Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2016 May 4

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 3 May	5 May >

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 redirect to Transformers (toy line). This is basically the same discussion as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Transmetals, and therefore the outcome is the same, with the difference that the one "keep" opinion is now also something of a personal attack. Sandstein 17:54, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

List of Maximals

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

This is an overly specific listing of characters based on a single character trait. The primary series in which they appear already has four character lists able to cover them in enough detail, List of Beast Wars characters, List of Beast Wars and Beast Machines characters, List of Beast Wars II: Super Life-Form Transformers characters, and List of Beast Wars Neo characters, so this listing is also redundant. TTN (talk) 23:17, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 23:17, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep, speedy close. No good faith reason advanced for deletion. The question of which list these entries should be included on is purely a content decision, and has nothing to do with the deletion process. The nom is simply forum shopping to enforce their contrary-to-policy belief that an encyclopedia should not cover subjects related to popular culture, and is engaging in disruptive performance art. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by administrators since 2006. (talk) 12:05, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've sort of made it a point not to bother engaging with you, but what is up with this "contrary-to-policy belief that an encyclopedia should not cover subjects related to popular culture" nonsense? You're just making things up for no particular reason. I just don't think a media franchise needs hundreds of Wikia-based fancruft character articles. This franchise will obviously have a dozen or so notable characters, but 90% of it is just junk. And the assertion that this doesn't fall into normal deletion practices is also nonsense seeing as not one AfD you've spammed has been closed for such a reason. TTN (talk) 16:24, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

HW: Whatever your history with TTN, there do seem to be some good-faith arguments for deletion in the nomination. If you disagree with deleting this article, so be it: please state your case. That said, I don't think a speedy close would be appropriate. Josh Milburn (talk) 16:53, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, bullshit. Nothing in the nomination statement has any relevance to actual deletion policy. That's quite clear; the statement is explicit that the dispute is simply over which list the entries belong on -- and there's certainly no basis for the implicit argument that items belong on one and only one list. Let's not forget that TTN was topic banned for similar disruptive behavior in a closely related topic area, and that their last round of deletion tagging included such loopy claims as that there wasn't enough critical study of George Orwell to sustain articles on his characters. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by administrators since 2006. (talk) 17:45, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Are you really still on about the Animal Farm characters? I and several other people in that merge discussion held the opinion that the characters are simply part of the larger discussion that is the topic of "symbolism in Animal Farm" and that individually the characters hold little merit outside of that. I do plan on another merge discussion for that eventually, so I'll leave the irrelevant tangent at that. TTN (talk) 17:57, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

HW: There's a legitimate question about whether something is an "overly specific listing" (we'd delete "List of chain restaurants which serve steak and kidney pudding") and about whether lists are redundant to others (we might delete/merge/redirect a very specific list if we already have a well-functioning higher-level list). You might disagree with TTN about the extent to which his/her arguments are good ones in this particular case, but to claim that there are no arguments is disingenuous. Josh Milburn (talk) 18:56, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect at best, still best connected to the series. SwisterTwister talk 21:43, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect/merge, the nominator's rationale is perfectly valid. No evidence of independent notability, thus failing not only WP:GNG but also WP:NOTINHERITED. Satellizer el Bridget ^(Talk) 22:39, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Transformers. The one "keep" opinion does not address the reason advanced for deletion, i.e., lack of notability (which we define as substantial coverage in reliable sources); in particular, it does not argue that appropriate sources exist. Sandstein 17:45, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Transmetals

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

This is a collection of fictional details and toy listings that fails to establish notability as a whole. The references only serve to reinforce those trivial details. TTN (talk) 23:04, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 23:05, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep. No reason advanced for deletion, disruptive intent. The nomination statement boils down to an assertion that topics related to popular fiction/media should not be covered by an encyclopedia, which is simply defiance of policy and guidelines. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by administrators since 2006. (talk) 12:07, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- The claim that the article "fails to establish notability as a whole" is clearly a reason advanced for deletion. The rationale certainly does not "[boil] down to an assertion that topics related to popular fiction/media should not be covered by an encyclopedia". Your demand that this be speedy-kept is inappropriate. Josh Milburn (talk) 16:56, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - No, you're completely off base. First of all, the comment you quote is just another way of saying "just not notable", not a policy- or guideline-based argument. Second, saying "the article fails to establish" is contrary to a basic principle of deletion policy: the legitimate question is whether the subject is notable, not whether the article is well written enough. We have a great many articles on notable subjects that don't do an adequate job of stating why the subjects are notable, but WP:BEFORE, incorporated into deletion policy, makes clear that that alone isn't a sufficient basis for deletion. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by administrators since 2006. (talk) 17:53, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    - "First of all, the comment you quote is just another way of saying 'just not notable', not a policy- or guideline-based argument". I'm sorry to break it to you, but Wikipedia:Notability is a guideline. Saying that something isn't notable is a guideline-based argument for deletion- it's a good argument for deletion in some cases, and a very bad one in others. If something isn't notable, what more do you want? You can't prove a negative. "[T]he legitimate question is whether the subject is notable, not whether the article is well written enough". Agreed, so if you have evidence that the subject is notable, please provide it. If you don't, why are you so keen to see this article kept? Josh Milburn (talk) 19:02, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect at best for now, still best connected to that, still questionable for own article. SwisterTwister talk 21:43, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect/merge, the nominator's rationale is perfectly valid. No evidence of independent notability, thus failing not only WP:GNG but also WP:NOTINHERITED. Satellizer el Bridget ^(Talk) 22:39, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 11:02, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Philippe Maidenberg

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

Non-notable architect with a mostly promotional tone article with few independent sources. Attempt was made to trim the promo tone and add a couple independent sources but article creator and an IP are trying to re-insert unsourced info and put back all promo text. too many primary sources. Does not pass WP:GNG Fouetté rond de jambe en tournant (talk) 20:39, 4 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 4. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 22:41, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Very little evidence of notability. The references are: a directory listing, his own web site, a brief mention, an interview with him, tripadvisor. I don't consider any of these acceptable. Maproom (talk) 17:34, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 17:45, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 17:45, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as the current article is still questionable for the applicable notability, nothing at all convincing at this time to come close for that. SwisterTwister talk 21:44, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 11:02, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Eric Leva

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

Outside of the single Boston Globe article, could not find another in-depth reference regarding this particular person named Eric Leva. Checked News, Newspapers, Books, Scholar and Highbeam. Currently the Globe article is also the only in-depth RS in the article. Sound of Boston is a blog, the others are Linked-In and YouTube. There is a cite from ASCAP, showing he won that award, but it is a simple listing. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 22:39, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is not notable. Google news search comes up with nothing besides globe article. ThePlatypusofDoom (Talk) 00:05, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails GNG CerealKillerYum (talk) 03:53, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 08:39, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as searches found nothing better, nothing else convincing here. SwisterTwister talk 21:46, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 11:02, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Luxborough Tower

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

Non-notable residential high-rise building. As there are so many of these building, I can't see how this is special enough to warrant it's own article. Donnie Park (talk) 22:38, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

- Delete - Yeah, get rid of it. Crookesmoor (talk) 09:16, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 17:46, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 17:46, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Ueutyi (talk) 20:22, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as I'm simply not finding anything better. SwisterTwister talk 21:47, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. per SK1 - No valid reason has been presented for deletion. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 23:54, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jeremy_Hoad

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

Hopefully this is the correct procedure. I don't believe this article is sufficiently noteworthy. I guess it should be assessed for retention on that basis. Extrememedium (talk) 22:23, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy Deleted (A7, G11) by DGG. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 21:41, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Insurance Council of Texas

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

Does not meet WP:GNG or WP:NORG. ubiquity (talk) 22:25, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. ubiquity (talk) 17:12, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. ubiquity (talk) 17:12, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Insurance Council of Texas strongly desires to have a presence on Wikipedia so that people, companies, insurance consumers and other members of the public who are searching for information about the Insurance Council of Texas are able to find that information about the organization. ICT has a long history in Texas and is a regularly and often trusted resource of industry information for media outlets and insurance companies across the state. Mattstill (talk) 16:49, 5 May 2016 (UTC)Mattstill[reply]

Unfortunately, this is not what Wikipedia is for.

To have a wikipedia article, the subject must receive significant coverage in reliable, independent sources to demonstrate its notability. The single reference on this page does not so this. ubiquity (talk) 17:08, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Below are just a sampling of the significant coverage in reliable, independent sources that reference the Insurance Council of Texas, just over the last few days: http://www.austinchronicle.com/news/2016-05-06/pits-end/ http://www.yourhoustonnews.com/pearland/living/may-is-the-peak-of-tornado-season/article_2d86f90e-1f54-53d6-9dc3-b9f85e4b9ee3.html http://www.insurancejournal.com/news/southcentral/2016/05/05/407446.htm http://www.insuranceinsider.com/us-storms-lead-to-costliest-april-for-insurers-since-2011 http://www.cnbc.com/2016/04/22/autonation-ceo-biblical-hail-pounded-profits.html http://www.brownsvilleherald.com/news/texas/article_ad768bbb-a3da-56bb-996d-9655d7a37787.html http://www.mysanantonio.com/business/local/article/San-Antonio-hail-storm-1-4-billion-in-losses-7269460.php

I could post dozens more references from reliable, independent sources showing the notability of the Insurance Council of Texas. Please let me know if I should continue. Mattstill (talk) 13:56, 6 May 2016 (UTC)Mattstill[reply]

If you have references demonstrating the notability of the subject, why not make them part of the article, where it will do some good? That said, I took a look at the references you listed, and here are my comments:

http://www.austinchronicle.com/news/2016-05-06/pits-end/ — About pit bulls, not the council. has a quote from Mark Hanna, the council PR manager. this does not establish notability.
http://www.yourhoustonnews.com/pearland/living/may-is-the-peak-of-tornado-season/article_2d86f90e-1f54-53d6-9dc3-b9f85e4b9ee3.html — about tornado season. has a quote from Mark. this does not establish notability.
http://www.insurancejournal.com/news/southcentral/2016/05/05/407446.htm — trade journal article about ICT's scholarship program. looks like a press release. doesn't really say much about ICT.
http://www.insuranceinsider.com/us-storms-lead-to-costliest-april-for-insurers-since-2011 — about storm season. Has a quote from ICT. this does not establish notability.
http://www.cnbc.com/2016/04/22/autonation-ceo-biblical-hail-pounded-profits.html — hail storms. quote from ICT. does not establish notability.
http://www.brownsvilleherald.com/news/texas/article_ad768bbb-a3da-56bb-996d-9655d7a37787.html — flooding. quote from ICT. does not establish notability.
http://www.mysanantonio.com/business/local/article/San-Antonio-hail-storm-1-4-billion-in-losses-7269460.php — hail storms. quote from ICT. does not establish notability.

I get it. ICT does their job. When people want info about the insurance industry in Texas, they call ICT. This does not make ICT notable. There are hundreds of thousands of organizations that do their job. They do not necessarily deserve wikipedia articles for this. Do you have any reliable, independent coverage which is actually about ICT? This is what you need to show notability. ubiquity (talk) 14:26, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Here is an article in a trade journal about ICT honoring its former director http://www.insurangle.com/insurance-council-of-texas-honors-gentry-with-raymond-mauk-award-2.html Here is an article from the University of North Texas about ICT and the Education Foundation ICT operates https://www.cob.unt.edu/news/view.php?/2015/12/15/insurance-council-of-texas-(ict)-education-foundation-awards-unt-students-14-000-fall-2015 Here is an article from a national insurance group (which is similar in function and notability to ICT and has its own Wikipedia page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Insurance_Information_Institute) about the annual symposium ICT produces http://www.iii.org/presentation/overview-and-outlook-for-the-p-c-insurance-industry-focus-on-texas-markets-070915 Here is an article in a trade journal describing a resource ICT provides http://www.insurancejournal.com/news/southcentral/2010/05/17/109908.htm

If the above links establish notability to your satisfaction, I'm happy to edit the Wikipedia page with them as references. I can also provide additional references that show ICT's notability, these are just the ones I found in the last 5 minutes.

The American Insurance Association is similar in scope, function and notability as the Insurance Council of Texas. Their wiki page is here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Insurance_Association The National Association of Mutual Insurance Companies is also similar in scope, function and notability as the Insurance Council of Texas. Their wiki page is here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Association_of_Mutual_Insurance_Companies

If you're holding the Insurance Council of Texas to a notability standard, it needs to be consistently applied to other similar groups like the ones referenced above. The pages for these groups have little notability justifications in their references, although I can certainly argue for each of the group's notability and importance. Mattstill (talk) 15:56, 6 May 2016 (UTC)Mattstill[reply]

I totally agree. I have proposed American Insurance Association and National Association of Mutual Insurance Companies for deletion. Please let me know of any other articles you may see that do not meet Wikipedia notability standards. ubiquity (talk) 18:51, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - unlike the national American Insurance Association, this is for a single, albeit large, state. Random quotes from Institute employees does not mean the organization itself is notable. Unless there are several in-depth stories in national and reliable sources, I don't think this passes our notability standards. We are also a private not-for-profit, and our Foundation does not exist to give away free bandwidth to other organizations. Quite frankly, there are lots of crappy articles at Wikipedia that we need to cull. Bearian (talk) 18:22, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 11:02, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Rae Dylan

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

Three articles were created at the same time (this one and two others about their app (identical, with differently spelled names). Most of the sources here are about the app and this fails WP:BIO in my view, so I consolidated all three articles into one at DTOX. The subject reached out through OTRS to have the article restored. AFD is a stronger process than my BOLD decision to redirect so I've restored this article and nominated. Fails WP:BIO, created for promotional purposes. Jytdog (talk) 18:59, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Only one source in the article seriously mentions her, and even then it's mostly her talking about the product. Google turns up nothing further that's of any use. It isn't clear to me that the app is notable either. —Largo Plazo (talk) 19:27, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per failure of WP:GNG and WP:BIO. The only two relevant results for Rae Dylan that I could find are a Consumer Affairs article about the DTOX app from 2013, and an article in the Bridgeport News from the same year (which is also more about the app than it is about Dylan). While the DTOX article may just make notability (though I'm not too confident it would), this article certainly does not; thus, deletion seems most appropriate. Colonel Wilhelm Klink (^Complaints|_Mistakes) 20:14, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as not convincing for independent notability at this time. SwisterTwister talk 22:10, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 11:02, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Moncho's Golf Cart Rentals

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

Does not appear to meet the corporate notability criteria. Coverage is sparse; there are a few hits from the San Pedro Sun, but that is a local newspaper that doesn't meet the WP:AUD requirement. There are also some quick references to Moncho's in tourists' guides, and some reviews on sites like Tripadvisor and Yelp. However, the former do not offer significant, in-depth coverage, and the latter are not reliable, independent sources. /wiae /tlk 18:26, 4 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 4. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 18:41, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 20:54, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Belize-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 20:54, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete basically per nom, the only significant third-party reliable coverage seems to be the San Pedro Sun articles and they don't pass WP:AUD because the publication is a local paper (San Pedro Town has a population of ~13,000). Hut 8.5 21:32, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Golf-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:19, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nothing at all for the necessary notability, I myself tagged this and I planned to also tag for deletion. SwisterTwister talk 22:34, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Iranian peoples#Eastern Iranian peoples. czar 14:53, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Eastern Iranian peoples

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

This article is a WP:CFORK of Iranian peoples and List of ancient Iranian peoples. It does not provide any new content. Instead of this redundant/unnecessary article, page creator and other involved editors can improve the two main articles. Zyma (talk) 13:26, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor ^Talk! 13:37, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 13:46, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article is stub, but the issue is notable. Therefor, it should be completed instead of being deleted.--Seyyed(t-c) 01:41, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's just content forking. Article creator extracted the names of some ethnic groups from Iranian peoples and List of ancient Iranian peoples, and created a smaller version/list. Both Iranian peoples and List of ancient Iranian peoples need improvements. So it's pointless to have forks, similar and stub articles. --Zyma (talk) 03:39, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:06, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:06, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ Redirect to Iranian peoples#Eastern Iranian peoples - EDIT: redirect, not delete, is correct per PWilkinson's argument. I maintain it's a content fork and would need significant work with WP:RS to demonstrate its specific value as a separate article; I'm not sure even what kind of content it would have other than being a list, there is no coherent category here other than "these ethnic groups speak related languages". Ogress 16:25, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Iranian peoples#Eastern Iranian peoples, without prejudice against creation of a more substantial article on the topic. WP:CFORK is usually a reason for an alternative to deletion rather than deletion, and this is not one of the exceptions. While there is no content currently here that needs to be merged to Iranian peoples, there should certainly be at least a redirect - and looking at the current state and history of this article, the nominator should simply have redirected this BOLDly rather than coming here. But beyond that, Iranian peoples is long enough that a WP:SPINOFF article at this title is fully justifiable, should anyone be prepared to create it. PWilkinson (talk) 18:29, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 18:38, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. -- Ed (Edgar181) 17:45, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

WASP-22b

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

Not notable, dead end, meaningless stub. Just another sub-Jovian planet whose only claim to fame is to exist. Lithopsian (talk) 20:06, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Very Weak keep. Has received significant, non-trivial coverage in at least one journal, and probably in two (without reading the second I'm not certain, although it looks like it's one of the two subjects of the paper so would receive significant coverage). This barely brings it up to WP:NASTCRIT and WP:GNG. There's all the normal database stuff too, to get some more content in the article. — crh ₂₃ (Talk) 20:36, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have now added the infobox. — crh ₂₃ (Talk) 21:08, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: while it did receive significant coverage in two papers (see above), the author lists have a huge overlap so I do not think it qualifies as separate sources. That is quite a debatable view, and one could argue that two editors accepted it so it is after all independent publications. I prepared to !vote "weak delete" but checking WP:NASTCRIT more closely I found For the purposes of this guideline, "independent" means independent of the scientist or scientists who discovered the object (...) - which makes it a clear-cut case, it seems. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 16:21, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:50, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Astronomy-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:50, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:26, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

~~Weak~~ Keep, WASP-22b is known transiting "hot Jupiter" planet in a hierarchical triple system. Has received little attention (1, 2, 3, 4). Davidbuddy9 Talk 21:10, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The article itself can most certainly be expanded, it can be made less "stuby". Davidbuddy9 Talk 21:36, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 18:38, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: besides the two papers specifically about this object, it is mentioned in 21 peer-reviewed papers [1], including one review article. In most of these articles it is part of a list or table, but these are not excessively long lists or tables. Given that a number of aspects of this planetary system seem interesting to the research community, a stand-alone article in Wikipedia does not seem unreasonable. OtterAM (talk) 20:22, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 11:02, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Index of medicine articles

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

Serves no purpose, other articles already exist with this purpose Carl Fredik 💌 📧 21:56, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Which articles specifically? postdlf (talk) 14:41, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
A really interesting proposal. Delete I vote to remove this enourmous time sink that provides no benefit to readers by virtue of being constantly out of date. We have at least 30,000 articles (plus anatomy, physiology, medicine) that can all be put here. What use is there maintaining this huge list? It could, in addition, be automated thus saving thousands of wo/man hours and providing a still equally useless (but temporally present) resource. I fear though there may be some superarching policy or group relating to index articles that may stymy this proposal. --Tom (LT) (talk) 00:30, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@LT910001: I think you mean this guideline and Wikipedia:Stand-alone lists#Specialized list articles. That said, according to the entries at Portal:Contents/Indices#Health and fitness, this page should actually be called Index of medicine-related articles - HyperGaruda (talk) 12:17, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Category_talk:Indexes_of_topics is full of people who say "indexes are useless and duplicate categories" while others says "it is useful for navigational purposes, even for non-editors". The former camp sounds more convincing to me, but I could not see any community consensus on the subject, and an AfD is certainly not the good way to bring it.

If I was forced to !vote I would apply WP:SAL and this means an immediate delete (unmaintainable list, impossible to be exhaustive or to pick which ones to include), but (as pointed out in the link above) applying a content guideline to a navigation article makes little sense. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 14:34, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:12, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 18:37, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

We shouldn't confuse the deletion of this specific index with any debate concerning other indexes, even though they are arguably worthless and there is a discussion to be had there as well. This index has a number of qualities that make it entirely pointless beyond that of ordinary indexes — it is:

Not maintained — it simply includes a tiny number of possible links, arbitrarily chosen
Covers too broad a topic — even linking 1% of already existing relevant articles would cause it to be unmanageably large. I will not load properly in an ordinary browser.

Thus it serves no purpose whatsoever — not in any even hypothetical use-case. It should be absolutely evident that it should be deleted at once. Carl Fredik 💌 📧 10:28, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

For this one I would say delete and start over. In its current state it fails to fulfill its purpose. I do wonder though what the development history is concerning indexes and categories. From a look at some random index and category pages, it looks as if indexes are a relic from the days before categories were introduced, but I'm not sure. I think that index pages in general need an RfC, to see what value indexes have over categories (and lists). - HyperGaruda (talk) 08:12, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete at best for now, imaginably acceptable but I suggest a larger article at best next time. SwisterTwister talk 22:11, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:SALAT (too broad in scope) DeVerm (talk) 21:53, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 19:10, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sam Corne

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

Proposed deletion tag removed by creator without explanation. Concern was "Article concerns a young footballer who fails the sport-specific notability guideline because he has not played in a fully professional league or at senior international level. He doesn't seem to have received enough significant coverage in independent reliable sources to pass the general notability guideline." This remains the case. Struway2 (talk) 18:33, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Struway2 (talk) 18:34, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 20:19, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - He has not played in a fully pro league or received significant coverage, meaning the article fails WP:NSPORT and WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik (talk) 21:17, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails NFOOTY as has not played senior international football nor played in a fully professional league. No indication that subject has garnered significant reliable coverage for any other achievements to satisfy GNG. Fenix down (talk) 07:36, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as not convincing for independent notability. SwisterTwister talk 22:12, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Subject of article is still young and might meet notability in the future, but not for the time being. Inter&anthro (talk) 14:34, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 11:02, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jafari Tabar

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

No real claim of significance is made other than the claims near the end involving memorizing and reciting the Qur'an and it's not really clear why that is important. The sources all seem to be related to his death sentence, which may be important enough for an article (it seems to have received some media attention), but this aspect isn't even discussed in the article, and what is in the article is as far as I can tell, not covered in the sources (though I will admit I was unable to translate many of the sources). Discant X 01:19, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete nothing to suggest he is a notable scholar or academic.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:01, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep How can the nom evaluate the article if he can't read most of the sources? It should be given the benefit of the doubt on notability. Philafrenzy (talk) 09:04, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- That's why I brought it here rather than a simple speedy. There seems to be a claim of notability, in which case it should be brought in front of the community. But in that case, we need to decide in what way is he notable? Is he notable because of his apparent (possibly unsourced) claims to an extensive knowledge of the Quran? Or is it because of what most of the sources seem to cite, that he was executed? Or is he simply not notable enough for an article? Whatever the decision, my hope was that both a second set of eyes would see it and help decide, and that maybe someone here could help translate the sources. While we most definitely do allow non-English sources, it's still up to us to do our damndest to decipher them. Discant X 09:52, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

My concern with articles like this is that because they don't look how we would like them to look, follow our ideal layout, use the language sources that would make our life easier etc., they are treated as less credible when there is actually something important there. He is a religious figure who has been sentenced to death (and his wife too) about whom a lot of people have written it seems. I would prefer to wait until someone with strong English-Arabic skills comes along. Philafrenzy (talk) 10:21, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm fine with keeping the article so long as notability can be established. As I said though, notability is not clear, and so it deserves a second look. That said, articles on the English Wikipedia do need to meet certain WP:MOS guidelines. Articles DO need to meet our ideal layout; rather or not it meets a certain philosophy or western way of thinking is another matter, but simple structure and flow are important. These aren't things to consider when considering for deletion, of course, but rather things to consider for later editing of the article if it is kept. Even if the article is kept, it needs a drastic rewrite, and in that case, what are we going to include? Until someone can translate the sources, I don't see this article deserving more than a maybe a paragraph on his execution. Either way, most of the article is unencyclopedic in style and if it does stay, someone needs to rewrite it to pick out the pertinant facts and nothing more. Discant X 10:42, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —SpacemanSpiff 18:01, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. —SpacemanSpiff 18:02, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. —SpacemanSpiff 18:04, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: its German Wikipedia counterpart says that the guy was an ayatollah, so in that regard he may be notable. The article does need a whole lot of cleanup though, but userfying it seems useless as the creator has not edited since the day he/she created the page in 2015. I'll see if I can prune some of the non-encyclopedic stuff in the coming hour. - HyperGaruda (talk) 18:31, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - My Google Chrome had no problem translating the pages. The first one seems to be a Bibliography search and the other is a blog entry. Both are not reliable sources. The searches that I did find had some mention of an Ayatollah but that seems to be a different person. All the rest of the references seem to be calling him a "clergyman". Unfortunately, many people have been executed for their religious beliefs and I don't see this exceeding the notability guide lines for inclusion. - Pmedema (talk) 19:38, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Pmedema, it's worth noting that when I made the nom, that diff had many more sources listed. There may be something more in them, but my Chrome wouldn't translate most so I'm not sure. Discant X 09:16, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No offence was intended and I apologize if I came across as such. - Pmedema (talk) 17:18, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete His father was an ayatollah but notability is not inherited. As for memorizing the Quran, according to List of Hafiz, millions of people have accomplished that goal, so it is not a plausible claim of notability in itself. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 00:33, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. czar 14:55, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jeremy Bracco

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

fails WP:NHOCKEY Joeykai (talk) 02:51, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Appears to be one of a long list of "not yet" prospects. Nothing notable about him for now.18abruce (talk) 16:12, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:11, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 17:49, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 17:52, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NHOCKEY and WP:GNG. -DJSasso (talk) 12:40, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. After being relisted twice with no clear consensus determinable, I am closing as no consensus. (non-admin closure) — Music1201 ^talk 05:00, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Elina Siirala

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

This singer does not appear notable, though she is a member of a notable band, I cannot find any reliable sources confirming her notability in her own right. Recommend delete and redirect to Leaves' Eyes astro (talk) 12:33, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Although it could be borderline in terms of notability my preference would be to keep this as a separate page. This is based on

She has just joined one of the large bands in this genre (I believe the first show was to many thousands in Indonesia) - there will be interest in her background and I think that would not be the focus on the main Leaves' Eyes page but it provides a resource for readers to discover more.

She is a member of EnkElination and although the do not currently meet the guidelines of a notable band they have been featured more then once (live review with picture) in UK magazine Power Play that is widely available in large newsagents. The band has also headlined UK venues including the Camden Underworld and Barfly, they have appeared at festivals and supported larger acts including Leaves Eyes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Willzuk (talk • contribs) 17:09, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That may be true; however, there are hundreds of non-notable bands which may have a mention in some magazine, and thousands of individual artists who have appeared at festivals and supported more notable artists. It seems that she is not notable at this moment but there is a chance she will become notable a few years down the line; as Wikipedia does not have to be complete now, an article can be created for her then. astro (talk) 13:39, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:37, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Finland-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:37, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and Redirect to the band as I found nothing better at all and this is still certainly questionable. SwisterTwister talk 22:54, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Her new band Leaves' Eyes is the headliner on the saturday night on the MFVF festival in Belgium. I joined the discussion because I wanted to find out who she is: Metal_Female_Voices_Fest#2016 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Xzt8h7 (talk • contribs) 18:41, 26 April 2016 (UTC) — Xzt8h7 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:58, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:09, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

My preference would be to keep the article. Yes, a notability line needs to be drawn somewhere, and she's arguably pretty close to falling either side of that line (in her own right, at least). But people will look for information about her on Wikipedia due to her being the frontwoman in a notable band, and I'd suggest giving her the benefit of the doubt and keep the article. She has had plenty of media coverage in her own right before joining Leaves' Eyes, although whether that coverage is in sources that meet Wikipedia's somewhat vague reliability guidelines is less clear. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thargol (talk • contribs) 10:25, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. czar 15:16, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Harsimran Kaur Bed

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

A former junior tennis player. Fails WP:NTENNIS. Prod was removed. Bgwhite (talk) 19:08, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:53, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:53, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as simply none of this, although detailed it is, suggests at least minimally better for the applicable notability. SwisterTwister talk 06:49, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:09, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non-notable tennis player. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:37, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 11:03, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hot Klub

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

Unreferenced. Not notable Rathfelder (talk) 21:47, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm a little torn here, because the club certainly played host to many notable bands, was almost certainly the focal point for the city's alternative music scene at the time, and very likely there are plenty of references in Dallas newspapers of the era, maybe even the occasional mention in a national music magazine. But as the author admits on the talk page, the article was pretty much created from memory as a nostalgia trip, and it's going to be almost impossible to find any RS without having access to a newspaper library, so unfortunately it may well have to be a delete. Richard3120 (talk) 00:54, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:44, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:44, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:44, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as this is familiar territory for me and simply none of this suggests the necessary notability improvements. Even with minimally better, this would still be questionable. SwisterTwister talk 07:26, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:08, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. czar 15:15, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Gary Fay

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

fails WP:NHOCKEY Joeykai (talk) 22:04, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. Rlendog (talk) 15:41, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Rlendog (talk) 18:06, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as none of this suggests the needed solid independent notability. SwisterTwister talk 06:10, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:08, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Seems to fail GNG and definitely fails NHOCKEY. -DJSasso (talk) 12:40, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 11:03, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Russell Hewson

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

fails WP:NHOCKEY Joeykai (talk) 22:12, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as this is still questionable for the needed solid independent notability. SwisterTwister talk 06:15, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:19, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:19, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:19, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't meet WP:NHOCKEY but does seem to have a number of awards that may indicate that coverage satisfying WP:GNG may exist. In particular, I am not sure how significant the Senator Joseph A. Sullivan Trophy is, but every other player who won it, with one exception, seems to have an article, and Hewson apparently won it twice, and he also seems to have been a collegiate first team all-star twice, albeit in Canada rather than the US (where that would satisfy NHOCKEY). Rlendog (talk) 12:56, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:08, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. czar 15:01, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

DJ Strictnine & Paranorm

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

Does not meet WP:MUSICBIO. Tagged with {{notability}} since July 2008. XXN, 10:03, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:43, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as I found nothing better and the current article is not currently convincing. SwisterTwister talk 19:20, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Indiana-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 19:20, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:02, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Philafrenzy (talk) 08:51, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:PERNOM. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:06, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:06, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. czar 14:59, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

List of Vietnamese animated films

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

Unreferenced. Almost all members of this list are not notable. Can't see what use this article is in its current form - and has been like this for 4 years. Time to get rid? Rayman60 (talk) 15:28, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:06, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:06, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:06, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Vietnam-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:06, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Vietnamese animation has eight entries, which often is considered enough for a list, and it's likely there are far more possible entries that merit articles but do not yet have them. Did the nominator just assume that any film without an article was not notable, or was there any research on specific films or the topic of Vietnamese animation generally per WP:BEFORE? postdlf (talk) 17:31, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:07, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:CLN. AfD is not for cleanup. Redlink does not equal non-notable. Further work needs to be done on the list in conjuction with the Film and Animation projects. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 12:18, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:06, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the nominator doesn't advance any case for deletion. Merely being unreferenced is not a reason for deleting something, having no references available is. The nominator doesn't seem to have done any particular research to demonstrate that entries which don't have articles are in fact not notable. The Vietnamese version of this page does have references and a good deal more of the entries have articles, so it is obviously possible to improve it. AfD isn't a mechanism to get that done. Hut 8.5 21:47, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: List assists readers in navigation and comparison. Not all of the entries are redlinks and due to systemic bias, there probably exist many more in the list that are notable. Esquivalience ^t 00:07, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. czar 14:58, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Kola Adedoyin

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

Does not seem to meet Notability (sports) track and field unless I'm missing something in terms of the importance of the events he's competed in Rayman60 (talk) 16:17, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 17:25, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 17:25, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as I'm not convinced this is currently satisfying the necessary notability, noticeably still needs improvements. SwisterTwister talk 22:06, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:07, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Philafrenzy (talk) 08:50, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:PERNOM. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:05, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:06, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I agree, I can't find what makes him notable; yes he is an athlete but he doesn't appear to have won or competed anywhere significant. ツStacey (talk) 21:21, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 11:03, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Indy Reads

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

localprogram with only local impact -- and local references DGG ( talk ) 17:49, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:59, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:59, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Indiana-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:59, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nothing suggesting the necessary improvements and I found nothing better. SwisterTwister talk 21:58, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:09, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:05, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 11:03, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Strickly Business Reloaded

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

Fails WP:Music on all counts Rayman60 (talk) 21:36, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 21:52, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:07, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nothing suggesting its own notable article. SwisterTwister talk 21:52, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:11, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:05, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 11:06, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

PEC Broadcasting Corporation

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

The subject has no assertion of notability. Article was nominated for PROD but the nomination was contested for no reason. Sixth o f March 15:00, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:17, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:17, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:17, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:17, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nothing suggesting the necessary notability improvements and I found nothing better. SwisterTwister talk 05:53, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:00, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:03, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Can't find any reliable sources that could make the subject notable. Delete. 121.54.54.11 (talk) 11:44, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 11:06, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dann Visbal

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

Non-notable musician who fails WP:BIO. Most of the references are either direct links to the music videos for the songs or dead links. References [5], [6], [7] and [15] link to short online promotional interviews of little depth and belonging to non-RS sources. Article creator has only ever edited this article and that of Buraco (band): he/she seems to have suspiciously intimate access to personal details of the individual – date of birth, parents' names, taking piano lessons aged five, receiving a guitar as a Christmas present, etc. – none of which is mentioned anywhere in the sources provided. Also peculiar is the fact that the article is about a person rather than than the band he is a member of – it also finds space to mention that he is the founder and CEO of a promotions company. Richard3120 (talk) 16:01, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as none of this suggests the needed solid notability improvements, article is still questionable overall. SwisterTwister talk 07:10, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 07:11, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Colombia-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 07:11, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:01, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 11:06, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Isa GT

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

Fails WP:BIO as non-notable musician. Three of the four sources link either to her own website or that of the record label she founded, the other links to the web page of her online radio show, so all the sources are effectively WP:SELFPUB. No other reliable sources found online. As a half-Brit, half-Colombian who grew up in London and spent 15 years clubbing there, I can say that she isn't nearly well-known enough even on the London club scene to warrant her own Wikipedia article. Richard3120 (talk) 14:58, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as none of this suggesting better for the needed notability. SwisterTwister talk 04:40, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 04:40, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 04:40, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Colombia-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 04:40, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:01, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 one "keep" opinion is not based on Wikipedia policy or practice, and does not address the reasons given for deletion. Sandstein 17:47, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Guide to Literary Agents

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

Unreferenced. News searches do not suggest that sources exist which talk about this topic in-depth, although there are mentions here and there. I do not think that this book meets the general notability guideline. Tomwsulcer (talk) 13:00, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as none of this suggesting better the needed notability, searches found nothing better. SwisterTwister talk 04:42, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 04:42, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:01, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, of course, it's a known book. I very seldom if ever look at these deletion pages and have been told how so many fine pages are removed daily. This is the only page I've looked at (and is for one day!!???). Do some people delight in removing the work of others (I don't mean the nominator here, but in general)? People like me will keep away, and those who count scalps will continue chopping I suppose. This page though, what could you possibly find non-notable, it's a recognized book probably used by thousands of people. Kryn out. Randy Kryn 20:44, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - hard to see how it satisfies any of the points raised in WP:BK. The thin content suggests that there just isn't much to say about it either. Anything which could be useful (but I'm not seeing what that would be) might be merged to Writer's Digest. JMWt (talk) 21:35, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 19:12, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

David Kanuth

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

No evidence of notability for this political candidate, but that was enough to pass the very weak requirements of A7 . DGG ( talk ) 16:35, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:12, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:13, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:13, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:13, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NPOL, no evidence of other notability to meet WP:GNG AusLondonder (talk) 22:21, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as nothing at all for any applicable notability. SwisterTwister talk 22:28, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-winning candidates for office do not get Wikipedia articles just for being candidates — if you cannot make and properly source a credible claim that they were already eligible for an article for some other reason before becoming a candidate, then they do not become eligible for an article until they win the election. But nothing here demonstrates or sources that at all. And, in fact, he wasn't even the candidate on the general election ballot, but merely in his party's primary — which counts for even less than being a non-winning general election candidate does. Bearcat (talk) 16:27, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 it is too soon for an article on this sequel. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 19:16, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Miruthan 2

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

Film that was previously prodded, film with no info yet that has not started production it appears. And upon looking it up-Miruthan was only released a few months ago, so I doubt this has started then. Wgolf (talk) 16:23, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NFF - it's a planned sequel, but according to this recent source shooting isn't due to begin until July. --McGeddon (talk) 17:20, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@McGeddon: actually that source tells us the film planned to begin shooting in July will not be Mirutha 2, and that he does not expect to begin shoting that sequel for perhaps another two years. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 00:57, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, quite right. Even less reason to keep the article, then. --McGeddon (talk) 08:20, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk) 19:25, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk) 19:25, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

in looking:

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

WP:INDAFD: Miruthan 2 Miruthan sequel

Delete for even though sourcable, this article is far too premature. After deletion, the title can be redirected to Miruthan#Sequel, the one place where it might be spoken of and sourced when not deserving a separate article. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.}
Delete as clearly too soon. SwisterTwister talk 22:22, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 07:24, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Maria Carolina Cruz

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

Non-notable person. Article is an orphan, sources either link to websites like Amazon where you can buy the individual's material, or to dead links. Apart from purely coincidentally having same surname as Daniel Cruz (musician) and sharing the same publishing company and speaking at the same book fair, both articles were created by the same editor and are the editor's only contributions to Wikipedia. Richard3120 (talk) 05:43, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor ^Talk! 15:17, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor ^Talk! 15:17, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor ^Talk! 15:17, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As she is director of the publishing house, these books are self-published. Zero in Worldcat. Although from 2009, the books are out of print and not available on Amazon. I don't find any reviews. LaMona (talk) 00:21, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as nothing for the needed solid notability ad improvements. SwisterTwister talk 22:27, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 11:06, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel Cruz (musician)

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

Non-notable person. Article is an orphan, sources either link to websites like Amazon where you can buy the individual's material, or to dead links. Apart from purely coincidentally having same surname as Maria Carolina Cruz and sharing the same publishing company and speaking at the same book fair, both articles were created by the same editor and are the editor's only contributions to Wikipedia. Richard3120 (talk) 05:44, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Colombia-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor ^Talk! 15:14, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor ^Talk! 15:14, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor ^Talk! 15:14, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor ^Talk! 15:15, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I don't find any sources that would push this over GNG. The one review here is in an online magazine (musicnews.com) that may be crowd-sourced, and the review isn't by-lined. I couldn't find anything else. His one album was recorded on Planet Alice Productions, and since his name is actually Daniel Cruz Moreno, that puts him most likely directly related to Maria Moreno who is the founder of PAP. That then looks like self-publishing. His music is found at Amazon and on Spotify, but that only shows that it exists. LaMona (talk) 00:30, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Evidence that the subject meets WP:GNG has been presented herein. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:21, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Rasmus Andersson

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

fails WP:NHOCKEY Joeykai (talk) 02:55, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I've been able to find significant coverage of him here, here and here, plus less significant coverage such as [2], [3] and [4]. And none of these mention his 2nd team OHL all-star selection, which while not a factor in NHOCKEY may have also generated some coverage. Rlendog (talk) 13:46, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- There is also this which I can't open right now but from the headline appears like it could be relevant coverage. Rlendog (talk) 13:49, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - Finally was able to open it and it doesn't add much. Rlendog (talk) 14:47, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. Rlendog (talk) 15:38, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Rlendog (talk) 18:08, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor ^Talk! 15:12, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as the reliable sources shown above indicate that WP:GNG is passed Atlantic306 (talk) 15:39, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Rlendog, sources show GNG if not NHOCKEY — crh ₂₃ (Talk) 16:45, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 11:06, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

NRGA Act 2012

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

Are we going to have articles for every draft piece of legislation proposed by every pressure group in India? What is the point of this? We cannot even determine what it might have been because a draft, by definition, is not a static proposal. In addition, the title is misleading because the thing was never even submitted to the Lok Sabha, let alone passed as law - it is/was not an Act. Sitush (talk) 14:36, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:49, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:49, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:49, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This isn't notable. The original version of this article was just promoting the act anyway. –Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 14:52, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as it never became an act and is therefore a misleading article 15:28, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
Delete This is neither a law nor a bill drafted by the Indian parliament. Rather, it is a draft prepared by a lobbying group that never made it anywhere except in a couple of brief mentions in newspaper articles. The one source doesn't name it, doesn't date it and it isn't an act by any stretch of imagination. Non-notable in the extreme. Even the lobby group is of dubious notability. The appropriate title for this article is A draft prepared by a lobbying group that never got written up for legislation. --regentspark (comment) 15:45, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per WP:SNOW. –Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 15:52, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per coverage in The Times of India, The Hindu, and The Telegraph for starters. For similar precedent see Category:United States proposed federal legislation AusLondonder (talk) 22:27, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note that the Category:United States proposed federal legislation is for bills that are being considered or bills that were not enacted. It does not include bills that were never bills. The act described in the article under consideration was never a bill and is actually a draft proposed by an outside non-legislative body. --regentspark (comment) 02:01, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@RegentsPark: Did you check every article in the category tree? AusLondonder (talk) 02:05, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No. Since I actually have an RL life, I read the category description instead. I assume that's why there is a description attached to the category. --regentspark (comment) 16:06, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No need to be so bitchy. Contributes nothing. AusLondonder (talk) 22:18, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Auslondonder, see WP:OSE. - Sitush (talk) 08:18, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As discussed here, this is not an Act, this is not a Bill, this has never been considered by parliament or the executive. It's a proposal from one group, that's it. —SpacemanSpiff 02:14, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete, qualifies for A9 after the article about the musician did not survive AfD--Ymblanter (talk) 07:23, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Stepchild (Ganksta C album)

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

Fails WP:NMUSIC. Adam9007 (talk) 14:13, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk) 19:26, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 17:49, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Summer of Death

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

List fails GNG, there are mentions of a "Summer of Death" but this list of celebrities is not mentioned anywhere, it appears to be an OR-picked selection of individuals who died in a particular time frame in 2009, a personal selection of Deaths in 2009. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:10, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

delete I do see a few mass media hits from back in 2009 but the tag appears to have had no staying power whatsoever. Wikipedia is not for some catchphrase headline that nobody cared about a year later. Mangoe (talk) 14:53, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per WP:EVENT. There's no "lasting, historical significance" about a bunch of deaths in some arbitrary time frame of people who happen to be famous. Further, even if the list were to pass WP:GNG, WP:EVENT presents more stringent criteria than GNG for events precisely because so many events easily meet the GNG, and this "event" does not meet those criteria. -- Irn (talk) 15:51, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Again an arbitrary list of deaths with a brief and quickly forgotten title created by journalists. I note it coincides with the traditional Silly season, as it is known here in the U.K. Think it should fall under the criteria of WP:EVENT. It was no event. WP:GNG would be as effective in proving the ephemerality of this non-event. Irondome (talk) 01:23, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The topic is notable and notability does not expire. For example, TIME magazine highlighted the phenomenon in its summary of 2009, saying "It was a busy summer for obit writers around the country ... the summer when baby boomers began to turn to the obituary pages first, to face not merely their own mortality or ponder their legacies, but to witness the passing of legends who defined them as a tribe". And here's coverage of the phenomenon years later in a book, which demonstrates the enduring nature of the topic. The naysayers above do not support their opinion with such sources or evidence. Those are just personal opinions. Andrew D. (talk) 07:17, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
That's a lie, we have provided policy based reasoning. You have provided anecdotal evidence that this kind of tabloidism has received some coverage once upon a time. The list is unreferenced, once again it's a list of people's personal opinions on who should be listed. Original research that does not belong in any encyclopaedia. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:25, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This, along with 2016 celebrity death cluster are shown to be notable from the large amount of coverage they've received in reliable, mainstream media sources. The claims that this is expected due to the baby boom is proven untrue by the fact that we didn't have anywhere near as many celeb deaths in 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014 or 2015. Summer is often referred to as the silly season, but these high-profile deaths actually happened, received a great deal of media coverage and this spike in celeb deaths didn't happen during any other summer. There are people saying that 2009 wasn't any different to any other year in that respect. However, if that were the case, why doesn't anyone ever refer to the summer of any other year as the Summer of Death? The Summer of Death included the deaths of high profile people from many fields, including acting, music, sport, politics, presenting and writing. I remember many people commenting at the time about how many people had died that summer. Not until this year has a celeb death spike happened again. Jim Michael (talk) 08:06, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Per the other deletion discussion, this is just someone's original research, a group of unreferenced individuals who happened to die. What makes these people more notable than those who aren't listed? What is the inclusion criterion? The Rambling Man (talk) 08:27, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There are several reliable sources referenced on the other article, and similar sources can be added to this article. It's not one person's research - it's the research of many people and organisations. The talk pages of each article are the places to discuss who should or should not be included. Are you really saying that there was no celeb death spike in June-September 2009 and in January-April 2016? If so, why have the public and the media concentrated on those two periods of time? Journalists didn't all go on holiday for the whole of 2010-2015; why didn't they say there was a celeb death spike at any point during that time? Jim Michael (talk) 09:31, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The article is full of unreferenced names, it's original research. What are the inclusion criteria please? The Rambling Man (talk) 09:44, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Many of the names are referenced to reliable sources. The inclusion criteria can be discussed on the talk page. For the time being, anyone cited by a reliable source as having been part of the Summer of Death (or similar expression) is eligible for inclusion. Jim Michael (talk) 10:57, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

And many are not, and where are all the other celebrities that died during that period (you can find many in Deaths in 2009 by the way)? This is a poorly defined, badly written piece of tabloid journalism trash and should be removed, and glad to see the consensus is in favour of that. One down, two to go. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:18, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Which celebrities (not notable non-celebs) who died between June-September 2009 aren't included in this list? What was the 'one down' you mention? Jim Michael (talk) 14:08, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mollie Sugden, Gordon Waller, Sybil, Bobby Robson, Godfrey Rampling .... Of course, your definition of "celebrity" is clearly your own personal original point of view (see WP:OR and WP:POV by the way) but my definition would include all of the former given the current individuals listed with or without reference at all. Naturally we could just delete this and redirect to Deaths in 2009 which would be perfectly normal. And where does summer extend from May to September? The Rambling Man (talk) 18:26, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This article and the sources that mention it are Americentric - they have ignored most of the British celebs who died during the same period. I wouldn't include May in this article because a) it's not summer in most of the world; b) there weren't many celeb deaths in that month. Most sources who mention the Summer of Death don't include May. Summer lasts from May to September from about the 20th parallel north to about the 40th parallel north (with the exception of those areas at high altitude). Jim Michael (talk) 19:51, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, so the premise of the article is poorly defined, the inclusion criteria are poorly defined, the subject matter is tabloid, the lasting impact is negligible, the statistical significance is zero, this is a non-article. Cheers for clearing it up. That's it from me here, looking forward to seeing the consensus enacted. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:55, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You're arguing that it meets WP:GNG. As I pointed out at the 2016 celebrity death cluster discussion, you need to show how these meet WP:EVENT, not WP:GNG. -- Irn (talk) 16:01, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Which part(s) of WP:EVENT are you saying that this doesn't fulfil? Jim Michael (talk) 16:23, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not to be glib, but pretty much everything under "Inclusion criteria". The part I've quoted repeatedly and that I think is most important is that events need to have "lasting, historical significance." The "Summer of Death" has no lasting effect, no significant impact over a wide region, little or no in-depth coverage, and almost nothing beyond a relatively short news cycle. -- Irn (talk) 17:45, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It depends how you define it. How much impact? How do you define a short news cycle: a week, a fortnight, a month? Jim Michael (talk) 19:44, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This isn't an encyclopaedic topic: it's the kind of thing I'd expect to see in a gossip magazine or particularly stupid tabloid newspaper. Nick-D (talk) 10:31, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Humans (famous and otherwise) have been dying for over a million years, and probably have a century left. That a few content farmers noticed a "link" between Michael Jackson and Farrah Fawcett is their business entirely. Enycyclopedias shouldn't suggest there was "something going on" that summer. No celebrity has ever died without another following soon enough. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:11, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'd also wager fewer than 10% of our readers have any idea who Budd Schulberg was. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:18, 7 May 2016 (UTC) [reply]

Having an article about the fact that a particularly high number of high-profile celebs died in summer 2009 isn't propagating a conspiracy theory. The Summer of Death was noticed by millions of people, not merely a few content farmers. Jim Michael (talk) 09:09, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"Something going on" doesn't mean a conspiracy. Just means there's something real connecting these deaths, or something actually unusual about the pattern. There isn't and the article admits it, so why even insinuate it? Hjördis here has been noticed by over 38 million people, but you don't see Hjördís here. Ten million people watched a press fold paper. Sixty-six million watched Fred swim. There's a place for that stuff, but this isn't it. InedibleHulk (talk) 12:54, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The article states there was "nothing statistically unusual" about the deaths, thus signing its own death warrant. Philafrenzy (talk) 11:43, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 17:50, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sky News Weather Channel programming

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

WP: NOTTVGUIDE - Wikipedia is not a directory, which this is displaying. 🎓 Corkythehornetfan 🎓 13:50, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:08, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - a list of programmes is not encyclopedic. JMWt (talk) 21:39, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - While I would agree with deleting this particular article, considering it doesn't cite a single reference nor do any of the programs have their own article, as well as the fact it is horribly out of date, I disagree with the blanket statement "a list of programmes is not encyclopedic". There are dozens of articles that list programs airing on a network (List of programs broadcast by NBC, ABC, Bravo to name a few examples) that link to articles and/or reference titles. -- Whats new?^(talk) 05:16, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - I know that there are a whole load of other similar pages. Personally, I don't consider this to be a particularly useful argument in AfD discussions as per WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS and would !vote delete for all of those as well. As you've stated, the problem is that they rapidly go out of date anyway, so are pretty useless even in their own terms. A list of TV programmes with no particular reason to suggest that they're notable is not encyclopedic in my opinion. WP: NOTTVGUIDE. JMWt (talk) 07:19, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    - Understand but respectfully disagree with you on other pages, however I do agree that in this particular case, this article should be deleted because it has NOT ONE citation, either on the article itself or through any wikilinks. -- Whats new?^(talk) 07:53, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Grahame (talk) 01:29, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 by the nominator and The result was Keep (non-admin closure) GSS (talk) 19:44, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

List of Big Bash League records and statistics

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

Not notable list of stats that fails WP:GNG. Also created and edited by sock, with no interest from other editors. Qed237 (talk) 12:47, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn by nominator It is clear given reasons below that this should be kept. Qed237 (talk) 18:46, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep not sure why this fails general notability, plenty of reliable source coverage of records at this tournament. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:49, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as is notable as cricket history, with coverage in reliable sources such as cric info and wisden and other cricket magazines, passes WP:GNG Atlantic306 (talk) 14:50, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The BBL is the highest domestic T20 tournament in Australia. All these records are notable and on par with List of Indian Premier League records and statistics. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 18:44, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment perhaps do some research before making so many frivolous AFDs? The Rambling Man (talk) 19:08, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 23:56, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

List of Zimbabwe One Day International cricket records

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

Not notable article (created by sock). I can not see this being notable and passing WP:GNG and it is an article that has had 0 edits (and no interest) from other editors than the sock. Qed237 (talk) 12:41, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn by nominator It is clear given reasons below and other existing articles that this should be kept. Qed237 (talk) 18:42, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep list of records from a full member of the ICC is inherently notable, just as List of Australia One Day International cricket records or List of England One Day International cricket records. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:45, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep agree it is notable as cricket history covered in cric info, wisden etc and Zimbabwe are competing at the top level, the same as England and Australia Atlantic306 (talk) 14:55, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Sock aside, this is part of a series of cricket records for each ODI side. All these records are notable. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 18:37, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 11:08, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Manhunt International 2012

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

Sourced to the business itself and one non-RS blog. There is a general lack of coverage of this contest and it fails WP:CORPDEPTH Legacypac (talk) 09:29, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Also See: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Manhunt International 2014 (4th nomination)

Delete: I removed all the references that were dead links or links to spam, and only four remain, none of them establishing the notability of this contest. ubiquity (talk) 17:46, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:47, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:47, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Thailand-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:47, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

delete No reason left to keep. D4iNa4 (talk) 12:29, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 11:08, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Lukas DiSparrow

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

Already tagged for notability, I believe this person fails WP:NACTOR - no evidence of any notable roles Gbawden (talk) 07:56, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails the basic notability guideline for people and is not notable under the additional criteria for entertainers. Sam Sailor ^Talk! 10:01, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk) 19:32, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:TOOSOON, needs more tv shows and/or films. Atlantic306 (talk) 22:35, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
delete fails WP:NACTOR CerealKillerYum (talk) 02:59, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 06:54, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Product diversification

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

An essay on business marketing that is a WP:NOTESSAY. Main refs are not reliable (scribd, ukessay and blogspot). The creating editor is either an author of one of the unreliable refs or just copied from them. I'm not sure about the referenceforbusiness. source, but it does contain a list of sources used in the article. Prod was removed. Bgwhite (talk) 07:14, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTESSAY and WP:OR. There is some overlap with Diversification (marketing strategy). Sam Sailor ^Talk! 10:27, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I'm not surprised the PROD I slapped on this was removed...que sera sera. Prod reason were as nomination... and WP:NOTDICT.TheLongTone (talk) 15:01, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Sam Sailor ^Talk! 09:30, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sufyani

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

Apart from the article itself not meeting WP:NPOV, WP:REDFLAG it has been around for some time and somehow, completely unbeknownst to me, it has still managed to exist without any WP:NEUTRAL sources. This article must be a bullet proof vest or something. The article is also a biography which doesn't seem to assert the importance of the person with any sourced facts. Olowe2011 ^Talk 06:49, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article should be improved, but the aforementioned problems are not sufficient to omit an article with adequate Notability. This issue has been covered by several academic works such as "The Sufyani between Tradition and History"[5] and "Apocalyptic Time"[6]--Seyyed(t-c) 10:48, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Clearly passes GNG and the concerns raised by the OP has nothing to with deletion. It just needs to be improved. I encourage the nominator to withdraw the nomination. Mhhossein (talk) 15:24, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - A search on jstor came up with 0 results as presented here. I would also point out that the editors commenting on this article for keep or delete have themselves indicted their inability to make impartial edits or judgement's about this articles content by indicating on their profiles that they are member's of the Muslim Faith. While of course this does not mean their contributions are un-constructive, it could present a WP:NPOV violation. The GNG also specifically indicates the requirement for significant coverage by un-involved or non-bias sources. The two sources used in this article are themselves in reference to another name which is not this articles title. Perhaps it would be appropriate for this article to be moved? Olowe2011 ^Talk 16:09, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"The two sources used in this article are themselves in reference to another name which is not this articles title. Perhaps it would be appropriate for this article to be moved?" → I don't get this, the sources obviously discuss the Sufyani (an apocalyptic figure). If you think that "Sufyānī" is different from "Sufyani", please read WP:MOSAR; it's basically a matter of transliteration conventions. - HyperGaruda (talk) 19:03, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@1xdd0ufhgnlsoprfgd: As I remember, this is the first time during 10 years activity in wikipedia that someone says "I would also point out that the editors commenting on this article for keep or delete have themselves indicted their inability to make impartial edits or judgement's about this articles content by indicating on their profiles that they are member's of the Muslim Faith."!!! I think you are unfamiliar with wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Please read WP:NPOV policy carefully.--Seyyed(t-c) 16:38, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, this editor tried to create an essay called WP:NORELIGION and has recently left Wikipedia. - HyperGaruda (talk) 04:48, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep These sources confirm his notability: The Oxford Handbook of Millennialism, The Legend of Sergius..., Holiest Wars: Islamic Mahdis, Their Jihads, and Osama Bin Laden, Messianic Beliefs and Imperial Politics in Medieval Islam: The ʻAbbāsid ..., The Syrian Uprising and Signs Of The Hour: The End Of America, The End Of ..., Contemporary Muslim Apocalyptic Literature, About 2012, The End of the World.Saff V. (talk) 05:30, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 11:08, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Axiom Business Book Awards

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

Non notable award. Vanity award with dozens of categories and contestants pay by credit card to enter ie. not a true honor a marketing scheme. GreenC 04:20, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Regardless of whether the awards are a true honor or just a marketing scheme, there doesn't seem to be sufficient in-depth coverage in reliable secondary sources to merit an article. Nwlaw63 (talk) 01:04, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 04:58, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Pay-to-win award that seems difficult to reference with citations to independent, reliable sources to a degree that would meet WP:GNG/WP:NAWARD. Sam Sailor ^Talk! 10:37, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 11:08, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Entropi (novel)

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

New article about self-published novel, brief search revealed no secondary source, let alone significant coverage. Fails WP:GNG, PROD tag removed by sole contributor without comment. JWNoctis^talk 04:09, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: A WP:SPA article on a CreateSpace book. No evidence of notability found. Fails WP:NBOOK, WP:GNG. AllyD (talk) 06:48, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 04:58, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The notability guideline for books applies, but I have found no sources that suggest this work is notable. Author currently has no individual article. Sam Sailor ^Talk! 10:22, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. MBisanz ^talk 11:09, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

White River Valley Museum

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

Non-notable local museum. The only sources I was able to find are either directory-like or affiliated. No in-depth coverage. Happy Squirrel (talk) 02:12, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment In doing my usual follow up to AfD, I noticed this is a stale userspace draft from 2010 recently moved into mainspace by user:Legacypac. I am perfectly open to returning it to its original location it that is judged to be better. Happy Squirrel (talk) 02:17, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment yup I found it. No way it would get deleted at MfD as it looks like a pretty good page. Now that it's at AfD I'll let others weigh in but I'm very Opposed to it going back to a Userspace if the topic is deemed not notable. What value would there be in that? Legacypac (talk) 02:47, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural close - The move has been reverted per WP:BRD as Happysquirrel expresses reasonable concerns that it isn't suitable for the mainspace as is required for such a move.—Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 03:48, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Legacypac moved the draft to main space, which is allowed per WP:STALE. Happysquirrel brought it here starting a consensus driven discussion, and that's fine as well. Moving an article during AfD is not prohibited, cf. WP:AFDEQ, but is better left for post-AfD, and when it happens during AfD most often entails moving it to a perceived better title. Moving this article back to userspace, citing BRD, and then calling for a procedural close is a misunderstanding. Sam Sailor ^Talk! 13:49, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Misunderstanding is the kindest possible word for Godsy's continued efforts to screw up my efforts to daylight articles with potential. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Legacypac/Godsymoves Legacypac (talk) 14:35, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep What the heck - you can't move a page and close an AfD like that just at the beginning. One editor's opinion on suitability for mainspace does not equal a decision. Stop stalking my edits and reversing my moves on your pointless crusade to put good topics back in stale userspace. This museum is as notable as MANY other establishments with Wikipedia pages and it is a heavily referenced well written article. Legacypac (talk) 04:58, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep in some form. I am not clear about the procedural disagreements, and the reference to copyright in the article edit history, but the museum itself is pretty obviously notable, with its activities covered in both local and statewide media such as [7][8][9][10] and many more. --Arxiloxos (talk) 14:49, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as has reliable sources to pass WP:GNG, and should be put back into mainspace as a notable museum topic. Atlantic306 (talk) 15:17, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Museums and libraries-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 15:44, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, passes WP:GNG thanks to the sources found by Arxiloxos. Sam Sailor ^Talk! 12:36, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This article subject passes WP:GNG due to the multiple sources which provide significant coverage. Also above Arxiloxos lists above more references that also denote notability. Fouetté rond de jambe en tournant (talk) 03:12, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 17:55, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Susan Templeman

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

Unsuccessful election candidate with no other particular claim to noteability. Article created in good faith but contributor unaware that such a person fails to meet noteability. Tons of precedent. This is a straight-forward delete. Timeshift (talk) 01:32, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Not a straight-forward delete. Beyond being a repeat candidate, Templeman is actually referred to as the "Macquarie federal Labor spokeswoman" (see here) - that article from an independent source is not related to her candidature. And again in the Hawkesbury Gazette (see here) - in fact in that piece there is a distinction between being the candidate and her new role: "Ms Templeman, who is now Labor spokeswoman for Macquarie".
This puts Templeman under the notability coverage of WP:POLITICIAN 2. Major local political figures who have received significant press coverage.
Specifically Susan Templeman has been written about, in depth, independently, in multiple news feature articles, by journalists. She even scores a mention in Bob Carr's Diary of a Foreign Minister (Page 77 for those playing at ≈home). Australian Matt (talk) 08:23, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Having once met Susan Templeman, I think even she would find the claim that she is a "major local political figure" pretty funny. She is absolutely not and that is not "significant press coverage". The Drover's Wife (talk) 13:43, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - Also, by "local figures", the guideline means people like mayors and councillors, since we're talking about actual politicians and not just people who run for office. "Significant press coverage" also means "non-local", i.e. not the Blue Mountains Gazette. The others are either "here's some quotes by people who lost houses in the fires, one of whom happened to be a former Labor candidate" or "here's a candidate announcement for a fairly marginal seat", neither of which come close to clearing GNG. Frickeg (talk) 14:07, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Agree with Australian Matt. Good enough to pass GNG. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 20:17, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Pretty easy one - the coverage is all related to her candidacy, and is not sufficient for GNG. As for "spokeswoman" being distinct from candidate - please. It's another word for the same thing, and the article draws no distinction whatsoever. Frickeg (talk) 20:41, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Grahame (talk) 01:37, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No claim to notability beyond her (losing) candidacies here: while it is tragic that she lost her house in a bushfire in the immediate aftermath of her election loss, that does not surpass the bar for an article. As Frickeg said, the other claims to notability are so small as to be nonexistent. I lean hard towards inclusionism on this stuff, but running for parliament and losing doth not notability make. The Drover's Wife (talk) 13:41, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Agree with Timeshift, Frickeg and The Drover's Wife. An unsuccessful candidate in a federal election does not meet the notability guidelines. -- Ianblair23 (talk) 08:28, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete per WP:NOTNOW, but I suggest that the article be userfied in the creator's userspace. If she wins later or becomes a notable "perpetual candidate," then it could be restored.

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. postdlf (talk) 18:13, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

List of awards and winners for films from Assam

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

Although sourced and verified, the over categorization of award winners in films from a certain state of India goes to an unnecessary level. The topic "award winners in film from Assam" fails WP:GNG. PROD challenged and rejected. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 05:49, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 05:49, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 05:49, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Assam, with population 26.6 million, is bigger than Australia and all but 48 of the world's nations. For what "X"s do we have "List of awards and winners for films from X"? If there are such list-articles then compiling at level of an Indian state is not obviously bad. But I don't see others within Category:Lists of Indian award winners and it is the only article titled exactly "List of awards and winners for films from...". (There are lots of awards and nominations lists for individual actors and performers, like List of awards and nominations received by Lady Gaga.) --do ncr am 06:38, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:27, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well yes its populated than many countries but also is 15th in population rank within India. That means there is potential of at least 14 more articles if some patriot decides to utilize his time in this remote clubbings. The point here is that how justified it is to have state-wise lists when other categories are already in use. We have these list by awards and list by individuals and then individuals are already clubbed by categories and thereby can be surfed state-wise. This is going bit overboard. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 05:07, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:43, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now at best as this is still questionable for its own solid article. Still questionable. SwisterTwister talk 04:22, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:26, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (WP:LISTCRUFT). The state's population is irrelevant; what matters is whether there are objective characteristics that set aside films from Assam from others (in a cluster analysis sense). I could imagine a claim to cultural difference on the basis of language, but I do not quite see it - on the other hand, maybe non-English sources have better. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 15:21, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Music1201 ^talk 01:27, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Awards and the state from which films come are not related in a significant way. Clarityfiend (talk) 08:20, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as listcruft and the above points that have been made. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 12:27, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This just looks like WP:LC. JumpiMaus (talk) 15:23, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Consensus is that the film meets NF & GNG, Closing as keep (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 00:00, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Me and My Mates vs the Zombie Apocalypse

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

IMO this fails WP:NFILMS. There are no reviews in the press. The film has been selected at Sitges but the selection is quite long (so I do not feel that it is selective enough). Could be a case of WP:TOOSOON. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 14:24, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:58, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:58, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per meeting WP:NF.[11] An inexperienced author's not using available reliable sources and a nominator's failure in not finding them does not mean "TOO SOON". For instance, the in-depth article in Sydney Morning Herald was really quite decent, and there are many more. And because the nominated format was sketchy, I have begun improvements per MOS:FILM... really quite easy to fix something perceived as weak. The flaw in nominating a new article 90 minutes after it was contributed and without BEFORE might make such action appear a bit bitey to the new contributor. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 22:38, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

and a few more: Dread Central, Broadway World, Bloody-Disgusting, Joblo, IGN (Spanish), Ecran Large (French), Canberra Times, and more... Tigraan?? Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 22:56, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Canberra Times: passing mention.

Dread Central, Broadway World, and Ecran Large, Joblo, etc.: I actually saw the Broadway world one while doing my WP:BEFORE, and the others are similar. I dismissed it on the basis that even if BW is a reliable source (of which I was not sure at the time), that was a short article (film, date of release, summary plot, cast and director) about a film that was not out yet and fell under WP:ROUTINE. Yes, that is many articles, but the guys behind the film are somewhat known for other stuff (but WP:NOTINHERITED) and it is easy to imagine that they have press access that the average independent film-maker does not have; and frankly, all of those look like close paraphrases of the same press release falling under the "capsule review" clause of WP:NFSOURCES.

What really is a red flag to me is that I could not find any critic posterior to the release, and the above are not really "reviews" in the meaning of "critical commentary of the film".

Now, the Sydney Morning Herald which I missed somehow is above the pack. The same argument applies to some extent but nonetheless it is a devoted article in the main press and more than a capsule review. I could see a claim under WP:GNG (even if critics ignored the film, its creation process - youtube stars on a crowdfunded budget, etc. - can be notable); but really, one single source with reasonable coverage is not enough in my eyes.

Note: I could not see the Spanish one at es.ign.com, but judging by the URL it is yet another "here is the trailer" article. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 09:20, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As long as a source address the film directly and is not a merely trivial mention, we have WP:SIGCOV. And with WP:SUBSTANTIAL not being a guideline requirement, I will stick with my comment that WP:GNG is met and so thus is W:NF. Reviews (though nice) are not a requirement for a film only now being released to DVD... a topic being addressed directly (even if briefly) is. And with the upcoming DVD release, more is reasonable to anticipate. Thanks. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 15:06, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As written above, I do not see enough detail in the sources cited above (except the SMH) to pass WP:NFSOURCES. I highly doubt that the consensus behind GNG is that any nonempty article on any topic counts towards GNG as soon as there is the signature of a usually respected source. Said otherwise, I say that context matters to evaluate fiability, and those sources look like paraphrase of a press release because of their lack of significant content. More content would indicate more (some?) research on the topic, hence better fiability.

Just in the interest of the discussion: do you agree that the sources are "press releases in disguise", i.e. look like close paraphrase of a PR, even if we obviously cannot tell with certainty how they were made?

"...reasonable to anticipate..." is WP:CRYSTAL. My point on reviews was that being covered more before than after the release is a red flag, not that reviews are necessary. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 16:44, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for your negativity, but being myself in film and knowing how many projects do not get coverage until after a widespread DVD release, my stating "...reasonable to anticipate..." such coverage is indeed reasonable from my perspective, BUT NOT my reason for my initial keep. And too, as the film was produced under a different title, searches for earlier coverage must be expanded under different parameters, allowing us to find such as .ZA Monthly City News ABC News Trov IF and others addressing the topic of production and planning directly and in various levels of detail. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 18:43, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The searches not chosen:

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

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

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

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

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

Just takes looking.

Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 18:43, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Music1201 ^talk 01:26, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As MQS has saved yet another article from deletion, by putting up many good sources. ThePlatypusofDoom (Talk) 14:23, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep in view of the sources put forward above for both names of the film showing that it is of interest in the media and that WP:GNG is passed. Atlantic306 (talk) 15:09, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 one "keep" opinion does not rebut the principal argument for deletion, which is that the article does not provide sources sufficient for notability. Sandstein 17:49, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Transformers: Universe

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

This is just a list of toys without any sources to establish this particular branch of the toy line as notable. TTN (talk) 00:57, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. These are just toys; neither WP:GNG or WP:PRODUCT is fulfilled. All sources I could find were either promotional, first-party, or too specific (e.g. Transformers fan sites) to establish notability. If anything, find an appropriate article to merge this one into. Colonel Wilhelm Klink (^Complaints|_Mistakes) 01:44, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Don't Delete or Merge. There are several other articles related purely to Transformers toy lines or lists of characters; if the sources aren't suitable then why not seek out ones that are rather than just axing the whole thing?OptimusMagnus (talk) 21:19, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@OptimusMagnus: I've tried locating sources, but I've been unable to locate any which qualify under WP:RS and WP:PRIMARY. If you know of any sources which meet these guidelines, feel free to add them to the article; until then, we have no suitable evidence of notability, and so the article is likely to be deleted. As for those other articles, their existence is irrelevant to this discussion under WP:INHERIT; just because another line of toys is notable doesn't mean this one is. Colonel Wilhelm Klink (^Complaints|_Mistakes) 22:20, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This should be judged as an article about a line of toys, and, as far as I can see, there is no reason to believe that the line is notable (though I admit that the generic name makes searching for sources fairly tricky). I'm open to being proven wrong, and will happily change my mind if reliable, third party sources are provided. Josh Milburn (talk) 09:18, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 01:04, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Parvin Sultana

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

Article on a Bangladeshi physics professor. No indication whatsoever that she meets WP:GNG or WP:ACADEMIC, but A7 was declined. --Finngall ^talk 00:44, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. --Finngall ^talk 00:48, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. --Finngall ^talk 00:48, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:25, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No evidence of notability. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:19, 4 May 2016 (UTC).[reply]
Delete. As per nom. Nothing in the article to suggest notability of this person. I tried searching but couldn't find any coverage that would improve the article. Drchriswilliams (talk) 05:55, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non notable academic Seasider91 (talk) 15:43, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. She works at the top (and only good) engineering school in Bangladesh, but that's not enough by itself, and I don't see anything in her citation record or elsewhere that would give a pass of WP:PROF. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:52, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No RS and no claim of notability. Agricola44 (talk) 15:17, 6 May 2016 (UTC).[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG. ~ Moheen ^(talk) 19:00, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable. Sławomir Biały (talk) 11:02, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable academic with few publications. However, there is another Parvin Sultana working in the fisheries area who may pass WP:PROF. Recreation of the article to be about that person may be acceptable. -- 120.17.12.141 (talk) 11:17, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as no evidence of notability, Fails GNG .–Davey2010^Talk 21:44, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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