May 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 May 26. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 21:10, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as not at all convincing for a separate article. SwisterTwister talk 07:50, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to the main games article. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 08:56, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Syria-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 15:01, 3 June 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 2007 Asian Indoor Games. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 23:10, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Syria at the 2007 Asian Indoor Games

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

Empty article with no info that is not visible on the main page Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 19:45, 26 May 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 May 26. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 21:10, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as not at all convincing for a separate article. SwisterTwister talk 07:50, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to the main games article. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 08:58, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to the main games article. This could have been done boldly without bringing this and others here. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 11:17, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Syria-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 15:01, 3 June 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 1994 Asian Games. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 23:10, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Syria at the 1994 Asian Games

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

Empty article with no info that is not visible on the main page Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 19:44, 26 May 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 May 26. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 21:10, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as not at all convincing for a separate article. SwisterTwister talk 07:50, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to the main games article. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 08:58, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to the main games article. This could have been done boldly without bringing this and others here. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 11:17, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Syria-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 15:01, 3 June 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 1990 Asian Games. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 23:10, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Syria at the 1990 Asian Games

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

Empty article with no info that is not visible on the main page Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 19:44, 26 May 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 May 26. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 21:10, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as not at all convincing for a separate article. SwisterTwister talk 07:51, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to the main games article. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 08:58, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to the main games article. This could have been done boldly without bringing this and others here. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 11:18, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Syria-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 15:01, 3 June 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 1982 Asian Games. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 23:10, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Syria at the 1982 Asian Games

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

Empty article with no info that is not visible on the main page Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 19:44, 26 May 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 May 26. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 21:10, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as not at all convincing for a separate article. SwisterTwister talk 07:51, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to the main games article. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 08:58, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to the main games article. This could have been done boldly without bringing this and others here. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 11:18, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Syria-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 15:01, 3 June 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 1978 Asian Games. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 23:10, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Syria at the 1978 Asian Games

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

Empty article with no info that is not visible on the main page Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 19:44, 26 May 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 May 26. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 21:10, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as not at all convincing for a separate article. SwisterTwister talk 07:51, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to the main games article. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 08:58, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to the main games article. This could have been done boldly without bringing this and others here. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 11:19, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Syria-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 15:02, 3 June 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 2009 Asian Indoor Games. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 23:11, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sri Lanka at the 2009 Asian Indoor Games

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

Empty article with no info that is not visible on the main page Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 19:15, 26 May 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 May 26. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 21:10, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as not at all convincing for a separate article. SwisterTwister talk 07:51, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to the main games article. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 08:58, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to the main games article. This could have been done boldly without bringing this and others here. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 11:19, 3 June 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 2009 Asian Indoor Games. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 23:11, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sri Lanka at the 2006 Asian Games

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

Empty article with no info that is not visible on the main page Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 19:47, 26 May 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 May 26. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 21:10, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as not at all convincing for a separate article. SwisterTwister talk 07:51, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to the main games article. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 08:58, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to the main games article. This could have been done boldly without bringing this and others here. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 11:19, 3 June 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 2002 Asian Games. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 23:11, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sri Lanka at the 2002 Asian Games

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

Empty article with no info that is not visible on the main page Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 19:47, 26 May 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 May 26. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 21:10, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as not at all convincing for a separate article. SwisterTwister talk 07:52, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to the main games article. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 08:59, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to the main games article. This could have been done boldly without bringing this and others here. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 11:20, 3 June 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 1998 Asian Games. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 23:11, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sri Lanka at the 1998 Asian Games

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

Empty article with no info that is not visible on the main page Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 19:48, 26 May 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 May 26. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 21:10, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as not at all convincing for a separate article. SwisterTwister talk 07:52, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to the main games article. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 08:59, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to the main games article. This could have been done boldly without bringing this and others here. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 11:20, 3 June 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 1974 Asian Games. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 23:11, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sri Lanka at the 1974 Asian Games

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

Empty article with no info that is not visible on the main page Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 19:48, 26 May 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 May 26. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 21:09, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as not at all convincing for a separate article. SwisterTwister talk 07:52, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to the main games article. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 08:59, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to the main games article. This could have been done boldly without bringing this and others here. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 11:20, 3 June 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 2013 Asian Youth Games. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 23:11, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Singapore at the 2013 Asian Youth Games

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

Empty article with no info that is not visible on the main page Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 19:32, 26 May 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 May 26. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 19:47, 26 May 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 May 26. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 21:09, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as not at all convincing for a separate article. SwisterTwister talk 07:52, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 20:41, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to the main games article. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 08:59, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to the main games article. This could have been done boldly without bringing this and others here. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 11:21, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to 2013 Asian Youth Games article maybe better 171.1.139.14 (talk) 11:30, 3 June 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 2013 Asian Youth Games. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 23:11, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Saudi Arabia at the 2013 Asian Youth Games

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

Empty article with no info that is not visible on the main page Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 19:32, 26 May 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 May 26. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 21:09, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as not at all convincing for a separate article. SwisterTwister talk 07:52, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Saudi Arabia-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 20:41, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to the main games article. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 08:59, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to the main games article. This could have been done boldly without bringing this and others here. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 11:21, 3 June 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 2013 Asian Youth Games. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 23:12, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Qatar at the 2013 Asian Youth Games

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

Empty article with no info that is not visible on the main page Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 19:32, 26 May 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 May 26. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 21:08, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as not at all convincing for a separate article. SwisterTwister talk 07:52, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to the main games article. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 08:59, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to the main games article. This could have been done boldly without bringing this and others here. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 11:21, 3 June 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 2009 Asian Indoor Games. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 23:12, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Qatar at the 2009 Asian Indoor Games

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

Empty article with no info that is not visible on the main page Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 19:19, 26 May 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 May 26. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 21:08, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as not at all convincing for a separate article. SwisterTwister talk 07:54, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to the main games article. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 08:59, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to the main games article. This could have been done boldly without bringing this and others here. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 11:24, 3 June 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 2005 Asian Indoor Games. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 23:12, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Qatar at the 2005 Asian Indoor Games

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

Empty article with no info that is not visible on the main page Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 19:28, 26 May 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 May 26. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 21:08, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as not at all convincing for a separate article. SwisterTwister talk 07:54, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to the main games article. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 09:00, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to the main games article. This could have been done boldly without bringing this and others here. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 11:24, 3 June 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 2005 Asian Indoor Games. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 23:12, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Philippines at the 2005 Asian Indoor Games

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

Empty article with no info that is not visible on the main page Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 19:28, 26 May 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 May 26. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 21:08, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - item no longer empty. Filled with Philippine specific results.Hariboneagle927 (talk) 18:07, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep perhaps and consider Redirect if ever needed. There is enough content here. SwisterTwister talk 07:54, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 21:19, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to the main games article. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 09:00, 3 June 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 2013 Asian Youth Games. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 23:12, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Palestine at the 2013 Asian Youth Games

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

Empty article with no info that is not visible on the main page Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 19:32, 26 May 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 May 26. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 21:07, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as not at all convincing for a separate article. SwisterTwister talk 07:56, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to the main games article. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 09:00, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to the main games article. This could have been done boldly without bringing this and others here. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 11:27, 3 June 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 2013 Asian Youth Games. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 23:12, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Pakistan at the 2013 Asian Youth Games

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

Empty article with no info that is not visible on the main page Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 19:33, 26 May 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 May 26. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 21:07, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as not at all convincing for a separate article. SwisterTwister talk 07:57, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 20:43, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to the main games article. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 09:00, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to the main games article. This could have been done boldly without bringing this and others here. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 11:27, 3 June 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 2013 Asian Youth Games. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 23:12, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oman at the 2013 Asian Youth Games

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

Empty article with no info that is not visible on the main page Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 19:29, 26 May 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 May 26. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 21:07, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as not at all convincing for a separate article. SwisterTwister talk 07:57, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to the main games article. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 09:00, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to the main games article. This could have been done boldly without bringing this and others here. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 11:28, 3 June 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 2009 Asian Indoor Games. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 23:14, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oman at the 2009 Asian Indoor Games

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

Empty article with no info that is not visible on the main page Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 19:19, 26 May 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 May 26. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 21:07, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as not at all convincing for a separate article. SwisterTwister talk 07:57, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to the main games article. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 09:00, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to the main games article. This could have been done boldly without bringing this and others here. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 11:29, 3 June 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 2005 Asian Indoor Games. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 23:14, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oman at the 2005 Asian Indoor Games

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

Empty article with no info that is not visible on the main page Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 19:27, 26 May 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 May 26. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 21:07, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as not at all convincing for a separate article. SwisterTwister talk 07:57, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to the main games article. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 09:00, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to the main games article. This could have been done boldly without bringing this and others here. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 11:30, 3 June 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 2013 Asian Youth Games. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 23:15, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

North Korea at the 2013 Asian Youth Games

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

Empty article with no info that is not visible on the main page Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 19:33, 26 May 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 May 26. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 21:06, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. Random86 (talk) 08:26, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as not at all convincing for a separate article. SwisterTwister talk 07:59, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to the main games article. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 09:01, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to the main games article. This could have been done boldly without bringing this and others here. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 11:30, 3 June 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 2013 Asian Youth Games. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 23:15, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nepal at the 2013 Asian Youth Games

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

Empty article with no info that is not visible on the main page Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 19:33, 26 May 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 May 26. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 21:06, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as not at all convincing for a separate article. SwisterTwister talk 07:59, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nepal-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 21:22, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to the main games article. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 09:01, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to the main games article. This could have been done boldly without bringing this and others here. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 11:31, 3 June 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 2009 Asian Indoor Games. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 23:15, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nepal at the 2009 Asian Indoor Games

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

Empty article with no info that is not visible on the main page Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 19:19, 26 May 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 May 26. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 21:06, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as not at all convincing for a separate article. SwisterTwister talk 07:59, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nepal-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 21:22, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to the main games article. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 09:01, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to the main games article. This could have been done boldly without bringing this and others here. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 11:31, 3 June 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 2013 Asian Youth Games. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 23:15, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Myanmar at the 2013 Asian Youth Games

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

Empty article with no info that is not visible on the main page Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 19:33, 26 May 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 May 26. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 21:06, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as not at all convincing for a separate article. SwisterTwister talk 08:00, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Myanmar-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 20:53, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to the main games article. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 09:01, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to the main games article. This could have been done boldly without bringing this and others here. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 11:32, 3 June 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 2013 Asian Youth Games. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 23:15, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mongolia at the 2013 Asian Youth Games

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

Empty article with no info that is not visible on the main page Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 19:33, 26 May 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 May 26. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 21:06, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to the main games article. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 09:01, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to the main games article. This could have been done boldly without bringing this and others here. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 11:32, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mongolia-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 15:03, 3 June 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 2009 Asian Indoor Games. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 23:15, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mongolia at the 2009 Asian Indoor Games

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

Empty article with no info that is not visible on the main page Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 19:19, 26 May 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 May 26. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 21:06, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as not at all convincing for a separate article. SwisterTwister talk 08:00, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to the main games article. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 09:02, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to the main games article. This could have been done boldly without bringing this and others here. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 11:33, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mongolia-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 15:03, 3 June 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 2013 Asian Youth Games. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 23:15, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Maldives at the 2013 Asian Youth Games

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

Empty article with no info that is not visible on the main page Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 19:33, 26 May 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 May 26. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 21:05, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as not at all convincing for a separate article. SwisterTwister talk 08:00, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to the main games article. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 09:02, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to the main games article. This could have been done boldly without bringing this and others here. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 11:33, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Maldives-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 15:03, 3 June 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 2009 Asian Indoor Games. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 23:16, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Maldives at the 2009 Asian Indoor Games

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

Empty article with no info that is not visible on the main page Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 19:18, 26 May 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 May 26. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 21:05, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as not at all convincing for a separate article. SwisterTwister talk 08:00, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to the main games article. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 09:02, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to the main games article. This could have been done boldly without bringing this and others here. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 11:34, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Maldives-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 15:03, 3 June 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 2009 Asian Indoor Games. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 23:16, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Malaysia at the 2009 Asian Indoor Games

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

Empty article with no info that is not visible on the main page Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 19:17, 26 May 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 May 26. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 21:05, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to the main games article. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 09:02, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to the main games article. This could have been done boldly without bringing this and others here. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 11:34, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 14:56, 3 June 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 2005 Asian Indoor Games. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 23:16, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Malaysia at the 2005 Asian Indoor Games

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

Empty article with no info that is not visible on the main page Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 19:29, 26 May 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 May 26. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 21:05, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to the main games article. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 09:02, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to the main games article. This could have been done boldly without bringing this and others here. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 11:36, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 14:56, 3 June 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 2013 Asian Youth Games. 2013 Asian Youth Games (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 23:16, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Macau at the 2013 Asian Youth Games

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

Empty article with no info that is not visible on the main page Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 19:34, 26 May 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 May 26. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 21:04, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to the main games article. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 09:02, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to the main games article. This could have been done boldly without bringing this and others here. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 11:37, 3 June 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 2009 Asian Indoor Games. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 23:16, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Macau at the 2009 Asian Indoor Games

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

Empty article with no info that is not visible on the main page Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 19:17, 26 May 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 May 26. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 21:04, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to the main games article. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 09:02, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to the main games article. This could have been done boldly without bringing this and others here. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 11:37, 3 June 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 2005 Asian Indoor Games. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 23:16, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Macau at the 2005 Asian Indoor Games

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

Empty article with no info that is not visible on the main page Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 19:29, 26 May 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 May 26. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 21:04, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to the main games article. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 09:02, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to the main games article. This could have been done boldly without bringing this and others here. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 11:38, 3 June 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 2005 Asian Indoor Games. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 23:16, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Lebanon at the 2013 Asian Youth Games

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

Empty article with no info that is not visible on the main page Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 19:34, 26 May 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 May 26. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 21:04, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lebanon-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 21:20, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to the main games article. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 09:03, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to the main games article. This could have been done boldly without bringing this and others here. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 11:41, 3 June 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 2013 Asian Youth Games. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 23:17, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Laos at the 2013 Asian Youth Games

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

Empty article with no info that is not visible on the main page Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 19:34, 26 May 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 May 26. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 21:03, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to the main games article. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 09:03, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to the main games article. This could have been done boldly without bringing this and others here. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 11:42, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Laos-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 15:17, 3 June 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 2009 Asian Indoor Games. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 23:17, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Laos at the 2009 Asian Indoor Games

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

Empty article with no info that is not visible on the main page Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 19:23, 26 May 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 May 26. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 21:03, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to the main games article. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 09:03, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to the main games article. This could have been done boldly without bringing this and others here. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 11:43, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Laos-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 15:17, 3 June 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 2013 Asian Youth Games. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 23:17, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Kyrgyzstan at the 2013 Asian Youth Games

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

Empty article with no info that is not visible on the main page Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 19:35, 26 May 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 May 26. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 21:03, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to the main games article. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 09:03, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to the main games article. This could have been done boldly without bringing this and others here. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 11:43, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Kyrgyzstan-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 15:04, 3 June 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 009 Asian Indoor Games. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 23:17, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Kyrgyzstan at the 2009 Asian Indoor Games

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

Empty article with no info that is not visible on the main page Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 19:23, 26 May 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 May 26. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 21:03, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to the main games article. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 09:03, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to the main games article. This could have been done boldly without bringing this and others here. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 11:44, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Kyrgyzstan-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 15:04, 3 June 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 2013 Asian Youth Games. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 23:17, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Kuwait at the 2013 Asian Youth Games

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

Empty article with no info that is not visible on the main page Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 19:35, 26 May 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 May 26. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 21:03, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to the main games article. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 09:03, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to the main games article. This could have been done boldly without bringing this and others here. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 11:44, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Kuwait-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 15:19, 3 June 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 2009 Asian Indoor Games. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 23:17, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Kuwait at the 2009 Asian Indoor Games

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

Empty article with no info that is not visible on the main page Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 19:22, 26 May 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 May 26. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 21:03, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to the main games article. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 09:03, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to the main games article. This could have been done boldly without bringing this and others here. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 11:45, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Kuwait-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 15:19, 3 June 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 2013 Asian Youth Games. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 23:17, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Kazakhstan at the 2013 Asian Youth Games

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

Empty article with no info that is not visible on the main page Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 19:35, 26 May 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 May 26. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 21:03, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Kazakhstan-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 03:04, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to the main games article. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 09:03, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to the main games article. This could have been done boldly without bringing this and others here. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 11:46, 3 June 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 2009 Asian Indoor Games. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 23:17, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Kazakhstan at the 2009 Asian Indoor Games

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

Empty article with no info that is not visible on the main page Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 19:22, 26 May 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 May 26. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 21:03, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Kazakhstan-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 03:04, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to the main games article. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 09:04, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to the main games article. This could have been done boldly without bringing this and others here. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 11:46, 3 June 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 2013 Asian Youth Games. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 23:17, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jordan at the 2013 Asian Youth Games

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

Empty article with no info that is not visible on the main page Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 19:35, 26 May 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 May 26. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 21:02, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to 2013 Asian Youth Games. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:24, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to the main games article. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 09:04, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to the main games article. This could have been done boldly without bringing this and others here. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 11:47, 3 June 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 2009 Asian Indoor Games. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 23:18, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jordan at the 2009 Asian Indoor Games

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

Empty article with no info that is not visible on the main page Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 19:22, 26 May 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 May 26. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 21:02, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to the main games article. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 09:04, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to the main games article. This could have been done boldly without bringing this and others here. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 11:47, 3 June 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 2013 Asian Youth Games. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 23:18, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Japan at the 2013 Asian Youth Games

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

Empty article with no info that is not visible on the main page Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 19:35, 26 May 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 May 26. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 21:02, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 20:24, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 20:24, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 20:24, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to the main games article. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 09:04, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to the main games article. This could have been done boldly without bringing this and others here. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 11:47, 3 June 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 2013 Asian Youth Games. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 23:18, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Iraq at the 2013 Asian Youth Games

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

Empty article with no info that is not visible on the main page Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 19:35, 26 May 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 May 26. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 21:02, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 20:25, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 20:25, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iraq-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 20:25, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to the main games article. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 09:04, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to the main games article. This could have been done boldly without bringing this and others here. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 11:48, 3 June 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 2009 Asian Indoor Games. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 23:18, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Indonesia at the 2009 Asian Indoor Games

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

Empty article with no info that is not visible on the main page Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 19:22, 26 May 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 May 26. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 21:02, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to 2009 Asian Indoor Games. Probably a notable subject, but is indeed useless without real content. - HyperGaruda (talk) 08:41, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 20:25, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 20:25, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 20:25, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to the main games article. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 09:04, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to the main games article. This could have been done boldly without bringing this and others here. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 11:49, 3 June 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 2005 Asian Indoor Games. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 23:18, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

India at the 2005 Asian Indoor Games

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

Empty article with no info that is not visible on the main page Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 19:28, 26 May 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 May 26. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 21:02, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 20:26, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 20:26, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 20:26, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to the main games article. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 09:04, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to the main games article. This could have been done boldly without bringing this and others here. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 11:49, 3 June 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 2013 Asian Youth Games. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 23:18, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hong Kong at the 2013 Asian Youth Games

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

Empty article with no info that is not visible on the main page Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 19:35, 26 May 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 May 26. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 21:01, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to the main games article. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 09:04, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to the main games article. This could have been done boldly without bringing this and others here. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 11:49, 3 June 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 2009 Asian Indoor Games. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 23:19, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hong Kong at the 2009 Asian Indoor Games

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

Empty article with no info that is not visible on the main page Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 19:21, 26 May 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 May 26. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 21:01, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 20:27, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 20:27, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 20:27, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to the main games article. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 09:05, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to the main games article. This could have been done boldly without bringing this and others here. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 11:50, 3 June 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 2005 Asian Indoor Games. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 23:19, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hong Kong at the 2005 Asian Indoor Games

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

Empty article with no info that is not visible on the main page Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 19:28, 26 May 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 May 26. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 21:01, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 20:27, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to the main games article. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 09:05, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to the main games article. This could have been done boldly without bringing this and others here. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 11:50, 3 June 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 2013 Asian Youth Games. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 23:19, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Chinese Taipei at the 2013 Asian Youth Games

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

Empty article with no info that is not visible on the main page Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 19:35, 26 May 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 May 26. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 20:59, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to the main games article. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 09:05, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to the main games article. This could have been done boldly without bringing this and others here. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 11:51, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Taiwan-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 15:03, 3 June 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 2009 Asian Indoor Games. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 23:19, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Chinese Taipei at the 2009 Asian Indoor Games

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

Empty article with no info that is not visible on the main page Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 19:21, 26 May 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 May 26. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 20:59, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Taiwan-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 20:28, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to the main games article. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 09:05, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to the main games article. This could have been done boldly without bringing this and others here. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 11:51, 3 June 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 2013 Asian Youth Games. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 23:19, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

China at the 2013 Asian Youth Games

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

Empty article with no info that is not visible on the main page Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 19:36, 26 May 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 May 26. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 20:59, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to the main games article. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 09:05, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to the main games article. This could have been done boldly without bringing this and others here. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 11:52, 3 June 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 2005 Asian Indoor Games. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 23:19, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

China at the 2005 Asian Indoor Games

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

Empty article with no info that is not visible on the main page Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 19:29, 26 May 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 May 26. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 20:59, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to the main games article. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 09:05, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to the main games article. This could have been done boldly without bringing this and others here. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 11:52, 3 June 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 1951 Asian Games. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 23:19, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ceylon at the 1951 Asian Games

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

Empty article with no info that is not visible on the main page Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 19:47, 26 May 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 May 26. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 20:59, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 20:46, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to the main games article. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 09:05, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to the main games article. This could have been done boldly without bringing this and others here. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 11:53, 3 June 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 2013 Asian Youth Games. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 23:19, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Cambodia at the 2013 Asian Youth Games

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

Empty article with no info that is not visible on the main page Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 19:36, 26 May 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 May 26. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 20:58, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cambodia-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 03:03, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to the main games article. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 09:05, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to the main games article. This could have been done boldly without bringing this and others here. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 11:53, 3 June 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 2009 Asian Indoor Games. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 23:20, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Cambodia at the 2009 Asian Indoor Games

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

Empty article with no info that is not visible on the main page Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 19:21, 26 May 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 May 26. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 20:58, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cambodia-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 03:03, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to the main games article. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 09:05, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to the main games article. This could have been done boldly without bringing this and others here. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 11:54, 3 June 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 2013 Asian Youth Games. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 23:20, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Brunei at the 2013 Asian Youth Games

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

Empty article with no info that is not visible on the main page Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 19:36, 26 May 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 May 26. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 20:58, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Brunei-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 20:46, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to the main games article. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 09:06, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to the main games article. This could have been done boldly without bringing this and others here. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 11:54, 3 June 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 2013 Asian Youth Games. czar 13:05, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Bhutan at the 2013 Asian Youth Games

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

Empty article with no info that is not visible on the main page Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 19:36, 26 May 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 May 26. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 20:58, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to the main games article. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 09:06, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to the main games article. This could have been done boldly without bringing this and others here. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 11:55, 3 June 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 2009 Asian Indoor Games. 2009 Asian Indoor Games (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 23:21, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Bhutan at the 2009 Asian Indoor Games

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

Empty article with no info that is not visible on the main page Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 19:21, 26 May 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 May 26. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 20:58, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to the main games article. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 09:06, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to the main games article. This could have been done boldly without bringing this and others here. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 11:55, 3 June 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 2013 Asian Youth Games. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 23:21, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Bangladesh at the 2013 Asian Youth Games

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

Empty article with no info that is not visible on the main page Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 19:36, 26 May 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 May 26. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 20:58, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to the main games article. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 09:06, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to the main games article. This could have been done boldly without bringing this and others here. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 11:55, 3 June 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 2002 Asian Games. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 23:21, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Bangladesh at the 2002 Asian Games

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

Empty article with no info that is not visible on the main page Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 19:49, 26 May 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 May 26. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 20:58, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 21:02, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to the main games article. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 09:06, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to the main games article. This could have been done boldly without bringing this and others here. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 11:56, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Sportsfan 1234: what about those articles? → Bahrain at the 2002 Asian Games, Brunei at the 2002 Asian Games, Jordan at the 2002 Asian Games, Laos at the 2002 Asian Games, Lebanon at the 2002 Asian Games, Macau at the 2002 Asian Games, Nepal at the 2002 Asian Games, Palestine at the 2002 Asian Games, Syria at the 2002 Asian Games --Aftabuzzaman (talk) 14:20, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes they should be included as well. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 14:21, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree, some information has been added, also needs some. Ibrahim Husain Meraj (talk) 17:28, 8 June 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 2013 Asian Youth Games. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 23:22, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Bahrain at the 2013 Asian Youth Games

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

Empty article with no info that is not visible on the main page Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 19:36, 26 May 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 May 26. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 20:57, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bahrain-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 20:46, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to the main games article. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 09:06, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to the main games article. This could have been done boldly without bringing this and others here. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 11:56, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:51, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect as not at all independently notable. SwisterTwister talk 07:46, 8 June 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 2013 Asian Youth Games. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 23:22, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Afghanistan at the 2013 Asian Youth Games

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

Empty article with no info that is not visible on the main page Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 19:34, 26 May 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 May 26. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 20:57, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. I have listed all of these AfD discussions at the list of Sports-related deletion discussions deletion sorting page. Due to time constraints, I won't be adding this delsort template to all of the 108 AfD discussions that are presently on the 26 May 2016 AfD log page. I have included this notice in the first and last AfD discussions on the log page. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:21, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. As above, this template has only been added to the first and last related AfD discussions presently on the 26 May 2016 AfD log page. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:26, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I have relisted all 107 of these Asian Games-related discussions to the 2016 June 2 AfD log page. Due to time constraints, I have only added the relist template to the first and last AfD discussion on the page. However,  is listed next to all entries on the log page.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:24, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Afghanistan-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 18:37, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to the main games article. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 09:06, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to the main games article. This could have been done boldly without bringing this and others here. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 11:57, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as there's by far nothing at all for a separate article. SwisterTwister talk 07:47, 8 June 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 60 Days In. How search engines do their autocompletion isn't a criteria for whether wikipedia has an article or not. -- RoySmith (talk) 22:06, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Barbra Roylance Williams

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

WP:BLP of a television personality, author and actress, which makes no strong claim of notability for any of those endeavours: it simply asserts that she exists and sources that existence only to IMDb and a sales page for her book on amazon.com, with no evidence of reliable source coverage in media shown at all. Neither being in a reality show nor writing a book are automatic notability freebies that entitle a person to an article in and of themselves -- reliable source coverage has to be present to get the topic over the bar. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 13:56, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:17, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep it appears this actress has been viewed very frequently. When you begin typing her name into a search engine, lots of previous searches about her come up. I saw that she has been on a reality show and in several movies and is indeed an author too. When you search her book some reviews from notable magazines and tabloids come up. Interesting. --Spyfox527 (talk) 03:44, 5 June 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Spyfox527 (talk • contribs) 03:40, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to 60 Days In. Fails WP:BASIC. No notability beyond appearance in a reality TV show. Her book is self-published (and from comments I've read about it, poorly written). Actress??? Besides her reality TV appearance, has only appeared on TV news show in relation to her reality TV participation. Sundayclose (talk) 15:40, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete can't imagine anyone would search for he full name to find the show, the book is apparently published by CreateSpace - i.e. Self published. This doesn't amount to notability. --82.14.37.32 (talk) 18:59, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to 60 Days In.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:30, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and then Redirect as there's simply nothing actually suggesting her own notable article apart from the current work with that show, to suggest having this vunlnerable to restarting at any time, even with this AfD. SwisterTwister talk 07:49, 8 June 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) 18:08, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yair Koas

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

Non-notable actor - does not meet either WP:NACTOR or WP:GNG. A series of recent minor roles. Peter Rehse (talk) 11:07, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:16, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: non-notable 19 year old actor -- TOOSOON at minimum. Quis separabit? 19:56, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as there's particularly nothing at all to actually suggest any form of notability, delete by all means. SwisterTwister talk 07:53, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. While he seems like a nice kid, from the article, he is just a run of the mill theater student, an undergraduate at that. If he were to win some major acting award, or were featured in an article in the Chronicle of Higher Education, that would be a horse of a different color. Bearian (talk) 17:23, 10 June 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. J04n(talk page) 00:25, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sister Khanti-Khema

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

Appears to fail WP:BIO and WP:GNG. Since its creation seven years ago, there has been no production of independent reliable sources to verify the claims in the article or to assert that the subject is notable. — ξ ^xplicit 10:47, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I tried all the "Find sources" links but I saw no helpful results. http:// www.dhammasukha.org/About/khema.htm is not an independant mainstream source. Yes, it fails WP:BIO and WP:GNG. JimRenge (talk) 11:55, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Do no Delet This is one link where the ordination of Sister Khanti Khema is mentioned. http://www.liquisearch.com/female_bishops/buddhism

Also I have a scanned copy of her interview dated 16th May 2016 in a Main news paper in Colombo Sri Lanka Where she currently is ( I am not sure how to upload this here This article can be read at http://www.pressreader.com/sri-lanka/daily-mirror-sri-lanka/20150516/281913066690512/TextView I am not sure but you may have to login to view this) . She also has appeared on national television channel on 21st May 2016.

Mcolombowala (talk) 13:23, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: http://www.liquisearch.com/female_bishops/buddhism is a wikipedia derivate and not acceptable per WP:CIRCULAR, but the daily mirror (Sri Lanka) seems to be a reliable source (I can not access the text). JimRenge (talk) 14:58, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete That there are youtube talks by her, and that a university that gives her a visiting appointment puts out a blurd about her do not demonstrate notability. The claim to her notability is way too many levels of specificity, and thus not much at all. We lack any well-written even moderately indepdent sources that establish her notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:57, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Article in a leading Newspaper is not considered an independent source? The Notability here can not be accessed on popularity but the fact that the person has a historic importance to American Buddhism by being ordained as the 1st American Samaneri (Woman Monastic) by an American Tradition. By the very nature of being a Monastic & further in a Forest Tradition the coverage in traditional media is limited. The re-introduction of Women in Buddhist Monastic Order is a major issue in current times in this light also her ordination has importance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 175.157.196.199 (talk) 04:13, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Notability is not inherited. This being the case does not automatically grant the subject notability by Wikipedia standards. Pre WP:NRV: No subject is automatically or inherently notable merely because it exists: The evidence must show the topic has gained significant independent coverage or recognition, and that this was not a mere short-term interest, nor a result of promotional activity or indiscriminate publicity, nor is the topic unsuitable for any other reason. Sources of evidence include recognized peer-reviewed publications, credible and authoritative books, reputable media sources, and other reliable sources generally. This is something Sister Khanti-Khema simply lacks at this point in time. — ξ ^xplicit 04:28, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have photo of the article ( Can I email that to someone for verification?) and you may have to login to view the text. It is easy as they accept facebook/google+ login. I found one link about her giving a workshop in University http://www.sjp.ac.lk/wcup/m_workshop.php Mcolombowala (talk) 15:59, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Added 2 links to Newspaper and 2 Links of University. Also 2 external links of Youtube talks which are not self published which has been given here as a reference to the authenticity of the person in question. Vem Khema has appeared on local TV station Dharmavahini in 2012 but currently the TeleVision Channel has closed down. I found a link with the archived talks (http://www.learntv.lk/video/bhavana/english/) at the end it shows the credits. In total 8 talks are available to see. The other thing is we are not having the schedule of the airing of the talks, Please suggest if this link can be used as a citation for her Wikipage. Mcolombowala (talk) 15:42, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete entirely as I planned to comment earlier, there's simply nothing at all convincing here for a y applicable notability including basic, thus with examinations showing nothing minimal at all, there's nothing to keep. SwisterTwister talk 04:09, 9 June 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. -- RoySmith (talk) 01:20, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Rare and Undiagnosed Diseases Community

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

The subject does not exist. The term "Rare and Undiagnosed Diseases Community" seems like an attempt to encompass the entirety of patients with rare and undiagnosed disorders, however the term occurs only on a single website (see Google search) where it is used as a rhetorical phrase rather than to designate an actual community. Article content partially overlaps with rare disease. — kashmiri ^TALK 10:29, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with rare disease, as this article adds nothing to it beyond saying that various support organisations exist and help people. There were a few of these articles created around the same time in mid-April (Undiagnosed diseases by User:Genomewiki; Undiagnosed Community, Undiagnosed day and this AfD's article by User:Pedrotheguy; possibly some others), this seems to be the only one that wasn't redirected or speedied. --McGeddon (talk) 19:18, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, there is no reliably sourced content about the community here. The three sourced statements all are about rare diseases, not about the community. Huon (talk) 20:30, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 00:32, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as all questionable for the claims and information, there's nothing thoroughly noticeable to suggest independent notability as its own article. SwisterTwister talk 00:32, 10 June 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. One month at AfD, three relists and still no clear consensus on what to do. (non-admin closure) st170e^talk 00:40, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Charles M Robinson

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

Article fails WP:GNG. Koala15 (talk) 16:11, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. clpo13_(talk) 17:10, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nothing at all currently suggesting the necessary notability improvements. SwisterTwister talk 07:10, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete. Fails WP:GNG. Tom29739 ^[talk] 19:25, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nakon 02:32, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - although there isn't really a notability guideline under either WP:NMUSIC or WP:NFILM to cover music video directors specifically, this guy has shot videos for a lot of notable artists (see the number of bluelinked acts) in a particular sector that doesn't get a lot of mainstream coverage, but within the specialised hip hop field there are plenty of citations backing up the claims on his filmography (search for either "Charles Robinson" or "Charles M. Robinson" on sites like Hip Hop On Deck, Hip Hop Inquirer, Hot New Hip Hop etc.) The article as it stands needs work - more prose and less lists! - but I'd contend that since if we were talking about a rap artist rather than a rap video director he'd pass WP:NMUSIC with these same credits and this same coverage, just because we don't have specific guidelines for this kind of situation, I'd argue the GNG is satisfied here. ✤ Fosse 8 ✤ 13:36, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Yellow Dingo (talk) 10:04, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as seems to be notable in his field of music videos, the article is referenced but can be improved. Passes WP:BASIC Atlantic306 (talk) 21:31, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What about the fact that this is still a thinly-sourced biography with nothing else to suggest sourcing and otherwise making the article better, including by adding the needed substantial sources. This should not be kept as the current state without at least some efforts or at least removing from mainspace. SwisterTwister talk 07:55, 8 June 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 2016 Ohio machete attack. J04n(talk page) 00:23, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Bill Foley (singer songwriter)

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

Appears to fail WP:MUSICBIO. I cannot access most of the sources as they are behind a proquest pay wall. Non notable, only playing as a backup singer or singing cover songs. One book doesn't make him pass WP:NAUTHOR either. Gbawden (talk) 11:48, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Foley became a hero when he was playing a regular, once-a-week gig in a restaurant when a guy who had apparently been listening to too much jihad propaganda walked in and started attacking people with a machete (2016 Ohio machete attack). Foley picked up a chair and swung it at the machete-wielding jihad-wannabe. One of the guys in the kitchen then picked up a baseball bat and chased the jihadi out. Coverage was extensive, now adding to this article. But it did not seem like ONEEVENT because Foley coverage makes it clear that Foley was a regionally well-know professional musician. Note that I'm not arguing that he a nationally famous musician, just a guy who passes WP:BIO because of a touring career that got coverage at the time, a mid-life career as a beloved and regionally well-known leader of a central Ohio oldies band, and intensive, extensive news coverage of the moment when he picked up that chair and defended a restaurant full of people from attack coverage that hinged on the fact that he was already a locally notable musician (demonstrated by tee fact that the kitchen worker with the baseball bat did not get the kind of profiles Foley did.) Some of the coverage is on the question of whether Foley would be able to play guitar again with his damaged hand. Coverage is coverage, no matter what prompted an editor to assign/run the story. Note also that Coverage in RS (i.e. newspapers from the 90s) counts towards notability, and is essential when, as here, a performer's touring career took place a couple of decades ago and, therefore, coverage is in news archives and behind paywalls.E.M.Gregory (talk) 13:38, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User:Gbawden, I edit regularly at AFD, and I know that every wanna-be professional singer, writer, poet, artist, actor and guitar picker in America and India tries puts up a page (or their college roommate does). You and other editors perform the labors of Hercules in sifting through articles about would-be famous artists. I hope that you will revisit. Searches should be performed on both William and Bill Foley, with keywords including Columbus, musician, machete, guitarist, and Nazareth.E.M.Gregory (talk) 13:38, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User:E.M.Gregory I have been known to be wrong Gbawden (talk) 13:54, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@E.M.Gregory: - Are you Bill's roommate? AusLondonder (talk) 16:03, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 15:03, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 15:03, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This article, created by E.M.Gregory, was almost certainly created as a WP:CFORK of 2016 Ohio machete attack, also created by E.M.Gregory. WP:1E could apply here as Foley was a victim of the attack. AusLondonder (talk) 16:03, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

hey there Auslander, my long-time hound (apologies to the rest of the world for attracting him here - he hounds me for entirely non-music-related reasons.) So, the thing is (aside from covering only 1 victim in-depth being WP:UNDUE if this is added to the page about the machete attack,) the thing is that both in older sources and in articles prompted by the machete incident, Foley has a sufficiently high public profile to pass WP:BIO, even though searches on a guy with a name as common Foley, who goes by both Bill and William, and is variously described as a singer songwriter, musician, guitarist, and singer - not to mention the general difficulties of archive searches, paywalls, etc..... When the sources exist, there can be an article, no matter what prompted the articles to be written.E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:11, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In fact, there was a new article recently [34], followed by, [35] focused on the restaurant owner, who I do not see as notable independent of the attack, although he may become so if he continues to be an activist. The article prompted me to look Foley up. I hadn't paid much attention to the victims when writing the original article - which Auslander has been attempting to discredit or delete since it was written (see: Talk:2016 Ohio machete attack.) I continue to think that focusing on individual victims in disaster/terror attack articles in inappropriate, although it is not unusual for post-incident profiles about victims to prompt the writing of articles in reliable media that, in turn, prompt an editor to create an article, see, for example: Dan Fredinburg.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:22, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

*Comment - I won't give an official vote yet until more votes are in, partially out of fear that E.M.Gregory will accuse me of WP:WIKIHOUNDING again (which I have no patience for). However, I do feel like this article gives a bit of an undue weight on his involvement in stopping the attack, which I assume is where most of the sources on him will be coming from. Maybe this article could benefit from some more expansion on his musical career and/or that book of his? Parsley Man (talk) 21:33, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Allegations of WP:WIKIHOUNDING is E.M.Gregory's favourite, indeed trademark, approach to any dispute. AusLondonder (talk) 23:56, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly 3 editors hound me. Auslander, ParsleyMan and MSJapan. Sigh.E.M.Gregory (talk) 01:28, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't hounding you here. I only noticed this article after a link for it came up on the 2016 Ohio machete attack, which I follow. Parsley Man (talk) 01:51, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete - I have fully examined the sources. A vast majority of them have some predominant focus on the machete attack that he stopped, which suggests he only became truly notable because of this single event. The ones that are dated before the attack (except one) are inaccessible due to a proquest pay wall (just as Gbawden said), so I can't assess the quality of the information provided on his career, and therefore, no assessment that the "touring career that got coverage at the time" is notable enough. The one source that is dated before the attack and is accessible only mentions the name of his band once and nothing else about him, so I can't even tell if this is the same cover band he founded (could be a long shot, but the possibility of another band called Bill Foley Band does sound plausible to me). As I said before earlier, there's an undue weight on his involvement in stopping the attack and not enough information/specifics on his career before said attack that could justify notability. The fact that he is a backup singer or sings cover songs doesn't sound notable to me either. I could reconsider my stance if more information is provided on his career and/or the older sources I can't get into are bypassed so I can read them. Parsley Man (talk) 01:57, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sources detailing his career and profiles include: [36]; [37] .E.M.Gregory (talk) 11:48, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The first one was published way after I made that vote, so you can't blame me for missing that one. The second one wasn't even included as a reference for the article, so I didn't know that existed until you brought it up. Parsley Man (talk) 01:51, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:NOTNEWS as a WP:BLP1E and a fork of 2016 Ohio machete attack. The subject is not notable as a musician. The entirety of his coverage is due to one event that actually didn't get more than local coverage (majority of sources are Columbus-based). As a BLP article, the sources pertaining to the restaurant owner, other victims, and details pertaining to the attack are not relevant to Foley's BLP. His musical career appears to be limited solely to Columbus and environs, as evidenced by his press kit. I looked back four years, and he basically played two restaurants (one being the Nazareth) and a few one-off gigs. The only person who claims he's a "nationally touring artist" is Foley himself, and he has no material in his press kit to support his opening act claims whatsoever. Therefore, both the statement that he's nationally touring and that his band is popular are subjective and unsupported by any independent sources, nor are they really all that well supported by non-independent sources. There are, by the way, very few cover acts that ever function more than regionally, and Foley is one of them - his non-regional appearances seem to have been based on playing for personal friends and calling them business gigs. The three criteria of BLP1E are that reliable sources cover him only in the context of one event; that seems to be the case. He's otherwise a low-profile individual, because local coverage isn't sufficient. The event itself is also not significant; it received no coverage outside the Columbus area. On top of all that, there is serious coatracking of sources to build superficial notability, but WP:109PAPERS would seem to apply here as well - repetition of information is not depth of coverage. MSJapan (talk) 04:14, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Coverage that obviates these objections. Here: [38].E.M.Gregory (talk) 11:52, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not make sweeping statements that are not accurate. The Columbus machete attack and Foley's role in it was a national news story. Washington Post [39], NBC News [ http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/lot-hate-anger-victims-recall-gruesome-ohio-machete-attack-n518721], also Times of Israel [40], AP/CBS [41] more. His admittedly regional music career is sourced both to Ohio papers and to papers in several states where he toured earlier in his career.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:33, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Also, the article makes it clear that "four years"would not cover the period of Foley's touring career, which took upwards of 2 decades ago. And his press kit is less imporatant than the sources I already brought to the page. Are you still hung up over our differences re: Matthew C. Whitaker???E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:38, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not at all. I did some searching for sources, and there's nothing RS that leads me to believe that Foley is notable as a person outside of the attack. The details of his music career are entirely based on statements he has made himself on his website, and that's not independent of the subject. There's no verifiable data to indicate he ever did anything outside of being a local opener, and as a cover act, he doesn't have awards, album releases, concert reviews, or any other press that would clearly meet the criteria for notability as a musician. MSJapan (talk) 04:51, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not make unsupported accusations. NONE of the "details of his music career are" in fact "based on statements he has made himself on his website." I found every detail in the article in a RS and every jot and tittle is sourced to a reliable news story.E.M.Gregory (talk) 11:48, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note I wouldn't object to a redirect to 2016 Ohio machete attack, my reason for not simply adding this material to that article is a fear of WP:UNDUE, and the fact that in long experience editing articles on terrorist attacks and disasters, I have learned that details on the lives of attack victims are not considered notable. But, as w,as the case with Dan Fredinburg and others, death or injury in a disaster or notable incident can produce reliable coverage about the life of a victim that enables a Wikipedia bio to be written.E.M.Gregory (talk) 23:30, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't object to a redirect either. But the real issue with this article is if there is enough information on Foley's personal life and career that meets notability. Like I said, my main issue with the article is the lack of such information. Remove all info about his involvement in stopping the attack and this article will be a very short stub. Dan Fredinburg is different because there is enough information on him outside of his death, so much that it encompasses six different sections consisting of a number of well-sized paragraphs. Foley only has one section (if you don't count the well-developed attack section) that only has one paragraph. Parsley Man (talk) 02:44, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/Redirect with/to 2016 Ohio machete attack. Here we have a journeyman musician who attracted only a scattering of local attention even after years and years of playing, recording no significantly well-known songs of his own and never charting anywhere with anything, yet he suddenly got forced into an extraordinary situation, giving him a smattering of notice, only to return to obscurity once again. By all accounts, he acted heroically and deserved that burst of coverage. The central thing is, though, that: Were it not for the strange incident, this would be yet another of the countless blink-and-you-miss-it pages that pop up like daisies in support of non-notable underground musicians. His limited notability is in connection to his role in the attack, that's basically it. Due weight on the attack's page would probably be a justly sourced bunch of sentences, and that can be hashed out on the related talk page. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 21:58, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - If anyone is confused, the article started out as "Bill Foley (singer songwriter)" and became "Bill Foley (singer-songwriter)" after a move. It's a minor point, but just making a note of that in case someone is mistakenly thinking that their eyes are playing tricks on them. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 22:02, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

So, a Columbus-area newspaper just published a profile of Foley, not about the terrorist attack, about his career. [42] I've added it to the page. E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:14, 26 May 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 // 04:57, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note Revisiting this long-running AFD, googled, and am expanding article now with a bio/profile published this week by an Ohio newspaper. I do think that this new, published profile/bio the sourcing over many years sourcing marks this as clearly passing WP:BIO.E.M.Gregory (talk) 01:04, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - With these newest edits, I think we may be off to a good start with expanding the article and ultimately keeping it. I still feel that the non-attack sections still need some expanding before I can concretely say it's worth keeping, though, so I'm keeping my vote for now. I'll reconsider if and when more substantial info is added. Parsley Man (talk) 01:51, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and Redirect if needed as there's particularly nothing outstanding here aside from the apparent event, nothing convincing of an independently notable article. SwisterTwister talk 21:35, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Yellow Dingo (talk) 10:03, 2 June 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 breached interaction ban. Fences&Windows 22:28, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(Would I Still Be) Her Big Man

Please stay calm and civil while commenting or presenting evidence, and do not make personal attacks. Be patient when approaching solutions to any issues. If consensus is not reached, other solutions exist to draw attention and ensure that more editors mediate or comment on the dispute.

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

Irrelevant song which produced no noteworthy awards or chart positions. Band itself is hardly worth mention. ALongStay (talk) 02:24, 18 May 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 May 18. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 02:41, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 06:39, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, st170e^talk 01:33, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NSONGS Mo ainm~Talk 15:46, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:NSONGS. Withdrawing my vote, please see my comments below. --Dps04 (talk) 15:53, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting per a request on my talk page. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 09:22, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Malcolmxl5 (talk) 09:22, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP: I am a bit late to this discussion--I wasn't aware that this article was slated for AFD. I now finally have a chance to mention that this song was included on the 1998 Nuggets box set, which is the most high-profile garage rock compilation of them all, bar none. Generally, any song included on Nuggets is deemed to be "cream of the crop" and once a song has been included on Nuggets it becomes familiar to a large audience and becomes firmly established in the garage rock genre's lexicon. This song is now familiar to most followers of garage rock, and it is a song that is well-regarded. The liner notes point out its interesting lyrical qualities which concern a factory worker who is dating a rich girl and is afraid to let her know that he is form the working class. I think that we would do right to keep this article. The song is also included on the Back from the Grave Vol. LP. The Back from the Grave Series is one of the best-known as well. So this song is more high-profile than others as a result of the inclusion on these popular compilations. Garagepunk66 (talk) 21:10, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

On another note, the user who nominated this article for deletion has also edited as User:ABriefPassing. Both of these editors wrote harassing messages to me in December, while they were trying to delete some of my articles then--they both got blocked (ABreifPassing is indefinitely blocked). Both of their accounts exist almost excessively for the purpose of harassing me, as the names indicate--if you look at both user names and read the comments on their user pages as well as the comments they put on my user page in December, you will see clearly that their intensions are not good, and to delete this article would embolden them. I have written up to 140 articles and done a lot of good work here at Wikipedia, so I would ask that my contributions not be taken for granted. Garagepunk66 (talk) 21:24, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Garagepunk66 I respectfully ask you to stop trying to get pity for yourself. I told you why I'm here: to nominate non-notable music articles for deletion. I've learned from my past mistake and took some time off to better my stance in conversations. Please stick to valid reasoning in these discussions instead of trying to bring up irrelevant past events to save a non-notable page. You've had some great work but you've also made articles that extend beyond Wikipedia's boundary for notability.ALongStay (talk) 22:14, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"Respectfully...? I think not. Your comments in the past were anything but respectful, and got you a block. You were instructed to stay away from me. I think it is perfectly valid to bring that up here, and, by the way, I had just before mentioned valid reasons for keeping the song. Using language such as "took some time off to better my stance in conversations" indicates the problem I am alluding to--as if this whole thing is premeditated. So, please don't be so self-righteous. You are trying to remove an article about one of the signature songs on Nuggets. Garagepunk66 (talk) 22:27, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Garagepunk don't talk to me about self-righteousness, I've seem just a taste of your responses to other editors. You treat this like you're making some last stand. I made my reasons why to delete this article and other editors clearly agreed. I'm not going to respond to you anymore unless it is about the song or it is about something civil. Goodbye.ALongStay (talk) 22:52, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I try to be kind and respectful with other editors even when I disagree on points of substance. It is the way that you have spoken to me in the past that has been disrespectful--it got you blocked, if you remember. I was not notified about the nomination, so I did not have a chance to point out the song's notable points. I have enumerated the reasons for notability--the other editors did not yet have a chance to hear my rationale when the previous discussion was taking place, so I think that I've done everyone a fair service to express my side. Garagepunk66 (talk) 04:07, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Other things to consider before it is too late: In the words of Richie Unterberger, noted rock writer and critic: "The Brigands' "(Would I Still Be) Her Big Man" was an outstanding and unusual 1966 garage band single." That is how he describes the song in the AllMusic Review. Need I say more. Now let's do the right thing and keep the article. Also: I noticed that one of the editors above who voted to delete, changed his vote from "delete" to "keep" in the post about the Brigands, which pertains directly to the song being discussed in this article. He is probably un-aware that this particular article has been brought back from deletion and tentatively reinstated. The editors above, at the top of this page, were not privy to the information I brought to the table, because at the time I had no idea that the article was nominated for delectation--I got no notification, therefore was not present in the discussion. Is there any way that an administrator can re-contact them, because, if they knew then what they know now, they might have voted differently. Garagepunk66 (talk) 07:46, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Garagepunk66: Thanks for the information above, and let me assure you that I am aware of the on-going discussion here. Apparently, I have changed my stance on the discussion on the article of the band, after I was notified of the inclusion of the band's songs in numerous notable albums. However, with regards to the article of the song itself, I still have some reservations about the subject's notability, especially whether it passes WP:NSONGS or not. In my opinion, this song does not seem to pass any of the three suggested criteria mentioned there. Nevertheless, I'll assume good faith here and withdraw my vote, as I am now reasonably satisfied that the song has some significance and might be notable, even if it might not pass the strict notability guidelines mentioned in WP:NSONGS. Lets see how other users decide. --Dps04 (talk) 17:46, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Also may I remind users to remain civil and assume good faith at all times during deletion discussions. Ad hominem attacks do not facilitate discussion, much less contribute to consensus-building.--Dps04 (talk) 17:52, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You are right. We'll be better behaved from now on. Garagepunk66 (talk) 18:17, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with the Brigands article. The band's article is short as is and needs everything piece of information possible to make it notable. Combine as one, they are clearly a notable subject. But with the info divided as is, I would say the song article does not qualify as notable.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 19:42, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate your support of the band's article. Now, as far as the song goes, I do feel that Unterberger's opinion of this song might be rationale to keep the song article in existence too. He is considered a reputable authority. I realize that all of this is edging on the thin line, but I think that since we are dealing with a song that is over 50 years old, yet still memorable enough to be included on Nuggets, then maybe we could consider that to be just enough wind to blow the tipping 8-ball into the keep-pocket , and that maybe the best solution is to keep both articles. Garagepunk66 (talk) 06:30, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Garagepunk66 the reasons I said merge stand as this: All the info in the song article is repeated in the band article, no references are strictly devoted to the song itself, and the song never charted or had any impact on other acts. It definitely is not a stand out track on Nuggets as well. We cannot just keep an article when it fails all guidelines or because it is one we have a personal preference for. If so, I would be shooting out dozens of articles devoted to Music Machine tunes! Now we could save the band article if all efforts were placed into it, but dividing as is may lose both pieces which would be a travesty in my opinion.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 17:59, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It would be better to merge then delete. There is no doubt. Deletion is not a viable option, and should not be considered under any circumstances. But, if there is a way to keep both articles, then that would be preferable in my mind, in light of Unterberger's opinion that the song is noteworthy. There are plenty of song articles existing here that fall further the guidelines that are allowed to be kept, which do not have the same degree of historical interest to collectors. I personally think that it is a standout track, and Unterberger agrees. That of course is subjective. Coming from me alone that may not seem convincing, but coming from him, it is the view of a well-known author in a major publication. Keep in mind that there were at least 16, 000 garage rock records released in the US, alone, in the 60s, and out of all of them approximately 100 were chosen to be on that anthology, which is the most high-profile. But it is now out of our hands. I trust that the administrators will make a fair decision (i.e. to merge or full-save). Garagepunk66 (talk) 05:50, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with The Brigands (band). I agree with TheGracefulSlick - there is nothing in this article that could not be said in the article about the band. Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:07, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I would support a merge if Garagepunk66 accepted one. Makes things a lot easier if the writer goes along with it. Either way, it seems like that will be the course of action.ALongStay (talk) 14:08, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with The Brigands (band). As the band's notability is primarily based on this song, I see no reason why this requires it's own article. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 19:59, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with the Brigands band article. White Arabian Filly ^Neigh 21:36, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Consensus is that the subject is not sufficiently notable for an article in the encyclopedia. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 18:02, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Niteen Dedhia

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

An eye surgeon who has attended conferences, gives tips on eye care and has been involved in unfortunate litigation. None of this adds up to notability. Fails WP:GNG Velella ^{Velella Talk} 08:53, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete The only relevant reference in the article is the one about litigation. However, this more positive story about him curing a blind child could be added. Are those two references enough for WP:GNG? I'm leaning toward "no" but it's close. Pichpich (talk) 19:01, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That doesn't look like notability to me. The girl who is the subject of the article might be, but thousands of doctors routinely perform many hundreds of thousands of cataract operations every year. Happening to be mentioned in a "good-news" story doesn't add up to notability in my book. Velella ^{Velella Talk} 19:42, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:54, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:54, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:49, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete He is a non-notable ophthamologist. My uncle who is an ophthamologist connected with Emory University is probably more notable, but no where near notable enough to have an article in Wikipedia.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:12, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and I would've also pursued PROD but given the past speedy deletion too, we will likely need G4, not all acceptable for any minimal notability here. Certainly nothing applicably convincing. SwisterTwister talk 04:21, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails GNG and no claim of notability. On a different note, I am inclined to say that someone was trying to settle some scores with her. The article creator has less than 20 edits and this is the only page he created. In anycase, lets get rid of this article. Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 02:52, 10 June 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 editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk)

Alexander Rhodes

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

No evidence of any special notability. The BBC refs shos that he is a journalist and the Leeds Trinity report is simply an update an an alumnus. Neither establish any notability. This is an ordinary jobbing TV journalist - probably good at his job but not notable in Wikipedia terms Velella ^{Velella Talk} 08:47, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note - the reference above to an earlier deletion discussion relates to a different Alexander Rhodes. Velella ^{Velella Talk} 08:49, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No obvious notability. Seaweed (talk) 12:20, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete local radio personalities need better sources to establish notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:04, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:46, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:46, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:46, 6 June 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 Fan_fiction#Songfic. J04n(talk page) 00:19, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Songfic

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

This article does not meet criteria for notability (does not have significant coverage in reliable sources, one source, no notable google results). Mr. Spink ^{^{talk★contribs}} 15:29, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:22, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:35, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:38, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The term is used, but not so widely that it's turned into coverage of the term itself. For example, this link goes to an article where they're talking about writing Harry Potter songfic, which isn't entirely what we need here. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 07:09, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Most of them are like this where it's briefly mentioned, although this is good. Maybe this can be merged into fanfiction, since it seems to be almost exclusively (if not completely so) used in relation to fanfiction. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 07:10, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It looks like it's mentioned in this Routledge book, but the applicable portion is completely unavailable to where I can even get an idea of how it's used.

Comment. I've re-written the content here and already merged it into the main article for fanfiction, where there's actually a section for the various genres of fanfic. This has some coverage in academic sources and maybe we could argue that it could have its own page due to the somewhat light coverage in the academic texts I've cited, but I'm concerned that it's not so heavy that it'd really make a ton of sense for it to have its own article. Most of the time when it's cited in a text it's as a passing mention in relation to fanfic as a whole. ([43]) I'm leaning towards endorsing a redirect to Fan_fiction#Songfic, where I've merged the content. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 07:35, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per above. The coverage here is just too light for me to really say that there's been enough in-depth coverage to warrant an article separate from the main fanfic genre section. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 10:47, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:40, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect at best, nothing particularly better to suggest its own separate article. SwisterTwister talk 01:49, 9 June 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. Clear consensus. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 17:57, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Lucile F. Aly

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

trivial accomplishments: co-ed. of medium importancet anthologies, but thats not enough for WP:PROF or WP:AUTHOR DGG ( talk ) 07:26, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:44, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:44, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oregon-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:44, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Clearly a worthy scholar but GS citation record is too slender for major impact. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:55, 6 June 2016 (UTC).[reply]
Delete. I can't find anything nontrivial about her other than "Neihardt's biographer", and that's not enough. The article is completely unsourced; the biography could be sourced to this review, but the article would still fail WP:BIO1E, and one academic-journal book review isn't enough for WP:AUTHOR or WP:PROF. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:13, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete She wrote a biography, but not evidently one that got widely reviewed, and she co-edited a few works. Nothing here is enough to pass GNG or the guidelines for notability for academics.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:32, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as there's still nothing particularly convincing for the applicable notability. SwisterTwister talk 01:56, 9 June 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. Clear consensus to delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 17:54, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jacques Tourangeau

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

This article does not meet Wikipedia's notability requirements for actors WP:NACTOR. This actor has not had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions. (Simply uttering one or two lines;having a very small role in a few productions does not mean the actor is noteworthy). This actors does not have a large or significant fan base or "cult" following. This actor has not made any unique, prolific or innovative contributions to a field of entertainment. There are no external sources, such as newspaper or magazine articles that have given this actor any coverage. --Alaindrouin (talk) 16:56, 25 May 2016 (UTC) Edit --Alaindrouin (talk) 17:39, 25 May 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 May 25. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 16:52, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:25, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Quebec-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:25, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Despite the article existing for a while, there are no secondary sources to back up the actor's notability. Aside from the IMDB and self-promotional Fountainhead link, no information to speak of. Fails WP:NACTOR. If any entertainer who has appeared in films with actual notable people deserves their own article then we just might as well have an article for every non-extra performer regardless of his/her prominence. KelseyWill (talk) 23:57, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:10, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as there's a list of works, but nothing at all here actually suggesting any solid independent notability for an article. SwisterTwister talk 07:24, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. He's been around for long enough that I expected to be able to locate more solid sourcing than this, but I came up dry even in deep database searches on ProQuest and Le Devoir — and nothing here is enough to give him a presumption to passing WP:NACTOR in the absence of enough sourcing to show it. (I'd grant him the benefit of the doubt if he'd played Maurice Duplessis in Duplessis, for example, but not if he just played Oscar Drouin.) And even on fr, where I'd expect editors to have access to a much deeper range of francophone media databases than I've got, their article isn't actually sourced any better than this either. No prejudice against recreation in the future if somebody actually can locate the depth of referencing necessary to get him over the bar, but nothing claimed or sourced here is enough as things stand today. Bearcat (talk) 16:22, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sarahj2107 (talk) 10:43, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Veronika Vice

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

Women's pro wrestler with no significant independent coverage. Only links are to results or her own pages.Mdtemp (talk) 18:10, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:23, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:23, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There are some secondary links to bodybuilding competitions but definitely lacks notability as per WP:ENT. Maybe some regional or local notability but nowhere near enough to meet Wikipedia's standards. KelseyWill (talk) 00:15, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:08, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as there's simply particularly nothing outstandingly suggesting the actual independent notability. SwisterTwister talk 07:29, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:42, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:42, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable professional wrestler.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:10, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sarahj2107 (talk) 10:42, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Felix Vasquez

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

Found this through Special:Random. Funnily enough, I deleted it before, only to undelete it because he'd gotten a minor award that (in my opinion at the time) was enough to disqualify him for A7. So a woman in a burning building throws her baby to a guy on the street below, and the guy gets on all the news programs for a few days. Article-worthy? Not at all. For someone like this, Google hits are relevant; I've gotten through fifty Google hits without finding even one that mentions this guy. Nyttend (talk) 02:35, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:24, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:24, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:24, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:BLP1E....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 20:37, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:37, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The one event is worth a human interest story in the local news, not a Wikipedia article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:46, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I actually chuckled when I read this. This doesn't belong in an encyclopaedia. Agree with WilliamJE above. st170e^talk 00:47, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sarahj2107 (talk) 10:16, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Picton Picturefest

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

Poorly sourced article about a one-off smalltown film festival with no demonstrated claim of notability per WP:EVENT -- and while this article claims that "a second edition is set for July 2014", that's now almost two years into the past but I can find no reliably sourced indication that it ever actually happened. As always, an event like this is not automatically entitled to permanent coverage in an encyclopedia just because it existed -- it must be the subject of sufficient RS coverage to get it over a notability criterion. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 06:32, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:39, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:39, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:39, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I'm unable to find coverage that would make this local "film festival and youth retreat" meet WP:NEVENTS. Sam Sailor ^Talk! 09:35, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and I myself would've nominated had I found it randomly, my searches have found nothing better and there's otherwise nothing else convincing. SwisterTwister talk 00:28, 10 June 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. Opportunity for rework per suggestions in discussion (non-admin closure) — crh ₂₃ (Talk) 16:15, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mayor of Kozhikode

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

This page was created by a now blocked sock. I could find no coverage outside of routine "elections are taking place" or "person X is now in office". Where there is coverage, it's about the people holding the office or an election, not the political office itself. Doesn't pass WP:GNG. ~ Rob^Talk 06:29, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. Holding an official position in office usually merits an article, regardless of the locale. The lack of coverage puts a negative on it's worthiness, as the nominator mentioned. VegasCasinoKid (talk) 06:56, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- @VegasCasinoKid: Yes, but does the office itself warrant an article? The mayors have their own articles. ~ Rob^Talk 16:32, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - I really don't see why it doesn't, and if consensus thinks otherwise then merging would suffice. VegasCasinoKid (talk) 13:14, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Agree with User:VegasCasinoKid, article must be improved upon. Ahmer Jamil Khan 07:35, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:42, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:42, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's akin to Mayor of Mumbai, for one. The nominator is right, there's a bunch of India city mayoral position articles that should simply be renamed as List of mayors of foo. They are all grouped in Category:Lists of mayors. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:46, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- I would not oppose substantially reworking this article into a list if there's been at least five mayors. A list of three people doesn't make much sense; succession boxes are just as effective. ~ Rob^Talk 18:03, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - No, succession boxes are not just as effective. The whole point of an encyclopedia is that it provides readers with information that they don't already know. How can such a reader who doesn't know the names of any mayors of Kozhikode find this information if it's only in the individual articles? 86.17.222.157 (talk) 21:34, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    - Well, there's a search feature which would easily let them find every mayor. Alternatively, we could redirect the name to the city article, which certainly contains the current mayor's name at the very least. An encyclopedia's purpose isn't to help readers find all information. It's to help them find notable information, and this doesn't appear notable based on what coverage exists. No-one has provided coverage that shows this passes WP:GNG. ~ Rob^Talk 01:33, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - There have actually been 25 mayors, as you would have known if you had read the first sentence of the first source cited in the article. I make that at least five. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 18:15, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    - I would withdraw this nomination if you converted this into a list article of mayors. That would be useful. ~ Rob^Talk 05:42, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      - Sorry, but I don't run an edit-on-demand service. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 06:45, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - I see that Kozhikode (formerly known as Calicut) had a mayor when Vasco da Gama visited in 1498, so the history of this office is certainly something that we should cover. I guess that the designation of the current mayor as the 25th only counts back as far as 1947. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 18:54, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per my comments above. Whether this stays under its current title or gets refactored as a list artile is a matter for normal editing and talk page discussion, so doesn't need to be decided here. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 18:56, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not prepared to put in any more work on an article when that work might get deleted in a couple of days, but if anyone else wants to then they might find some useful sources here: Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL. And please look at the books and scholar search results first, as they are more likely to be reliable secondary sources than the news search results, which in turn are far more likely to be reliable than the web search results. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 19:13, 7 June 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. On a procedural note, this discussion was difficult to understand, mostly because of this edit. The best way to correct an error like that is to strike out the incorrect wording and add the correct version, so you end up with something like ~~satisfies~~ doesn't satisfy. As it is, we have comments in the discussion referring to text which no longer exists, which is kind of confusing to the reader (i.e. me).

The one person arguing to keep was (in part) basing their opinion on the erroneous text. It's unclear if they saw the correction and chose not to respond to it, or not. In any case, even if I assume the rest of their comment still holds, that's not enough to overcome the weight of all the other delete opinions. -- RoySmith (talk) 21:12, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sardha Wijesoma

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

The subject doesn't satisfy the criteria under WP:PROF. Article lacks any in-depth support of individual establishing notability. Was previously subject of an AfD which was closed with a decision of no-consensus. Since that time there has been no improvement of the article or any inclusion of additional references supporting the subject's notability. Dan arndt (talk) 05:41, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Wait a tic, the subject meets the criteria at WP:PROF? If that's the case, this is an obvious keep. But aside from that, the subject has hundreds of citations, and has authored works that garnered hundreds more. At first glance, this seems like a clear keep. Note also that having had an AFD closed as no consensus is not itself a criteria for deletion, especially since the AfD was closed after a month and multiple relists, at which point there were two keep !votes and 0 deletes apart from your own (since you nominated the article at both previous AFDs). UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 16:48, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:36, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:36, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:36, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:36, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. A GS h-index of 19 in a very highly cited field may be WP:Too soon. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:53, 6 June 2016 (UTC).[reply]
Delete. A couple of moderately well-cited papers, but not enough to convince me of WP:PROF in a high-citation field, and I don't see any other evidence of notability. (Also, to me "fuzzy" in a title, such as the subject's second-most-cited work, is a WP:REDFLAG of low-quality research, so I'd want to see particularly clear evidence of impact, which does not seem to exist in this case.) —David Eppstein (talk) 20:06, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete instead at best it seems because the Department Chair of the major Sri Lankan university would seem enough, but aside from that, still questionable for other aspects. Nothing else to suggest of course that there will ever be a better article. SwisterTwister talk 01:59, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ Neutral (see below) I do not follow the nom. The nom states that the article subject does meet WP:PROF, followed by the contradiction 'lacks . . establishing notability' so why did they nominate ? Until the nom is not self contradictory SNOW keep. Aoziwe (talk) 13:42, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment @Aoziwe: my error I meant to say the subject doesn't satisfy WP:PROF. The GS h-index is very low. Given the subject is deceased there is not likely to be any increase in the citation rate.Dan arndt (talk) 15:11, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks @Dan arndt: - changing my opinion to neutral. Aoziwe (talk) 15:19, 11 June 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 Miss Peru. Nakon 21:52, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Miss Perú 2012

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

Not a real pageant. The Banner talk 15:48, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Additional: Seems to fail WP:GNG. There was no pageant held, but she was handpicked: Due to the restructuring that carried out the Miss Peru Organization, Nicole Faverón was appointed to represent Peru in the Miss Universe 2012 pageant that was held in December in Las Vegas, NV, USA (where she placed in the Top 16).[1] The Banner talk 21:52, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Peru-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:44, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:44, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:44, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nominator....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 12:29, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:PERNOM. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:49, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This is part of a series of year-specific articles on Peru's participation in the Big Four international competitions. The fact that this year's representative was chosen in an unusual manner is itself something that can be discussed in the article. Also, these year-specific articles, when fully fleshed-out, typically relate what happened to the representative(s) at the international level of comptetition, and this is something that can be discussed in the article regardless of how the representative was selected. NewYorkActuary (talk) 21:34, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- You forgot 1965, 1963 and 1964! Those three article were - after discussion - redirected to Miss Peru. The Banner talk 19:51, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but those were nominated for a lack of sourcing, with little evidence that either you or the two discussants actually looked for them. In just a few minutes, I was able to find a reliable source for one of them (from a Spanish language source) and am confident that sources for the other two exist, as well. And, of course, your rationale in the instant case says nothing about sourcing, so there's no precedent here. NewYorkActuary (talk) 17:57, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry? Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Miss Perú 1977 (2nd nomination). The Banner talk 18:26, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That one closed before I had a chance to alert the discussants as to your misleading suggestion of precedent. NewYorkActuary (talk) 18:50, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Aha, no arguments so getting personal. The Banner talk 18:58, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:23, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – If not independently notable, then a redirect to Miss Peru would be functional, as this is a valid search term. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:24, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
If not independently notable, redirect to Miss Peru as a valid search term. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:42, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, st170e^talk 04:48, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and then Redirect because there's clearly nothing to suggest this can later be a better acceptable article but can still be redirected since it's a likely search, nothing convincing to actually suggest keeping the contents. SwisterTwister talk 02:02, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. —SpacemanSpiff 07:07, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ashesh Shah

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

Notability & source Fitindia (talk) 10:22, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nothing for better solid independent notability, there are claims of national and international publications appearances but the article is still questionable at best. SwisterTwister talk 23:39, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 23:40, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 23:40, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:19, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, st170e^talk 04:47, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Could not find any independent coverage in English and does not satisfy WP:GNG unless something substantial exists in other languages. No longer a penguin (talk) 07:54, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:35, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete, per WP:SOFTDELETE--Ymblanter (talk) 07:24, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

True X-ZYTE

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

Other than that this TV channel exists and a number of people enjoy watching it, there appears to be nothing notable about it. Other than the novelty of being related to game shows, this seems like a run-of-the-mill type institution among many competing TV networks. Looking for news about it in terms of reliable sourcing appears to just generate slight, passing mentions only. This story here is typical, with all it says being: "You must use the SIM to dial a special number with the serial number of the smart-card and True Visions will allow you to watch three more channels - True Thai Film, True X-Zyte and True Movie Hits - free of charge for 12 months." Perhaps a great deal, yet not encyclopedia worthy. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 09:57, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor ^Talk! 11:35, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Thailand-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor ^Talk! 11:35, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Looking at the TV guide of the cable network [44], it airs mostly shows from Japan, South Korea and US such as Survivor (TV series), America's Got Talent, Running Man (TV series), Star King (TV series). --Lerdsuwa (talk) 17:15, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:18, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, st170e^talk 04:47, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as all this suggests is that's a local show, nothing at all for any basic notability, thus including no sources or anything else to suggest this can be changed or otherwise moved elsewhere. SwisterTwister talk 02:03, 9 June 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 merged to Berry College. (Non-admin closure) "Pepper" @ 01:41, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Berry College Elementary School

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

Elementary school with no evidence of any special notability. Yoshiman6464 (talk) 03:25, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn by nominator I merged the information to the Berry College page. Yoshiman6464 (talk) 18:21, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and Redirect to Berry College -- Appears to be a notable aspect of the college, in that the faculty and staff have a special elementary school just for their children. Definitely a very notable fact about the college! That said, it's not enough to establish notability for an independant article. Merge it in, prune it down to facts relevant to Berry College... which admitably is most of the article, but rewording may be required when no longer its own article. Fieari (talk) 03:48, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 (talk) 04:30, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 (talk) 04:30, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per Fieari. John from Idegon (talk) 11:02, 2 June 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 IBM DB2#Technical information,. Selective merge, per Mark viking's guidance. -- RoySmith (talk) 21:17, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

IBM PureQuery

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

I prodded it with the following rationale: "The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline and the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (software) requirement. " It was deprodded by User:Dialectric with the following rationale "google books search shows numerous mentions. redirect may be in order, but that can be discussed without a prod". I am not averse to a redirect (through to where, I am not sure) but as a stand-alone article this does not seem to pass. The references do not pass muster: yes, there are mentions in books, but they are mostly in passing. The software does have a section devoted to it in several books, through rather then any analysis of significance those sections seem to be how-to-use manauls, technical and going on for a page or so. There is no single work on this topic, and few short mentions in niche textbooks don't seem to qualify for NSOFTWARE "It is the subject of multiple printed third-party manuals, instruction books, or reliable reviews". Nothing I can find supports this passing that or WP:N. Seems like software-spam, particularly considering the language (this has been tagged as an advert for 5+ years now...). I think IBM has enough adevertising budget it doesn't need us to help them - we are not the directory of software (WP:NOTDIRECTORY). PS. Creator, of course, was a WP:SPA... _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 13:24, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with nom. Redirect to what, though? FoCuS contribs; talk to me! 13:26, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Dialectric (talk) 13:32, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:52, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:53, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, st170e^talk 12:27, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge selectively to IBM DB2#Technical information. There is an entire book on this topic: Getting Started with pureQuery. I consider the book reliable in the sense that there was editorial review and it is likely authoritative, but is not independent of IBM. I too was unable to find multiple independent reliable sources for this product beyond purely instructional material, hence it doesn't seem meet notability guidelines. But the brief third party mentions and the first chapter of this book, which has some history of the product, its context and purpose, are sufficient to add or merge basic facts about the product into another article. In my opinion, probably the best target is a few sentences in the section IBM DB2#Technical information, as this query language is closely aligned with IBM's database product. --Mark viking (talk) 21:04, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mz7 (talk) 02:50, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect as there seems to be enough to suggest it can be reworked perhaps or something similar, nothing currently formed to suggest it can be a separate article at this time though. SwisterTwister talk 02:05, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Selective Merge to IBM DB2 § Technical information, per the advice of Mark viking above. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:58, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. —SpacemanSpiff 06:43, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Macedonian Pakistan

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

Patent nonsense. This hoax article needs to be deleted ASAP. There's absolutely no such thing as "Macedonian Pakistan". There was no such era. Pakistan was created in 1947 (incl. the name), so there was no "Pakistan" before that. On top of that, the article contains nothing more than a few links of battles Alexander fought in the area on the soil which happesn to be located on soil of what today is "Pakistan", aka the post-1947 nation. There is no reason that I can possibly think of that could merit the keeping of this nonsensical "article". Pseudo-historical nonsense at its best. The "new" user who created this article created this similarily hoax article as well (which is being AfD'd too). - LouisAragon (talk) 02:03, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 (talk) 04:40, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 (talk) 04:40, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 (talk) 04:40, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The topic of this article seems to be already explained in Indo-Greek Kingdom, Indian campaign of Alexander the Great and other articles. Agree with nom that the title is imagined. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 04:43, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Revisionism. Chris Troutman (talk) 14:08, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Pure nationalistic revisionism and anachronism. --Wario-Man (talk) 17:09, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination statement. Likely a hoax, revisionism at best. Obvious WP:GNG fail.--Ddcm8991 (talk) 17:27, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per Ddcm8991 Yoshiman6464 (talk) 22:11, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not exactly a hoax. Certainly Alexander made conquests in what is now Pakistan; we cover those under their common names.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:16, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. —SpacemanSpiff 06:45, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Achaemenid Pakistan

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

Patent nonsense. This hoax article needs to be deleted ASAP. There's absolutely no such thing as "Achaemenid Pakistan". Imagine titles such as "Phoenician France", "Byzantine FYROM" or "Achaemenid Romania", and what-not totally nonsensical anachronistic names. There was no such era. Pakistan was created in 1947, so there was no "Pakistan" before that. On top of that, the article contains nothing more than a few links of Achaemenid satrapies (provinces) which happen to be located on soil of what today is "Pakistan", the post-1947 nation. There is no reason that I can possibly think of that could merit the keeping of this nonsensical "article". Pseudo-historical nonsense at its best. The "new" user who created this, created this equally nonsensical article as well (which is being AfD'd as well). - LouisAragon (talk) 01:58, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 (talk) 04:34, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 (talk) 04:34, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There is already an article Achaemenid Empire which explains everything in detail. Agree with nominator that the title is imagined. There doesn't seem to be any sources which use the title either. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 04:38, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 (talk) 04:39, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 (talk) 04:39, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The POV warrior that created this article edited the History of Pakistan template to redirect from the extant Achaemenid Empire article to this foolishness. Indeed, I'd love to see the nom write up a Byzantine FYROM article; revisionist history at its best! Chris Troutman (talk) 14:07, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Pure nationalistic revisionism and anachronism. --Wario-Man (talk) 17:08, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per Nom. Eras have widely-used names, this isn't one.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:13, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
SNOW Delete as certainly questionable overall, nothing to suggest there's salvageable information for an acceptable article. SwisterTwister talk 02:07, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete--Ymblanter (talk) 07:10, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Rudy Marconi

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

Fails WP:POLITICIAN. Local politician with some coverage in local media. Magnolia677 (talk) 01:21, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Connecticut-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:30, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:30, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails the criteria at WP:NPOL AusLondonder (talk) 07:47, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing here constitutes an automatic WP:NPOL pass in and of itself, and the sourcing is nowhere near solid enough to pass WP:GNG — except for a couple of pieces of purely local media coverage it's almost entirely primary sources. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 14:33, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete he is a low level politician in a low level city. If he gets elected governor, and maybe even if he wins a major party nomination, he will be notable, he is not at present notable though, while doing early level explorations of running.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:36, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as there's nothing to suggest better regarding notability for the current questionability and thus delete for now as it's also unlikely there will be any basic notability anytime soon. There's nothing else convincing. SwisterTwister talk 02:09, 9 June 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. Renaming / redirect to be discussed on article TalkPage. (non-admin closure) Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 03:08, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Harambe

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

WP:NOTNEWS. This gorilla was not notable in life, but is getting lots of coverage due to the specific news story of its death. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:20, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:21, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Animal-related deletion discussions. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:22, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:30, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organisms-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:30, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'll copy-pase comments I recently made at Talk:Cincinnati Zoo and Botanical Garden: Delete unless there is coverage of him prior to the incident (which there might well be!). Many media articles are using Reuters pictures of Harambe in his prime, so there may well have been interest prior to the incident. (Side note, I first retargeted Harambe to this subsection here, it was formerly a "plausible misspelling" of Harambee but recent traffic indicated that is not what readers are looking for). Various guidelines give various nuanced takes on the "not suitable for an article if notable for a single event"; insofar as we consider an article about an invidiual primate to fall under the umbrella of being "about an individual", especially when considering most of our policy text refers to "individuals" instead of "people"; animal or man, it's a biography nonetheless in both form and content, although stretching WP:BDP probably is not justified.

WP:ONEEVENT: mostly discusses when it is appropriate to create articles about individuals involved in a single event in the context that there would already be an article about the event, which is not even the case here!
WP:NOTNEWS: Unless news coverage of an individual goes beyond the context of a single event, our coverage of that idividual should be limited to the article about that event, in proportion to their importance to the overall topic.
There are no notability guidelines specific to "individual animals". The closest thing, WP:NATSCI, is a failed proposal and covered breeds, species, etc. but not inviduals.
If we stretch imagination a bit some could even think of this "incident" as falling under our definition or a "crime", but WP:NCRIME specifically discourages coverage of what it calls "breaking news".
From GNG#WP:SUSTAINED: As such, brief bursts of news coverage may not be sufficient signs of notability, while sustained coverage would be
WP:SIGCOV also dictates that for an article about Harambe himself to be warranted, there needs to exist coverage of the subject OUTSIDE of coverage of the incident (otherwise, a mention in the incident's article/section is warranted).

☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 01:26, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The current article is an event titled as an animal biography. The controversy over the shooting doesn't look it's going to die down any time soon. As it was with Cecil, it may make sense to cover the incident and its fallout more than the animal. • Gene93k (talk) 01:55, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The death of the gorilla has substantial news coverage over the past week. Yoshiman6464 (talk) 03:02, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP: I don't mind if we keep the article as is. Or, perhaps, we should rename it to "The Death of Harambe"? The zoo incident (and his death) were certainly notable. Perhaps more so than a biography of the gorilla itself? I guess it's a judgement call. I am fine with either way. Note that there was a very similar incident (child falls into zoo enclosure). This occurred with another gorilla named Binti Jua. And we have a Wikipedia article on Binti Jua. The events were very similar in that a child fell into the gorilla enclosure. And the gorilla approached the (defenseless) child. The big difference is that Harambe was killed as a result; Binti Jua was not. So, if anything, the Harambe incident is more notable than the Binti Jua incident. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 04:39, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep If this article is deleted because Harambe was not notable in life, other articles, including Marius (giraffe), where the subject can only be deemed as notable for their causes of death in zoological incidents, should be deleted. If this is the case, then there is another article that also has this issue that, because of the controversial nature surrounding the incident, I'd rather not mention unless I need to (which I would prefer to message to someone separately than mention in a easily accessible place such as this). Elisfkc (talk) 04:55, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Elisfkc - coy references to a mystery subject during a serious vote here are most unhelpful. I would suggest you either say what you mean without this surreptitious messaging requirement, or strike the comment from this vote. Ref ^(chew)(do) 06:04, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Refsworldlee: I do not want to mention it by name, because I do not want to be a part of all of the controversy and hatred surrounding the incident if I don't have to. I have emailed you through Wikipedia instead, informing you of the subject. --Elisfkc (talk) 17:49, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Notable people do notable things. This guy was just a gorilla, doing mundane gorilla things, until someone else did him in. Now he's an icon, but he still didn't do anything notable. The entire story should have an article (after the hype cools down, preferably), but nobody in it deserves a bio. Nor the giraffe or the lion. Even that monkey who wore a sheepskin coat to IKEA is borderline. InedibleHulk (talk) 05:00, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@InedibleHulk: what about people who are only notable because of their cause of death? Elisfkc (talk) 05:09, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Burn them all. InedibleHulk (talk) 05:11, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Except the suicides, I guess. InedibleHulk (talk) 05:12, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Or at least have an article on the death of Harambe. There are 2.7 million articles outlined in Google News [45] so there is no shortage of source material or interest in this story. Capitalistroadster (talk) 05:10, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Further to this, I note that WikiProject Animal Rights has assessed the article as mid-importance on the talk page while WikiProject Animals in Media regards it as high importance. Capitalistroadster (talk) 05:47, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not individually notable but is notable for the zoo as part of its history. There are many human/animal encounters including but they are news, not encyclopedia articles. The reason the zoo has an armed incident response that is not the police is a direct result of previous zoos having these encounters. --DHeyward (talk) 05:46, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Those voting "Keep" here who then qualify that vote with "there should maybe be an article on the incident instead" should obviously be voting "Delete"! The format being employed at the moment documents a creature which is no more notable than any other of its species, save for its notoriety or victimisation (whichever opinion you hold) during this one incident. The story could indeed be told in an event article - so Delete this one. Ref ^(chew)(do) 06:00, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Really? You think it's obvious that "Rename the article" is the same exact thing as "Delete the article"? Really? That's an interesting definition of "obvious". Joseph A. Spadaro (talk)

Renaming is NOT deletion. Renaming is a page move, leaving a redirect behind, with all history intact. Even if we wanted there to be no redirect, there's an administrative move that does not require deletion, nor the deletion process. A rename !vote is not a delete !vote. Fieari (talk) 07:09, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Renaming is also not recreating. I voted to delete, because I've seen similar victim AfDs end in consensus that the event was the notable thing, and result in a mere retitling. The lead, infobox, structure and categories stayed in biography form (at least one was later fixed). Speaking only for my own vote, I wanted a fresh build. An edit history is part of the total package, and a notable event's shouldn't contain a non-notable bio remnant, but start from its own beginning. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:12, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or Weak rename - The subject is clearly notable, as shown by extensive news coverage. I'm somewhat sympathetic to the idea of moving the page to "Death of Harambe", but I'm on the fence there due to WP:COMMONNAME. What would people be searching for? Harambe. Furthermore, when searching for more information about the death of harambe, they're necessarily going to want to know more about the gorilla itself. I understand that Harambe wasn't notable until after death, but after death, I would think the entire gorilla became notable, simply due to the sheer volume of news coverage involved. I would prefer to simply Keep, but if consensus goes the other way, I wouldn't object to renaming the page. I strongly object to deletion. Fieari (talk) 07:09, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to something along the lines of 2016 Cincinnati Zoo Gorilla incident or Death of Harambee the Gorilla, much as we already have a page called Death of Cecil the lion.--Bellerophon5685 (talk) 07:38, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per precedents with Binti Jua and Marius (giraffe), where there has been no need to rename the articles as "Death of....". The incident, and the controversy over the shooting of the gorilla, have drawn international attention and are notable. Ghmyrtle (talk) 10:51, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Salvidrim. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 12:16, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge- Prominent news event whose history should be kept in tact, with a redirect to Cincinnati Zoo and Botanical Garden. --Jax 0677 (talk) 14:01, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - As per precedence of Marius (giraffe). Masterknighted (talk) 16:29, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The controversy surrounding the gorilla's death has received extensive media coverage and highlights on the topics of animal abuse and killings of endangered species (like Cecil the lion). CloudKade11 (talk) 19:04, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The controversy also surrounds allegedly negligent parenting, itself a hot-button topic, and allegedly negligent zookeeping (not so hot, but a thing). This is outside the scope of a gorilla's biography. InedibleHulk (talk) 20:34, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There has been virtually no coverage on the life of this particular gorilla or its significance other than being shot. We have articles on lowland gorillas. We have articles on zoos. This news cycle incident is covered in the article on the zoo. There is no reason that the gorilla or the boy should have a biographical entry because of this one incidence. Nor should we create articles about any other gorillas that occupy that same enclosure. There is no notability conferred to the subject of the article simply because they died. Flip it around and if the gorilla lived and boy died, we would not create a bio on the boy - it would be an event in the history of the zoo. See San Francisco Zoo tiger attacks for the reason why the zoo had and armed response team (instead of police) and the lack of individual biographies for both the dead and living. --DHeyward (talk) 22:11, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or Draftify The article has gotten heavy coverage in the present, but it is too soon to say whether the death of Harambe will have lasting impact or if this will just end up being a notnews-grade event. I think the odds of this article eventually meeting notability requirements are quite high, but this is obviously not justification for a long-standing keep. Given these facts, I would recommend closing the article as keep per WP:RAPID and then re-nominate it in a few weeks if notability has not been determined, or moving it into draft space and only moving it back into article space if and when notability is proven. I would prefer keeping per WP:RAPID, since there is a lot that can be said about the gorilla that is source-able to reliable sources, and because there are a lot of people searching for Harambe (the Cincinnati Zoo page normally had a little under a hundred views per day, but exploded to several thousand a day after the indicdent, indicating that a lot of people are searching for information on the gorilla and that it would be more helpful for our readers to keep the information in article space at present [46]). Spirit of Eagle (talk) 20:21, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Cincinnati Zoo article per WP:VICTIM. OnionRing (talk) 07:34, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - there's nothing really to merge and renaming does nothing since it's basically the same as the current section in the zoo article. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 16:02, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Killing of Harambe the gorilla which is exactly what happened in Killing of Cecil the Lion when it was originally called Cecil (lion) (see the RM Talk:Killing_of_Cecil_the_lion#Requested_move_14_October_2015). Per the close there by User:Mike Cline, the title is based on notability; in this case the killing of Harambe is what makes him most notable, as evident by the sourcing. -- GreenC 16:25, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Precedent of Jambo. Accompanying debate and public interest surrounding article's subject and his death. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.78.22.147 (talk) 20:17, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@172.78.22.147: Jambo was notable for what he did in his life, not the manner of his death. Elisfkc (talk) 21:24, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ - Jambo sets a precedent. Harambe alone is notable for the public reaction and debate surrounding his death. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.78.22.147 (talk) 14:42, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: The above comment was left on the Talk:Harambe page. So, I moved it here. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 04:54, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Duplicate !vote struck but rest of comment unstruck. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 12:43, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and consider rename the gorilla and his actions preceding his death are definitely notable, with a massive amount of reliably sourced media coverage. You could certainly rename it to "Harambe incident" or "Harambe shooting" or similar, would be all for discussing that, but until then keeping it at the gorilla's name makes sense. Ranze (talk) 21:41, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I think there are precedents that justify the entry.Mistico (talk) 22:44, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - with a strong recommendation to rename to Killing of Harambe the gorilla. Harambe in his own right is unlikely to meet GNG standards on his own, otherwise there would have been a high probability we would have already had an article on him. The killing event however is likely to meet GNG standards well beyond the immediacy of the current event. --Mike Cline (talk) 12:59, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Cincinnati Zoo and Botanical Garden, rename to Killing of Harambe the gorilla or something similar or delete in that order all per nom, User:DHeyward and User:InedibleHulk. I do not agree that the edit history needs to be eliminated but the current title/situation is not encyclopedic and violates numerous policies and guidelines as noted above. Start with WP:NOTNEWSPAPER ("most newsworthy events do not qualify for inclusion") — AjaxSmack 16:26, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Death of Harambe or Killing of Harambe. Such an article would rightly include fallout from his death, which seems to be notable (remains to be seen). Star Garnet (talk) 04:23, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but does need renaming. Whichever way this article is renamed should also apply to Marius (giraffe) for consistency. DrChrissy ^(talk) 16:03, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Call for comments on a related page Could interested editors please take a look at Talk:List of animals culled in zoos. There is discussion there on the overall scope of the article, but this came about because of different interpretations of whether Harambe was euthanised/killed/culled. Input would be welcome. DrChrissy ^(talk) 16:08, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to a section in Cincinnati Zoo, for all the reasons User:Salvidrim lays out, especially WP:ONEEVENT, but also, as someone says above, this is not Balto the Sled Dog; the gorilla is known only for its ambiguous reactions to a random and unusual event. It is analogous to keeping a bio of an individual known only for having been in the wrong place at the wrong time when a freak event happened. You have to be struck by lightening 7 times to rate a WP article Roy Sullivan - tongue slightly in cheek on that example, but look at Lightning strike and notice how few such article we have. We have a List of fatal alligator attacks in the United States by decade, not numbers of such articles. I am bringing these despite WP:OTHERSTUFF in an honest exploration of what our WP:ONEEVENT standards are, and because I am exploring the justifications for keeping this.E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:50, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A redirect also addresses WP:UNDUE and ongoing issues this page may have with WP:POV.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:19, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closing administrator We might want to let this one run another couple of weeks, as per WP:RAPID, both to allow emotions to cool and to see how long the press attention continues, although in this case it may be extended by the advent of the silly season.E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:50, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Rename, to reflect the whole event, rather than just the gorilla. True, the animal was not notable in life, but the event itself is notable and has been a perpetual topic of discussion on multiple fronts. Regardless of whether or not the name change is implemented, I believe it is imperative that the article is not deleted, as it has already made an impact. DARTHBOTTO_talk•cont 20:55, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not merely not a policy-based argument, this argument promotes the use of wikipedia as a WP:SOAPBOX.E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:28, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't exactly see it as being applicable to WP:SOAPBOX, as it's not exactly an opinion so much as a fact that it's had an impact on the culture, at least of 2016. I know, gorillas and all manner of creatures die in the animal kingdom by human hands all the time, but for some honestly hypocritical reason, this one is a subject of debate. I personally could care less about the gorilla incident, but I won't deny that it has made its mark, like Kim Davis. DARTHBOTTO_talk•cont 22:14, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Cincinnati_Zoo_and_Botanical_Garden where there is already a section on the killing of Harambe, which is largely duplicates the separate article. This incident is as much about zoo policy as about Harambe as an individual. Sentience (talk) 05:10, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - we have an article on Donald Trump...--Ste moc 05:46, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You're joking and will post a valid argument soon, right? DARTHBOTTO_talk•cont 10:14, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

would it matter? silverback gorilla lives matter too...its not like it a common species, its endangered..has they used a tranq gun instead of shooting it dead, we would not be here in the first place, there would not be an article, no uproar, the child will be safe, the gorilla would have recovered and gone back to doing nothing at all....--Ste moc 10:40, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I can at least agree that this subject matter should have an article. Yeah, I wanted to hear your thoughts as I didn't want to see your input salted. DARTHBOTTO_talk•cont 11:02, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, and possibly rename. Harambe's death has certainly changed public debate in the U.S. about zoos and it's already pretty clear that the story has legs. Just today there is a new editorial in NYT Do Gorillas Even Belong in Zoos? Harambe’s Death Spurs Debate. Nsk92 (talk) 13:23, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That's a good source. Like Cecil and big-game hunting, the death transcends the animal into larger social questions. It supports both keeping the article, and renaming it to "killing of.." since it was the death that gained notoriety ie. "Death Spurs Debate" (NYT headline). -- GreenC 23:47, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Meets GNG. Covered nationally US and internationally in multiple countries. Covered extensively by radio, TV, and newspapers. Renaming to "Killing of Harambe" re animal right issue seems appropriate. Thor Dockweiler (talk) 04:32, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Cincinnati Zoo and Botanical Garden#2016 gorilla shooting incident, this article offers nothing that isn't already there.LM2000 (talk) 05:14, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rename to "Killing of Harambe" (1st choice) or redirect to Cincinnati Zoo and Botanical Garden#2016 gorilla shooting incident (2nd choice). The gorilla was not notable in life, and the killing was the only thing that gave the animal any coverage; the article's current state pretty much reflects this. That being said, the killing itself has generated a (imo) grossly disproportionate amount of media attention, which ensures solid notability. If there is significant expansion to be done beyond what's already at the Cincinnati Zoo and Botanical Garden article, then the article should be renamed appropriately. GAB^gab 14:03, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect instead as it's clearly best connected to the event and is therefore not at all likely to have anything to suggest its own article otherwise. SwisterTwister talk 00:39, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Cincinnati Zoo and Botanical Garden#2016 gorilla shooting incident, where this subject is already adequately described. Regards, Yamaguchi先生 (talk) 01:36, 10 June 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) 16:44, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ki'won T. Bates Jr.

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

Checking sources for BLP problems, I found that little checks out in this biography of an alleged Oakland Raiders player. No claim of playing a game to establish WP:NGRIDIRON notability. No reliable source evidence this player ever signed with the Raiders. (Supplied reference failed verification.) Only coverage appears to be a blog listing of top small school prospects and routine track and field results. • Gene93k (talk) 00:58, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:59, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:59, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Minnesota-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:59, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete assume this is a living individual so we have WP:BIO to consider. I see no sources to consider for notability. Wikipedia does not exist to provide a free promotional page for individuals trying to break into the NFL.--Paul McDonald (talk) 15:04, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. My searches reveal no significant coverage in reliable, independent sources. Accordingly, the subject does not qualify under WP:GNG. Further, he has not played in a pro game and therefore does not pass WP:NGRIDIRON. Cbl62 (talk) 17:01, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable per Cbl62.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 19:59, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Jweiss11 (talk) 03:43, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
SNOW Delete as by far nothing at all convincing for the applicable notability. SwisterTwister talk 02:12, 9 June 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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 16:41, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Madeenathul Uloom Arabic College

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

~~Advertising, marketing or public relations •~~ Arts Rescuer 09:11, 18 May 2016 (UTC) — ArtsRescuer (talk • contribs) is a confirmed sock puppet of Shafinusri (talk • contribs). [reply]

Struck content from confirmed sock above, per WP:SOCKSTRIKE. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:53, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 15:05, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:11, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to University of Calicut, of which it is affiliated. Bearian (talk) 19:24, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Appears to be a degree-awarding institution and is affiliated to a recognised university. Just because an Indian college is affiliated to a university doesn't mean it's part of it - such institutions are independent, separate, and usually given their own articles. Not advertising in any way. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:30, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, st170e^talk 01:35, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 15:49, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, st170e^talk 00:25, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES. VMS Mosaic (talk) 23:52, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as the degrees are enough, even if this article could certainly use better information. SwisterTwister talk 02:14, 9 June 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.