- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 as my searches simply found nothing better and there's nothing to suggest a solid independent article (NAC). SwisterTwister talk 00:38, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
The Mystery of the Flaming Footprints
- The Mystery of the Flaming Footprints (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Does not meet WP:NBOOK, a search shows it is a popular title but nothing useable for notability. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:12, 27 December 2015 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:21, 27 December 2015 (UTC)
- Delete the series is well covered at Three Investigators although it doesn't include a list of the books (there are 43 of them). A list somewhere would make sense, but not individual articles for the books. LaMona (talk) 05:48, 27 December 2015 (UTC)
- @LaMona: Actually, a list exists here. - The Bushranger One ping only 23:17, 27 December 2015 (UTC)
- Redirect to The American series of The Three Investigators, as a redirect to the list of the series' titles is reasonable, the search term is plausible given the series' popularity, and redirects are cheap. - The Bushranger One ping only 23:17, 27 December 2015 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. The Bushranger One ping only 06:29, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
Stormpilot
- Stormpilot (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Article about a shipping pair which at present exists only in slash fanfic. While some reliable sources have been added here which speculate about this maybe turning into a thing in the real movies, none of them confirm that and none of them use this title as a "name" for it — the sources for the name are parked entirely on Tumblr blogs, making it an improperly sourced neologism. This might just be WP:TOOSOON to start an article about something that might eventually qualify for a Wikipedia article — but as of right now, a neologistic name for something that still exists only in non-notable fanfic is not appropriate for inclusion yet. (And even if it does eventually happen in the real movies, it's still unlikely to warrant a separate article as a separate thing from the articles about the characters involved in it — I can find no evidence of any case where we have "biographical" articles about two individual characters in a movie franchise, and a whole separate third article about those same two characters' relationship with each other as a separate topic from their biographies. Even the most obvious real world equivalent I can think of off the top of my head, Brangelina, exists only as a redirect to supercouple rather than as a standalone article about Brangelina's Brangelinaness.) Delete. Bearcat (talk) 00:11, 27 December 2015 (UTC)
- Delete Massive speculation and PoV - minimal actual content - Arjayay (talk) 11:55, 27 December 2015 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. North America1000 08:46, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
- Comment Probably too soon, but there are some sources available. It'd be constructive to give this a chance - for example, with some careful work, this could be useful to merge into Star Wars: The Force Awakens - fanwork is part of the reception of a movie. Dreamyshade (talk) 08:48, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
- Here's also an existing example of this kind of article: Kirk/Spock. That's the original and most famous slash pairing in fan fiction; it's an article about fanwork about a non-canon relationship between those characters. Dreamyshade (talk) 09:19, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
- Delete I'll also point out that, regardless of the legitimacy of the topic itself, the 'ship name' for this pairing is still very much in flux, with 'Finnpoe' & 'Poefinn' also used in equal measure.
- Here's also an existing example of this kind of article: Kirk/Spock. That's the original and most famous slash pairing in fan fiction; it's an article about fanwork about a non-canon relationship between those characters. Dreamyshade (talk) 09:19, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
- Delete - This article stems from a nickname relating to the desire (I can't even use the word "Speculate") of a romance between two characters in the future Star Wars film releases. It doesn't seem to even amount to WP:CRYSTAL yet. Only a few of the sources listed in the article even mention the word "Stormpilot" at all, while the rest simply mention a (maybe) trending hashtag for social media. If anything, I think this is WP:TOOSOON. ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 03:57, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
- I renamed the article to Finn/Poe and reframed the lead sentence, since I agree that "Stormpilot" doesn't seem to be the most popular name. The sources are mostly about the fan activity related to the Finn/Poe concept, which is a legitimate topic in itself (separate from speculation about future movies). Dreamyshade (talk) 04:04, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
- Weak keep The list of refs is impressive, but I am missing inline citations. Not my kettle of fish, but I accept it is of interest to some. Slap the {copyedit} tag on it and it should be good after some revisions. Zezen (talk) 12:31, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
- Delete, as tending towards WP:FANCRUFT. Kirk/Spock warrants an article as the Slash originator, and is discussed in that context, but at most this article should be merged (briefly) into a section on Star Wars Shipping, a Non-canon Star Wars article (which is an article that'd definitely have enough content and sources given the permissiveness re films), or maybe as one sentence in a fan-reaction subsection for TFA. There's a lot of fan ships and slashfiction in popular genre fiction, and the myriad pairings don't warrant standalone articles, even if covered by news -- for instance there's a lot of reliable sources for the existance of Drarry, Hannigram, and Stucky... ~~Hydronium~Hydroxide~(Talk)~~ 04:53, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
- Placement of fanwork in general is an interesting question - these things are significant parts of popular culture and belong somewhere, even if not as their own article. Looks like Poe Dameron#Reception has a couple sentences on the topic already, and it'd make sense to add one to Finn (Star Wars) too. Dreamyshade (talk) 06:09, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:54, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
Mark Burger
- Mark Burger (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
This should have been speedy deleted several years ago, but the nominator reversed himself, so I thought I'd be polite and bring it here instead. The subject appears to be a thoroughly average Catholic priest in the US. Nyttend (talk) 23:29, 26 December 2015 (UTC)
- Delete - the subject spoke at priestly conferences - not notable - and apparently published a book, for which we have no source. I'm guessing it's not a best-seller, or widely available. --Pete (talk) 23:46, 26 December 2015 (UTC)
- It definitely exists, but as a self-published book, it obviously wasn't a best-seller and isn't widely available; see its WorldCat record. Nyttend (talk) 23:59, 26 December 2015 (UTC)
- Delete No evidence of notability. LaMona (talk) 05:48, 27 December 2015 (UTC)
- Delete Not notable member of the clergy....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 16:14, 27 December 2015 (UTC)
- Delete as mentioned above, simply nothing for a better article it seems. SwisterTwister talk 18:29, 27 December 2015 (UTC)
- Delete. I found one source, however this would be considered primary since it looks like it's published via the Church, who would of course have an obvious interest in writing about its clergy. Tokyogirl79 (。◕‿◕。) 06:10, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. (non-admin closure) → Call me Razr Nation 01:29, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
Carl Wieland
- Carl Wieland (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
No third-party sources for notability. This person's claims for notability rest entirely on the website he writes for. --Pete (talk) 22:59, 26 December 2015 (UTC)
- Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2015 December 26. —cyberbot ITalk to my owner:Online 23:15, 26 December 2015 (UTC)
- Keep Appears to be well-known in Australia. I found few sources, but my reach into Aussie sources is limited. Guardian Inducted into Creation Science Hall of Fame Nat'l Center for Science Ed U Chicago Historical Records of Australian Science. Most of these only mention him. There are lots of fringe sites that have quite a bit about him. I think he is notable as WP:fringe, but the article needs the full POV to be useful. LaMona (talk) 06:06, 27 December 2015 (UTC)
- Comment I became aware of this AfD from the nominator's contribution list after he/she removed all of the external references from Russell Humphreys. This nomination on a potentially controversial topic disregards WP:BEFORE and the policy WP:PRESERVE, and the only claim is easily refuted by reading the previous AfD and the article. Unscintillating (talk) 14:42, 27 December 2015 (UTC)
- The third party source seems to be The Creationists, which to my eye looks to be kin to The Immortal Storm. There are some minor mentions here and there, often in comments to media articles. The majority of links are from one site, and this is getting pretty close to self-promotion. Perhaps the article could be improved, but the sources I saw with the search tools provided are pretty minimal. --Pete (talk) 19:57, 27 December 2015 (UTC)
- Keep The book "The Creationists" is the most important anti-creationist book published so far. It is long recognized at THE reliable source on Creationists. Carl Weiland is one a many important Creationists. Just being mentioned in "The Creationists" makes one a creationist to be noted. --OtisDixon (talk) 01:51, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:50, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
Amy Linden
- Amy Linden (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Fails WP:GNG, WP:ANYBIO, WP:JOURNALIST. Recreation of a deleted article. There are many references presented, but not one of them provides significant coverage of the subject. Instead, the sources are a mix of passing mentions and articles written by the subject herself. Pburka (talk) 22:26, 26 December 2015 (UTC)
agreed. mark for deletion. Soulseek324 (talk) 22:38, 26 December 2015 (UTC)struck !vote of a sockpuppet - they edited a number of AfD pages in addition to the one the sockpuppetry concerned, aparrently in a bid to make the sockpuppetry less conspicuous. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Turquoisesummer RichardOSmith (talk) 08:09, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:05, 27 December 2015 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:05, 27 December 2015 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:05, 27 December 2015 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:05, 27 December 2015 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:05, 27 December 2015 (UTC)
- Keep - Subject is notable, enough sources for notability, the person is a writer for many notable major publications and a professional journalist and music critic and was a regular on a VH1 television series, full disclosure, I am the editor who created this article. Maybe not the most notable journalist but a journalist who has had a career writing for The New York Times, Rolling Stone, Entertainment Weekly, Sentinel-Sun, Vibe, Al Jazeera America, and others, this person, in my opinion, is more than notable. Neptune's Trident (talk) 04:10, 27 December 2015 (UTC)
- Delete None of the sources confirms notability. There are name-checks, and non-independent sources (places she works for), plus articles she has written, but none ABOUT her by an independent source. LaMona (talk) 06:12, 27 December 2015 (UTC)
- Delete. Article is cobbled together out of trivial mentions. Doing your job doesn't make you notable. Having articles written about you makes you notable. There is not significant coverage in reliable sources for this person. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 08:18, 27 December 2015 (UTC)
- Delete as I waited until commenting but I simply believe there's simply not enough for a solidly better article here yet. SwisterTwister talk 08:10, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. DaveApter (talk) 15:58, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010 Merry Xmas / Happy New Year 23:16, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
Total Commander
- Total Commander (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing General Notability Guideline and the more detailed Notability (companies) requirement. Marslo2015 (talk) 22:14, 26 December 2015 (UTC)
- Keep. I found lots of reviews: [1] from Chip, [2] and [3] from PC World, [4] from Tom's Hardware, [5] from Softpedia, [6] from The Economic Times. Some of these are a little brief, but there are more hits that I didn't include. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 09:27, 27 December 2015 (UTC)
- Speedy keep. Nominating an article about an internationally well-known and wide-spread product such as Total Commander (aka Windows Commander), which is obviously notable by Wikipedia's standards (for a start, articles in 24 other WPs might give a hint) and which is regularly mentioned (and recommended) in computer magazines, for deletion is such a extreme waste of the precious time and energy of contributing editors, that it must be counted as destructive behaviour and vandalism and should be acted accordingly. We really should block single-purpose accounts who either don't do their homework before nominating articles for deletion or even deliberately want to get rid of a few articles out of low motives. We all make mistakes now and then, and we should be (and usually are) forgiving when someone make mistakes, but new accounts who have nothing better to do than nominating a series of long established articles about notable topics for deletion obviously aren't here to contribute anything useful to the project, they only waste resources and cause harm, so we should get rid of them without much ado. --Matthiaspaul (talk) 12:12, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
- Keep. A quick search reveals this to be a notable program. CarnivorousBunnytalk 19:30, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. North America1000 08:48, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. North America1000 08:48, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010 Merry Xmas / Happy New Year 23:16, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
Coop Forum
- Coop Forum (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Not notable enough for inclusion. Cloudbound (talk) 21:59, 26 December 2015 (UTC)
- Comment: How about a merger (selective, no list) and redirect to Kooperativa Förbundet? --Hegvald (talk) 09:55, 27 December 2015 (UTC)
- If it fits in well then I'd support that. Cloudbound (talk) 14:37, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America1000 09:06, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. North America1000 09:06, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. North America1000 09:06, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
- Keep – This major Swedish retailer meets WP:CORPDEPTH. Source examples include: [7], [8], [9], [10], [11], [12], [13], [14], [15] (subscription required). North America1000 09:16, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
- Keep – Indeed major Swedish retailer. meets WP:CORPDEPTH.--BabbaQ (talk) 12:41, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. (non-admin closure) → Call me Razr Nation 01:30, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
Double Commander
- Double Commander (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline and the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (companies) requirement. Marslo2015 (talk) 21:45, 26 December 2015 (UTC)
- Keep. I'm not 100% sure about this, but it does seem notable: [16] from Softpedia, [17] from de:PC Magazin, [18] from de:Computer Bild, [19] from Chip. I generally don't like leaning so heavily on download sites, but their reviews seem to be reliable. Note: the last three of the links are in German, and my German is atrocious, so I had to use Google Translate. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 09:05, 27 December 2015 (UTC)
- I checked the German references and found the last two to be reliable sources by Wikipedia standards. --Matthiaspaul (talk) 14:11, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
- Keep. I'm not personally familiar with this product, but Google turns up enough mentionings (and some in-deep discussions) to make this topic notable. --Matthiaspaul (talk) 14:11, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. KTC (talk) 00:39, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
Unlikely Sanctuary (manga)
- Unlikely Sanctuary (manga) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Non-notable. Adam9007 (talk) 21:03, 26 December 2015 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor Talk! 10:37, 27 December 2015 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor Talk! 10:38, 27 December 2015 (UTC)
- Delete as this current article Seemingly has not even minimal signs of better notability and improvement. SwisterTwister talk 17:15, 27 December 2015 (UTC)
- Delete. I wish the author well, but at this point the series hasn't received any coverage in places that would be considered an independent and reliable source per WP:RS. Tokyogirl79 (。◕‿◕。) 06:16, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
- Speedy Delete. This isn't manga per WP:MANGA criteria. No mention on Publisher's Weekly or School Library Journal. Heck, this isn't even on Amazon.How is this even notable per WP:BKCRIT. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 09:13, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
- Delete. Not notable. There's absolutely no sources except for the author's blog. I understand the wish to make her work known, but Wikipedia isn't the place for that. -- 山村 貞子 (talk) 19:46, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
- Speedy Delete. I can only logically assume this is advertising spam, quite probably either by the author, or a fan/associate. SephyTheThird (talk) 00:38, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
- Delete. Not notable.DaveApter (talk) 15:59, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
- Speedy Date per WP:G11, blatant promotion. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 02:19, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010 Merry Xmas / Happy New Year 23:21, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
Elhadjy Madior N'Diaye
- Elhadjy Madior N'Diaye (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
The lack of RS and lack of a meaningful professional career suggest this is not a suitable BLP. Legacypac (talk) 20:51, 26 December 2015 (UTC)
Delete: Lack of sources. Soulseek324 (talk) 23:00, 26 December 2015 (UTC)struck !vote of a sockpuppet - they edited a number of AfD pages in addition to the one the sockpuppetry concerned, aparrently in a bid to make the sockpuppetry less conspicuous. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Turquoisesummer RichardOSmith (talk) 08:11, 28 December 2015 (UTC)- Appearances for Vitória de Setúbal are probably enough to meet the football notability guideline. Peter James (talk) 23:54, 26 December 2015 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Portugal-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk) 06:41, 27 December 2015 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk) 06:42, 27 December 2015 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 10:46, 27 December 2015 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 10:47, 27 December 2015 (UTC)
- Keep - meets WP:NFOOTBALL, made 8 appearnces in the Portuguese top division before going on to have a lengthy career in the lower leagues. Needs improving, not deleting. GiantSnowman 11:47, 27 December 2015 (UTC)
- Keep Per GiantSnowman meets WP:NFOOTBALL.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 14:10, 27 December 2015 (UTC)
- Keep - per WP:NFOOTBALL. which its meets.--BabbaQ (talk) 15:51, 27 December 2015 (UTC)
- Keep - Subject passes WP:NFOOTBALL. It doesn't matter how "meaningful" their professional career was, having a professional career at all is by very long-established consensus something that confers notability, and notability is not temporary. - The Bushranger One ping only 23:19, 27 December 2015 (UTC)
- Keep - Having played in the top flight of Portuguese football, this article meets WP:NSPORT. Sir Sputnik (talk) 16:04, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:43, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
Auramics
- Auramics (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Non-notable music group. No reliable independent refs indicate notability, not could I find any. The article consists solely of a series of unsubstantiated comparisons to notable people and a huge notability section - and there the references are primary or to non-notable blogs. RichardOSmith (talk) 20:41, 26 December 2015 (UTC)
- Note: see also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Oramics (band). RichardOSmith (talk) 20:44, 26 December 2015 (UTC)
- This Canadian blog is one of the top blogs in canada very well known in this circle of music.
- Well known canadian blog that is on hype machine: [1] [2]
- Auramics top 100 tracks of the year[3]
- Well known english blog for this psych/hauntology genre if you don't know the genre they are well known in this genre: [4]
- Well known music chart site in Athens Greece [5]
- Well known radio station in Greece[6]
- Auramics on NYU's radio station [7]
- Auramics in New York radio station sonic pilgrin[8]
- Auramics song on XSounds with record label Burlei [9]
- Auramics is notable.
- ^ http://barrygruff.com/2015/10/29/introducing-auramics
- ^ http://hypem.com/search/auramics/1/
- ^ http://barrygruff.com/2015/12/24/end-of-season-roundup-favourite-tracks-of-2015-spotify-playlist/
- ^ https://marklosingtoday.wordpress.com/2015/10/07/auramics/
- ^ http://www.afrodelia.com/discography/seductive-sounds-2/
- ^ http://beater.gr/air-play-february-2015/
- ^ http://wnyu.org/2014-11-02_hahasound
- ^ https://twitter.com/Chris_Kissel/status/561999702640824320
- ^ http://www.burlei.com/kit-kite-project/
- — Turquoisesummer (talk) 20:49, 26 December 2015 (UTC) — Turquoisesummer (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RichardOSmith (talk • contribs) 2015-12-26T21:51:42
— User:Kashmiri made a quiet edit to the previous contribution without leaving a signature on 2015-12-27T18:38:11. This quiet edit was to strikeout the comment. I have reverted the stikeout, and added an unsigned template for a spa tag added by User:RichardOSmith. See WP:TPO. Unscintillating (talk) 00:32, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
- Comment An article about this band with a slightly different spelling was deleted in this AfD - cf this and the sources there. I'll request a speedy deletion as a repost. --bonadea contributions talk 21:07, 26 December 2015 (UTC)
I am reversing this speedy deletion for this band Auramics, because it is in fact a notable band in the hauntology/radiophonic genre which is a very small genre of music. 21:09, 26 December 2015 (UTC)Echoechoradar (talk)— Echoechoradar (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Auramics is listed in the genre of music hauntology it is indeed notable. [1] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Echoechoradar (talk • contribs) 21:19, 26 December 2015 (UTC)
- No, a mention in a Wikipedia article is never a proof of notability, not the way Wikipedia defines notability at any rate. Especially when it was the creator of the articles about this band who added the band name to the other Wikipedia article... --bonadea contributions talk 21:23, 26 December 2015 (UTC)
I disagree, this genre is niche and small and Auramics is notable. 21:25, 26 December 2015 (UTC)Echoechoradar (talk)Bands that are not "pop" music on pitchfork still can be popular among said circles whom invented such genres. Ie. Hauntology Radiophonic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Echoechoradar (talk • contribs) 21:31, 26 December 2015 (UTC)
- No, a mention in a Wikipedia article is never a proof of notability, not the way Wikipedia defines notability at any rate. Especially when it was the creator of the articles about this band who added the band name to the other Wikipedia article... --bonadea contributions talk 21:23, 26 December 2015 (UTC)
I vote to keep Auramics. Agreed with EchoechoRadar, its notable among those genres. 21:37, 26 December 2015 (UTC)Analogsynth (talk) — Analogsynth (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
- Delete: Does not pass WP:GNG, and is severely lacking any secondary reliable references. Closing admin, please take into account the level of meat/sock -puppetry -- samtar whisper 22:18, 26 December 2015 (UTC)
I disagree with whisper. Just because "reliable sources" are not pitchfork, does not mean a band isn't notable. That Canadian blog is one of the 10 biggest indie blogs in Canada and those radio stations are legitimate radio stations. Undelete. 22:24, 26 December 2015 (UTC)Echoechoradar (talk)
Auramics approved as reliable. Someone please edit for grammar however. 22:28, 26 December 2015 (UTC)Pandoraofwiki (talk)— Pandoraofwiki (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Keep: Plenty of credible sources. Soulseek324 (talk) 22:40, 26 December 2015 (UTC) — Soulseek324 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.- Delete: Potential sockpuppetry to keep this article alive. Also fails WP:GNG. Dat GuyTalkContribs 12:39, 27 December 2015 (UTC)
- Delete doesn't pass notability cOrneLlrOckEy (talk) 00:08, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
- Delete Per nom and above fails WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 05:40, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. KTC (talk) 00:40, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
Sex with reference to the Quran
- Sex with reference to the Quran (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Essay composed largely of Original research/synthesis and redundant to Islamic sexual jurisprudence. A merger was proposed some months ago, but most comments were in favour of deleting. - HyperGaruda (talk) 20:34, 26 December 2015 (UTC)
- Delete A merger should be done when there is something to salvage. This is complete OR. I am not sure if there is anything salvageable here. Regards FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 04:13, 27 December 2015 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. HyperGaruda (talk) 20:39, 26 December 2015 (UTC)
- Delete This is really a very blatant example of good intentioned OR. There really isn't much more to add; it should be an open and shut case. MezzoMezzo (talk) 05:44, 27 December 2015 (UTC)
- ِDelete: Looks like a conference article. It's WP:OR entirely and does not pass WP:GNG. Mhhossein (talk) 05:54, 27 December 2015 (UTC)
- ِDelete Agree with the above. We've got a better article on the subject already. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 12:01, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
- Redirect to Islamic sexual jurisprudence which is a better developed article on exactly the same subject. I have no objection to merging anything useful there, if there is anything. --Sammy1339 (talk) 08:13, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was deleted by User:Liz. (Non-admin closure) "Pepper" @ 01:31, 27 December 2015 (UTC)
- Clarification: According to Liz the article was tagged G7 at the time of deletion. Altamel (talk) 05:48, 27 December 2015 (UTC)
Masood Ahmad
- Masood Ahmad (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Subject's name is not uncommon, but searching for him in connection with "Shipping Office" leaves me with the impression that he fail WP:BASIC. Sam Sailor Talk! 20:16, 26 December 2015 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor Talk! 20:16, 26 December 2015 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor Talk! 20:17, 26 December 2015 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was speedy keep. The IP who requested that this article be nominated for deletion is a block-evading editor who was blocked for sockpuppetry. The Bushranger One ping only 22:35, 27 December 2015 (UTC)
Jovancov kamen
- Jovancov kamen (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Request per my talk page. Eteethan(talk)🎄 20:09, 26 December 2015 (UTC)
- Delete Jovancov kamen is lower peak of the Cudinska planina and it is not necessary to have a separate page. 77.105.24.109 (talk) 20:30, 26 December 2015 (UTC)
Keep. Per Wikipedia's remit as a gazetteer geographic features are notable. - The Bushranger One ping only 22:02, 26 December 2015 (UTC)Striking my !vote - see my closing comment. - The Bushranger One ping only 22:34, 27 December 2015 (UTC)DeleteJovancov kamen is only one insignificant peak within Cudinska planina peaks. In addition to top-level Aramlija one, there are around twenty of them and when even the highest peak does not your page, why would an irrelevant and unknown peak had his own page when there are pages of the mountain on which it is located. Then coordinates Jovancov kamen are inaccurate but it coordinates most points Aramlija. So the coordinates are wrong and this is the main reason why you should delete the page. Then the question is whether the height is correct or not. Jovancov kamen is really unknown location and for the Serbs and Bulgarians. Because of these irregularities page to be deleted. 77.105.24.109 (talk) 22:54, 26 December 2015 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Sir Sputnik (talk) 00:46, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
EFileCabinet
- EFileCabinet (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Non-notable. Tagged for advert concerns since 2012 and as an orphan since February 2015. Cloudbound (talk) 19:56, 26 December 2015 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Utah-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk) 06:44, 27 December 2015 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk) 06:44, 27 December 2015 (UTC)
- Delete as this is another classic example of an article needing deletion long ago as I simply see nothing to suggest even minimally better notability and improvement especially frmo the listed sources. SwisterTwister talk 08:02, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. North America1000 09:30, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. North America1000 09:30, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
- Keep – Passes WP:CORPDEPTH. This is another classic example of an article about a notable company that would benefit from copy editing and the addition of reliable sources. Source examples include: [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8] North America1000 09:32, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
References
- ^ "eFileCabinet: Going Beyond The Boxes". Forbes.
- ^ "Lehi's eFileCabinet gives paperwork a cloudy meaning". Daily Herald.
- ^ "Provo company's software ends paper storage". The Salt Lake Tribune.
{{cite web}}
: Italic or bold markup not allowed in:|publisher=
(help) - ^ "eFileCabinet Online". PC Magazine.
- ^ "eFileCabinet Review: Best Mobile Document Management". Business News Daily.
- ^ "eFileCabinet Raises $14 Million". Accounting Today.
- ^ "A Paperless Office is a Must Today". The Practical Accountant. (subscription required)
- ^ "No More Metal File Cabinets". The Practical Accountant. (subscription required)
- Keep - Given the sources found, the subject meets WP:CORPDEPTH. A little c/e would be nice though.—UY Scuti Talk 08:06, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was redirect to Virgin Group. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010 Merry Xmas / Happy New Year 11:33, 27 December 2015 (UTC)
Virgin Charter
- Virgin Charter (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Non-notable company with little chance of expansion. Cloudbound (talk) 19:52, 26 December 2015 (UTC)
- Delete Non notable portion of Richard Branson's business portfolio Seasider91 (talk) 19:57, 26 December 2015 (UTC)
- Redirect to Virgin Group. Notable as part of the list there if not on its own, a plausible redirect, and as always redirects are cheap (by some accounts, cheaper than deletion). - The Bushranger One ping only 21:04, 26 December 2015 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. The Bushranger One ping only 21:04, 26 December 2015 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. The Bushranger One ping only 21:06, 26 December 2015 (UTC)
- Redirect to Virgin Group - we don't need separate pages for each branch or venture of the company. LaMona (talk) 06:26, 27 December 2015 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:37, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
SmartBidNet
- SmartBidNet (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Non-notable software, tagged under advert concerns since 2010 and as an orphan article since September. Cloudbound (talk) 19:48, 26 December 2015 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. North America1000 10:01, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
- Delete as my searches simply found nothing better than a few links here and there at Books, News and browsers and nothing to suggest a better article here. SwisterTwister talk 21:10, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
- Delete per CLoudbound Fails WP:SIGCOV and is Promotional a non notable software by JBKnowledge Technologies .Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 06:21, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
- Delete - Doesn't seem to have significant coverage, most are press releases. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NSOFT (essay)—UY Scuti Talk 08:44, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
- Delete - Where to begin. Fails WP:GNG, WP:SIGCOV, and WP:NSOFT. Also would qualify for deletion under WP:DEL4. Onel5969 TT me 14:42, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was redirect to Virgin Group. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010 Merry Xmas / Happy New Year 11:33, 27 December 2015 (UTC)
Virgin Limousines
- Virgin Limousines (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Not notable. I've tried looking up references to the company and have found none so far. Cloudbound (talk) 19:39, 26 December 2015 (UTC)
- Delete Non notable part of Richard Branson's business portfolio Seasider91 (talk) 19:47, 26 December 2015 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America1000 20:39, 26 December 2015 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. North America1000 20:39, 26 December 2015 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America1000 20:39, 26 December 2015 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. North America1000 20:39, 26 December 2015 (UTC)
- Redirect to Virgin Group. Notable as part of the list there if not on its own, a plausible redirect, and as always redirects are cheap (by some accounts, cheaper than deletion). - The Bushranger One ping only 21:04, 26 December 2015 (UTC)
- Redirect to Virgin Group - we don't need separate pages for each branch or venture of the company. LaMona (talk) 06:27, 27 December 2015 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Strong consensus for delete when the obvious socks are discounted. Bishonen | talk 21:39, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
M.A.M. Mansoor
- M.A.M. Mansoor (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
BLP article has own sources and unreliable sources. From 2013, the article has failed to prove the notability issue AntanO 19:22, 26 December 2015 (UTC)
- Delete, with the exception of a scan from an undated newspaper that others cannot independently verify there's no third-party coverage. Even if we knew that newspaper article's full bibliographic details, one reference is not enough to establish notability. I couldn't find anything via Google News. Huon (talk) 23:58, 26 December 2015 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk) 06:47, 27 December 2015 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk) 06:47, 27 December 2015 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk) 06:47, 27 December 2015 (UTC)
- Delete - The listed sources particularly especially suggest no better signs of a better article especially if some of the frequent ones are simply social media. SwisterTwister talk 06:52, 27 December 2015 (UTC)
keep There is indeed no doubt that M.A.M.Mansoor is a renowned personality in Srilanka. Having conducted several lectures regarding religious and social issues and authored a number of books and an exegesis for the Qur'an his contribution to education is immense. He is also a promoter of social harmony and pluralism. It will be a great loss to the society if his wikipedia page is deleted so I suggest that wikipedia allows this page to exist.Farweezdeen (talk) 09:23, 28 December 2015 (UTC) — Farweezdeen (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.Blocked sock. — JJMC89 (T·C) 21:12, 2 January 2016 (UTC)keep, — Preceding unsigned comment added by 175.157.160.21 (talk) 14:54, 28 December 2015 (UTC)keep, since Usthaz M.A.M. Mansoor is a prominent scholar who has been immensely contributing to the society by his lectures, books, researches and etc.. in religious as well as in various contemporary issues, we want his page to be exist in wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 175.157.160.21 (talk • contribs) — 175.157.160.21 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.- Please leave only one keep or delete comment per AfD. I have struck your two earlier comments. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:00, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
keep I would like to suggest Wikipedia to keep this page because Usthaz M.A.M Mansoor has been an influential personality since more than 25 years in Sri Lanka. His contribution to social harmony and peace significantly known among the Muslims in Sri Lanka. He has a large number of students who are qualified professionals such as Doctors, Engineers, government university lecturers, teachers, lawyers, and some influential figures in Sri Lanka. So I think his page should be existed in Wikipedia for betterment of the society. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Haifa Hamdha (talk • contribs) 15:16, 28 December 2015 (UTC) — Haifa Hamdha (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.Blocked sock. — JJMC89 (T·C) 21:12, 2 January 2016 (UTC)- keep, Usthaz M.A.M Mansoor is a prominent Islamic scholar in srilanka. Being a lecturer and personality he has been rendering unlimited services to the society. Deletion of his page from Wikipedia will be a universal loss. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 175.157.160.21 (talk) 15:29, 28 December 2015 (UTC) — 175.157.160.21 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
- Comment Due to the new users and IPs' suspicious support to keep the article, sock puppet investigations has been reported. The new users and IPs are are failed to improve the article that has BLP issue, but keen to vote. --AntanO 18:02, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
- Delete The lack of independent reliable sources means we have little to write about him and no evidence as to how renowned he actually is. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 09:33, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
- Delete I looked for reliable sources on this guy and found nothing. Also - these are the most blatantly obvious and ineffective sockpuppets I've ever seen, are they even trying? Spacecowboy420 (talk) 12:05, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
- Delete All sockpuppetry aside, there's nothing in the way of sources or the like to meet WP:GNG. RickinBaltimore (talk) 13:35, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
- Delete Article claims membership in local chapters/affialiates of international Islamic organizations (not contributing to notability), Foremost scolarship in Islamic studies (which independent sources don't back up), and the acclaim of many "visitors" to this site. In short I see no good justification for an article on the English wikipedia. There might be an argument for Arabic or the appropriate wikipedia for Sri Lanka, but not here. Hasteur (talk) 13:50, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
- KeepM.A.M.Mansoor is an influential scholar of Sri Lanka.He has contributed a lot for the growth of Islamic knowledge in the Sri Lankan society.I object the deletion of this page.When certain pages with few lines about a particular subject can exist in Wikipedia,what's the point of considering this page for deletion by mentioning that it lacks information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Abbas456 (talk • contribs) 10:30, 30 December 2015 (UTC) — Abbas456 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
- Delete Fails WP:GNG and WP:SCHOLAR. More and better sources would be required for a WP:BLP. Scr★pIronIV 14:01, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
- Delete - in spite of all the SPA activity, nothing to indicate this person passes either WP:GNG or WP:SCHOLAR. Onel5969 TT me 14:46, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
- Comment All socks blocked and tagged --AntanO 16:02, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:32, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
Coin Acceptors
- Coin Acceptors (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Unreferenced fails WP:GNG,. User:Thisisnotatest do the sources pass WP:NOTNEWS / WP:CORPDEPTH ? Widefox; talk 19:04, 26 December 2015 (UTC)
- Unreferenced does not fail WP:GNG. Notability is independent of article content. Thisisnotatest (talk) 00:35, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
- Comment (nom) User:Thisisnotatest Read literally I would agree with you. "no sources" and a quick look for some didn't find much failing WP:GNG, and crucially failing WP:CORPDEPTH is my actual WP:BEFORE (plus I couldn't assess the sources you found). Above was shorthand. The three sources aren't significant coverage - seems run of the mill to me. Although the letter of WP:ILLCON is not applicable, the spirit may disregard 2/3 of the current sources. There's just not much coverage. (combined with now disclosed creator's COI User:Kbigdawg1) Widefox; talk 15:27, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
- Unreferenced does not fail WP:GNG. Notability is independent of article content. Thisisnotatest (talk) 00:35, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. APerson (talk!) 19:18, 26 December 2015 (UTC)
- Weak delete. No significant coverage. However, there are several passing mentions of the company ([20], [21], [22], [23]). APerson (talk!) 19:38, 26 December 2015 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America1000 20:40, 26 December 2015 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America1000 20:40, 26 December 2015 (UTC)
- Delete No non-trivial coverage; just another small business. OhNoitsJamie Talk 22:44, 26 December 2015 (UTC)
- Get rid of it, as it's obviously not notable. I hesitate to recommend deletion, however, as this is potentially a decent alternate name for a coin-operated machine, and that title is a redirect to Vending machine. So either delete or redirect. Nyttend (talk) 23:33, 26 December 2015 (UTC)
- Nyttend Coin acceptor already targets Currency detector, this proper noun is unrelated, and free for deletion. Widefox; talk 09:16, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
- Thank you. Because our page titles are case-sensitive, the existence of a differently-capitalised title is not a reason to delete this one: it's just an additional reason for redirecting this one to the same target. Nyttend (talk) 13:37, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
- Nyttend Why? WP:DIFFCAPS doesn't apply as there's not two articles needing disambiguation. I've created the lowercase plural Coin acceptors -> Currency detector. WP:OTHERNAMES is no as well... "it is not necessary to create redirects from alternative capitalizations unless these are likely to be used in links". I personally don't like wrong caps, so I'd prefer delete anyhow. Widefox; talk 15:29, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
- Your ping didn't work; I've come back because I was curious how the discussion was going, not because I got a notification. There's a big difference between "not necessary to do X" and "necessary not to do X", and a big difference between creating something new and retaining something that already exists. Titles being case-sensitive, someone who goes to Coin Acceptors, i.e. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coin_Acceptors, will assume that we don't have anything on the subject: there's no good reason to get rid of this unambiguous and not-particularly-unlikely title, rather than retaining it as a redirect, when we're retaining a version that's better capitalised. This is a fine example of {{R from other capitalisation}}. Final note: as the page was getting several views each day before it was brought here, before there was a capitalisation variant with the same title, we have even less reason to trash it. Better to retain the history, and better to cause somewhat less confusion, than to delete it entirely. Nyttend (talk) 20:55, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
- Nyttend (this one should work, as it's not re-edited) agree with that logic, and your valid point catalysed my lowercase creation instead and a hatnote at Coin Acceptors (pending deletion). After the former, it seems moot per OTHERNAMES - the redirect needs creating, it's never been in use and there's no need to use the uppercase in a link per OTHERNAMES. The search interface will switch to the lowercase for the historical use case of the uppercase (that until now was badly served without a hatnote), so that's moot too. The only confusion I envisage, is the search interface currently prompting for the uppercase which is a real company name (a minor point as it seems not notable). Caveat my view may be quite personal (redirects being cheap). Widefox; talk 01:03, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
- You fail to observe that I'm not talking about the search interface. Remember that not everyone goes to pages with the search box: it would be appreciated if you didn't totally ignore people who would go to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coin_Acceptors, as I already said, rather than Special:Search/Coin_Acceptors. See WP:RKEEP point #5. Nyttend (talk) 03:32, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
- After replying I did realise, thanks, and in case I'd missed some important incoming links I quickly checked, but seemed so unimportant I didn't follow-up. So after covering most of the use cases, we're left with those people of the world with this bookmarked? If correct, this seems to me increasingly niche and offtopic. Wikipedia:Redirect/Deletion reasons is for redirects. This has never been a redirect. The top says "AfD" not "RfD". (these two articles also have only themselves as INT links, they're COI spam) Widefox; talk 04:07, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
- You fail to observe that I'm not talking about the search interface. Remember that not everyone goes to pages with the search box: it would be appreciated if you didn't totally ignore people who would go to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coin_Acceptors, as I already said, rather than Special:Search/Coin_Acceptors. See WP:RKEEP point #5. Nyttend (talk) 03:32, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
- Nyttend (this one should work, as it's not re-edited) agree with that logic, and your valid point catalysed my lowercase creation instead and a hatnote at Coin Acceptors (pending deletion). After the former, it seems moot per OTHERNAMES - the redirect needs creating, it's never been in use and there's no need to use the uppercase in a link per OTHERNAMES. The search interface will switch to the lowercase for the historical use case of the uppercase (that until now was badly served without a hatnote), so that's moot too. The only confusion I envisage, is the search interface currently prompting for the uppercase which is a real company name (a minor point as it seems not notable). Caveat my view may be quite personal (redirects being cheap). Widefox; talk 01:03, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
- Your ping didn't work; I've come back because I was curious how the discussion was going, not because I got a notification. There's a big difference between "not necessary to do X" and "necessary not to do X", and a big difference between creating something new and retaining something that already exists. Titles being case-sensitive, someone who goes to Coin Acceptors, i.e. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coin_Acceptors, will assume that we don't have anything on the subject: there's no good reason to get rid of this unambiguous and not-particularly-unlikely title, rather than retaining it as a redirect, when we're retaining a version that's better capitalised. This is a fine example of {{R from other capitalisation}}. Final note: as the page was getting several views each day before it was brought here, before there was a capitalisation variant with the same title, we have even less reason to trash it. Better to retain the history, and better to cause somewhat less confusion, than to delete it entirely. Nyttend (talk) 20:55, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
- Nyttend Why? WP:DIFFCAPS doesn't apply as there's not two articles needing disambiguation. I've created the lowercase plural Coin acceptors -> Currency detector. WP:OTHERNAMES is no as well... "it is not necessary to create redirects from alternative capitalizations unless these are likely to be used in links". I personally don't like wrong caps, so I'd prefer delete anyhow. Widefox; talk 15:29, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
- Thank you. Because our page titles are case-sensitive, the existence of a differently-capitalised title is not a reason to delete this one: it's just an additional reason for redirecting this one to the same target. Nyttend (talk) 13:37, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
- Nyttend Coin acceptor already targets Currency detector, this proper noun is unrelated, and free for deletion. Widefox; talk 09:16, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
- Keep, the subject is notable. I have added notable references, although WP:GNG does not require that references be present in the article to establish notability. Thisisnotatest (talk) 00:35, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
- Delete in any case as the current sources are simply not enough to suggest a better solid article. SwisterTwister talk 08:01, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
- See also Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Royal_Vendors (PROD now been opposed) Widefox; talk 15:54, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
- Delete. Not notable.DaveApter (talk) 16:07, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
- Delete. They exist. They're a company. Nothing notable. Fails WP:GNG and WP:CORPDEPTH. Onel5969 TT me 14:49, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:24, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
University of Maryland Language House
- University of Maryland Language House (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
College dormitory. Essentially none of them are notable. No non-university sources for this one. Not even worth a merge--it doesn't seem significant enough for that. We;re not a directory. DGG ( talk ) 18:09, 26 December 2015 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 19:00, 26 December 2015 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 19:00, 26 December 2015 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Maryland-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 19:00, 26 December 2015 (UTC)
- Delete Per nom. Nothing remarkable about this residence hall. OhNoitsJamie Talk 22:43, 26 December 2015 (UTC)
- Delete per nomination and WP:NOPAGE.Blue Riband► 14:26, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
- Delete - Unlike McKeldin Mall on the same campus, there is nothing to show that this particular dorm is notable. Onel5969 TT me 14:57, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:42, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. KTC (talk) 00:40, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
Uno Hoffmann
- Uno Hoffmann (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Non notable artist; no works in permanent collection of a major museum; no extensive (or any) critical studies of their works. DGG ( talk ) 18:02, 26 December 2015 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. clpo13(talk) 18:14, 26 December 2015 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. clpo13(talk) 18:14, 26 December 2015 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. clpo13(talk) 18:14, 26 December 2015 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. clpo13(talk) 18:15, 26 December 2015 (UTC)
- Delete No non-trivial third-party coverage to support WP:BIO notability. OhNoitsJamie Talk 22:41, 26 December 2015 (UTC)
- Works in permanent collections In response to DGG's comment above - I have contacted the Gulbenkian, Moderna Museet, and the Art Museum of Estonia to confirm that each of these continue to hold works by Hoffmann within their permanent collection. What kind of evidence do I need to add to the article for this? Will respond to non-trivial third-party coverage on a separate line. Kutbil-ik (talk) 15:45, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
- Non-Trivial Sources I have located more sources from newspapers and otherwise concerning Hoffmann's work, and added these to the article and to the talk page.Kutbil-ik (talk) 16:01, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
- Comment The two sources you added are press releases, which do not count as reliable sources. OhNoitsJamie Talk 18:33, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
- Delete Fails WP:ARTIST and WP:SIGCOV.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 23:15, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
- Delete - trivial coverage not enough to pass Wp:GNG and doesn't seem to have met WP:ARTIST—UY Scuti Talk 08:55, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
- Delete for now at best as there may simply not be enough yet. SwisterTwister talk 17:50, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Consensus to not have an article on this. Perhaps also redirect, but no clear consensus as to where, so that's an editorial decision. Sandstein 09:41, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
Afrophile
- Afrophile (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Unsourced "-phile" —azuki (talk · contribs · email) 11:46, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
- Delete - does not receive significant coverage in reliable sources, would be a dicdef at best. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Afrophilia. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 18:09, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
- Comment: the term does exist in many reliable sources (quick Google Books search verifies that); however, i think it would most suitably belong as a dicde--for now at least.--Fotoriety (talk) 23:52, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
- Comment: the term is similar to and more widely quoted than other current Wikipedia words such as; Kartvelophile and Suecophile. It clearly has a legitimate place in Wikipedia — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.114.80.126 (talk) 08:44, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 15:59, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 15:59, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 16:00, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
- Comments - (1) Is there really no other page that covers this? The appreciation, fascination, appropriation, and exploitation of African arts and culture has been happening in a sense that could be described by this term since the Age of Discovery. Explorers would go to Africa just to purchase or plunder its culture to return to rich Europeans (and, later, Americans). There's Exploration of Africa and Colonisation of Africa, and there's Culture of Africa and African art, but I'm seeing surprisingly little about this. Anyone else have ideas? (2) @Fotoriety: That a word is used just means it's appropriate for a dictionary (like Wiktionary). We need sources that talk about the subject that the term refers to. Have you seen any of those? I'm actively looking right now. I don't have much time, but I'm surprised I haven't found more already. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 16:30, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
- Redirect - Ah. Found it. Negrophilia. Close enough. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 16:39, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
- Comments It could be argued that contemporaries would be offended by the term "Negrophile" for obvious reasons. Afrophilia captures a contemporary world view. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2002:18e1:e8ab:0:d48b:9eae:cec6:6f98 (talk • contribs) 22:14, 21 December 2015
- Negrophilia was a specific name used in France in the early 20th century, so we certainly wouldn't want to rename it. The article doesn't take it much beyond that, but the underlying phenomenon is the same. Crucially, there are sources that talk about negrophilia, and we are, as yet, without significant coverage of afrophilia. An article on the broader subject would be ideal, but for our purposes we're just looking at whether afrophile/afrophilia are notable, and with negrophilia already existing with a good amount of overlap, we'd need to see some good sources to justify keeping this one. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 23:03, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
- Redirect: It's hard to see that we should have both Afrophile and Aphrophilia, so one should surely redirect to the other. I'm less than persuaded that Negrophilia is exactly the right target, given its overtones: at best the term is obsolete. At the moment, Aphrophilia is rapidly being given reliable sources. Perhaps both the other articles should redirect to it. Chiswick Chap (talk) 10:59, 26 December 2015 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti Talk 17:45, 26 December 2015 (UTC)
- Delete or Redirect - not sure what the appropriate redirect is, but this is nothing more than a dicdef and some WP:SYNTH crap (Bill Clinton, Bono?) OhNoitsJamie Talk 22:40, 26 December 2015 (UTC)
- Comment If not acceptable as an article, this could be redirected either to Negrophilia or to African studies. Nyttend (talk) 23:35, 26 December 2015 (UTC)
- Delete. Seems to be a non-notable neologism, though it seems conceivable that the concept itself could be notable. I found a few uses of the word on Google News, but I don't see the significant coverage that Wikipedia requires. It's entirely possible this could be redirected to Negrophilia, but that seems like a distinct Paris fad. The other suggestion, African studies, is a decent choice, but it's an academic subject, not a pop cultural appreciation. I suggest deletion and leaving it to editor discretion as to whether a redirect is appropriate. If someone can show that the concept is notable, under a name that isn't a non-notable neologism, we could have an article on that. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 01:38, 27 December 2015 (UTC)
- comment: the many arguments for deletion all apply for current longstanding Wikipedia words such as; Japanophile, sinophile and europhile. Yet they exist. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.225.232.171 (talk) 21:44, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
- Comment There's a link for that! WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. OhNoitsJamie Talk 13:48, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
- Keep: no valid points for deletion or redirection. While the word exists in historical and contemporary lexicon and many valid sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.114.86.79 (talk) 13:39, 30 December 2015 (UTC) — 24.114.86.79 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. KTC (talk) 00:41, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
Kovacs Foundation
- Kovacs Foundation (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Not sufficiently notable to merit an article. Alexbrn (talk) 10:30, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
- Delete - CatcherStorm (talk) (contribs) 10:53, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti Talk 17:44, 26 December 2015 (UTC)
- Delete One of thousands of small non-profits. No demonstration whatsoever of notability. OhNoitsJamie Talk 22:37, 26 December 2015 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk) 06:52, 27 December 2015 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk) 06:52, 27 December 2015 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:19, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
Wael Abu Dayyih
- Wael Abu Dayyih (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
WP:NOTCV GorillaWarfare (talk) 17:43, 26 December 2015 (UTC)
- Delete fails to pass GNG or academic. I also have to say the format is downright unworkable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:25, 26 December 2015 (UTC)
- Delete Just a run of the mill academics CV that he's put up himself. Seasider91 (talk) 19:52, 26 December 2015 (UTC)
- Delete: fails WP:NACADEMIC, self published CV. Melcous (talk) 21:39, 26 December 2015 (UTC)
- Delete. the standard of notability by WP:PROf is international, and he does not meet it. Low citations, though some of the publications are in journals that are internationally known, so the work would have been cited if it were important. DGG ( talk ) 23:23, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 23:28, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Middle East-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 23:28, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
- SNOW delete as this nearly even speedy material. SwisterTwister talk 23:29, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
- Delete Fails WP:GNG and WP:NACADEMIC. It is CV which the subject has himself put up.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 04:04, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Consensus to delete following relisting. The Bushranger One ping only 23:24, 27 December 2015 (UTC)
Pathway Pharmaceuticals
- Pathway Pharmaceuticals (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Subject is a newly established "personalized medicine company" with no in-depth coverage in reliable secondary sources. The reference attributed to Reuters is actually a press release not written by Reuters. Citobun (talk) 16:04, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
- Delete: Per nom. I am surprised this article was approved for article space. Delta13C (talk) 16:59, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti Talk 17:43, 26 December 2015 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America1000 20:42, 26 December 2015 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. North America1000 20:42, 26 December 2015 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. North America1000 20:42, 26 December 2015 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. North America1000 20:42, 26 December 2015 (UTC)
- Delete Non-notable company. Reuters ref turns out to be a press release. Keeping articles about non-notable companies out of WP is difficult because of the vague wording of WP:CORP which seems to say that any two sources is enough to support notability. Unfortunately, it doens't say what the content of those sources should be, and financial news reports on every action by a company of any size, including routine reports about stock prices , mergers, and funding. We really must get a grip on this or WP will end up being nothing more than a company directory, since most of these companies are seeking SEO that is provided by having a WP article. We need a better definition of what makes a company notable. LaMona (talk) 06:47, 27 December 2015 (UTC)
- Delete as there are a few links here and there, yes, but Seemingly nothing for a noticeably better article. SwisterTwister talk 18:27, 27 December 2015 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was speedy delete. WP:G11. The Bushranger One ping only 23:25, 27 December 2015 (UTC)
Kubba Challenge Cup Singapore
- Kubba Challenge Cup Singapore (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Declined prod. This is a blatant advertisement that references no independent sources; I can find no evidence of any coverage of this event in any reliable source. R'n'B (call me Russ) 14:40, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti Talk 17:43, 26 December 2015 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. clpo13(talk) 17:46, 26 December 2015 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. clpo13(talk) 17:46, 26 December 2015 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:34, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
Downtown Mayhem
- Downtown Mayhem (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
I can see nothing in the refs that convey any sense of notability. One is a domain for sale and another appears to have no content. The rest are YouTube videos and web-site interviews on sites without the required credentials to establish independent notability. Some appear to be blogs. Fails WP:GNG Velella Velella Talk 23:22, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti Talk 17:41, 26 December 2015 (UTC)
- Delete. The Out article does mention them, but it's a pretty brief mention. It's probably a bit too soon yet. I'm having trouble finding significant coverage in reliable sources. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 01:55, 27 December 2015 (UTC)
- Delete not notable. Curro2 (talk) 21:53, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete and redirect to Life Will Kill You. Consensus to delete following relisting; redirected per the nom's (apparently overlooked) proposal. If the first is desired to be changed in target or dabbed, that can be done through the conventional editing process. The Bushranger One ping only 23:27, 27 December 2015 (UTC)
Little Baby
- Little Baby (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
- The Price We Pay (Clawfinger) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Two songs with no real claim of notability under WP:NMUSIC for much of anything besides the fact that they exist, and citing no reliable source coverage about the songs (the "references" here are primary sources, such as the record label and "buy it" pages on commercial sales platforms.) Wikipedia's notability rules for songs do not confer automatic inclusion rights on every song that exists — if you cannot adequately demonstrate and source that the song is a notable topic in its own right independently of its parent album, such as by actually charting on an IFPI-certified record chart, then it gets a redirect to the album and not a standalone article. Redirect to Life Will Kill You. Bearcat (talk) 19:27, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Nothing to show that either of these singles passes either GNG or NMUSIC. Onel5969 TT me 14:49, 26 December 2015 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti Talk 17:41, 26 December 2015 (UTC)
- Comment I'm not particularly familiar with the music notability standards, but I don't see why we'd need to delete this title entirely; if the article's subject isn't notable, either redirect the title per nom, or redirect it to infancy. Nyttend (talk) 23:36, 26 December 2015 (UTC)
- Delete Nothing notable about this track. Even the entire album is a bit iffy when compared to WP:NMUSIC but the track is an obvious delete. LaMona (talk) 07:01, 27 December 2015 (UTC)
- Delete I suppose although I was interested by Nyttend suggesting this be moved also to infancy and even likely a disambiguation perhaps for both articles. What is certain though is that this article's current subject is not keepable. SwisterTwister talk 18:24, 27 December 2015 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was no consensus. Sandstein 09:53, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
Brandy Talore
- Brandy Talore (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
minor shared award does not pass GNG or PORNBIO Spartaz Humbug! 16:35, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:10, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:10, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
- Delete Does not meet notability requirements for pornographic actors.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:32, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
- Keep Passes WP:PORNBIO with FAME Award for Favorite Female Rookie. The award is not scene-related and being tied with another performer does not make this award an ensemble category. Ensemble, by definition, means "a group of musicians, actors, or dancers who perform together." Talore and Alektra Blue have never even done a single scene together. This is also a newcomer award, which have overwhelming consensus favoring their inclusion in PORNBIO. Also, the ONLY FAME Awards removed from PORNBIO were nominations (as were ALL other nominations for EVERY porn award). Wins were never removed from PORNBIO and Talore was not only nominated for this award, she won it. Rebecca1990 (talk) 05:04, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
- Speedy keep - winner, meets of PORNBIO. Subtropical-man talk
(en-2) 14:32, 20 December 2015 (UTC) - Delete - As nice as she is unfortunately article's don't get kept based on looks! - Fails PORNBIO & GNG. –Davey2010 Merry Xmas / Happy New Year 18:01, 25 December 2015 (UTC)
- Delete. The article, as it stands, falls far short of meeting GNG/BLP requirements: Little of the sourcing is reliable, and virtually none is independent. The issue is then whether the subject's FAME Award is sufficient to outweigh this shortfall. IU don't believe the award is well-known and significant, as required by PORNBIO. I've seen no evidence that is regarded as significant, either inside the industry or in outside commentary. Instead, it was a short-term and ultimately unsuccessful contrivance, a corporate marketing-generated example of astroturfing masquerading as a fan enterprise. It never really gained any traction, and it's significant that sources used in the award article are uniformly associated with the awards themselves or their corporate sponsors. With no basis presented for concluding the award is significant, and no independent reliable sourcing in the BLP itself, I see nothing supporting the claim that the subject is notable. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 06:11, 26 December 2015 (UTC)
- Comment Several past discussions determined that the FAME Award for Favorite Female Rookie is indeed well-known/significant. Consensus favoring the FAME Awards as well-known/significant still exists on WP. See this discussion, which took place only four months ago. Rebecca1990 (talk) 07:02, 26 December 2015 (UTC)
- Keep - The article meets WP:PORNBIO standards because Brandy Talore won the FAME Award. Miss Talore's award was based on a fan vote conducted by several different nationally known adult media companies. A person must be well known to the public to win a publically voted award. As such, Brandy Talore is notable to the public and she is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia. The FAME Awards, themselves, have been debated on Wikipedia. The final decision is that a FAME Award is considered notable and significant enough for inclusion in Wikipedia. Theendoftheblear (talk) 08:58, 26 December 2015 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti Talk 17:40, 26 December 2015 (UTC)
- Keep, She won F.A.M.E. Award.--Hillary Scott`love (talk) 18:37, 26 December 2015 (UTC)
- Delete. The earlier discussions highlighted by Rebecca1990 took place a long time ago and standards have increased since. As Morbidthoughts highlighted in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fans of Adult Media and Entertainment Award "ANYBIO requires the award to be well-known and significant which is a higher standard than simply being notable". There is not sufficient evidnence that the award is "well-known & significant.Finnegas (talk) 23:13, 26 December 2015 (UTC) Finnegas (talk) 23:13, 26 December 2015 (UTC)
- Comment "Well known" and "significant" are not actually a quantifiable higher standard than "notable". In fact, the words are all synonyms of each other. The FAME Awards are well known because hundreds of thousands of people have voted for them, and many more have been interested in the results. A FAME Award is a significant industry achievement because it means that the recipient has stood out in some exceptional way to the public. The FAME Awards article was discussed as recently as August 2015, and the final determination was to keep the article. Theendoftheblear (talk) 12:16, 27 December 2015 (UTC)
- This argument is simply wrong, contrary to consensus and practice. The "well-known/significant" standard parallels the use of the same language in WP:ANYBIO, where there is no dispute that it represents a higher standard than notable. There are many clear examples of notable awards/honors that don't demonstrate notability of their recipients -- Rhodes Scholars may be the most prominent example, but many military medals fall into that category, as do many British crown honors. PORNBIO was revised several years ago to tighten up this criterion in particular: it used to indicate that any notable award was sufficient, but that proved unsatisfactory, and more restrictive language was adopted, without any great controversy. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 22:28, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
- Keep The standard set by WP:PORNBIO is flawed to say the least. First of all, there are a few Wikipedians who have arbitrarily determined which awards are significant industry awards and which are not. Second, the receipt of an award does not make someone notable - especially in this industry. Finally, the purpose of Wikipedia is to provide a medium where users can create articles to share information on items in which they are subject matter experts or have done appropriate research. It is ridiculous as to how many bios have been recently deleted because people don't have anything better to do. Hobbamock (talk) 13:11, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
- Comment This comment is EXACTLY right. The PORNBIO standards are at best, arbitrary, and at worst, show a profound lack of knowledge towards what makes a performer "notable". Brandy seems to meet the ridiculous standards thanks to her FAME award, but anyone who follows porn, especially big bust porn, knows that Brandy has been a big name in porn for more than a decade. 209.90.140.72 (talk) 00:17, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
- Keep - Note: I have recently edited the article in question here. The subject here has won "a well-known and significant industry award", namely the Fans of Adult Media and Entertainment Award (recently found to be a notable award ceremony at AfD and basically comperable to the People's Choice Awards) "Favorite Female Rookie Starlet", which is similar to other well-known, major adult film award categories (AVN Award for Best New Starlet & XBIZ Award for Best New Starlet). See also the previous AfD discussion in 2007 about this subject that was apparently about this very award win. The fact that the award winners tied that year is pretty much meaningless. Guy1890 (talk) 06:21, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. There is no foreseeable way that this can result in a "delete" outcome, and it would just need to be recreated in less than a week anyway. Therefore, as Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy, I'm going ahead and closing this. The Bushranger One ping only 22:06, 26 December 2015 (UTC)
2016 in the United States
- 2016 in the United States (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
WP:CRYSTAL, as 2016 has not started yet. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 17:34, 26 December 2015 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. clpo13(talk) 17:40, 26 December 2015 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. clpo13(talk) 17:42, 26 December 2015 (UTC)
- Keep per WP:CRYSTAL - "Individual scheduled or expected future events should be included only if the event is notable and almost certain to take place". I'm going out on a limb, but I think it will happen... Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 17:50, 26 December 2015 (UTC)
- Speedy keep. WP:CRYSTAL covers "unverifiable speculation" and all the events listed here (plus more, I'm about to add United States presidential election, 2016 to the list) are verified that they are taking place and articles have already been written about them. Besides, if we let this run its full course, it'll be 2016 when it's closed, which would negate the nominator's rationale. -- Tavix (talk) 17:53, 26 December 2015 (UTC)
- Keep per above; we definitely have articles about things that are happening in 2016 in the United States; making a list of them at this point is just fine. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 19:13, 26 December 2015 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. North America1000 20:45, 26 December 2015 (UTC)
- Keep – WP:CRYSTAL: "Individual scheduled or expected future events should be included only if the event is notable and almost certain to take place." North America1000 20:46, 26 December 2015 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:35, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
Harald Gaier
- Harald Gaier (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
The sources cited in the article do not meet GNG or BLP. None describe Harald Gaier in any detail, and a Google search did not turn up better sources. This seems to be an example of a promotional piece for a non-notable alt-med practitioner. Delta13C (talk) 09:29, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:22, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:22, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Austria-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:22, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
- delete sources in article are primary or secondary. Lacking third party coverage to meet WP:BIO. LibStar (talk) 17:10, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti Talk 17:26, 26 December 2015 (UTC)
- delete - as per nominator. Sources show that Gaier has written some material that has been published, including a book on homeopathy and a few articles and book chapters. He gets a passing mention in a newspaper article where a feature writer visits a private clinic where he is a director. I don't see that there is enough independent coverage in reliable sources here to pass WP:ACADEMIC or WP:GNG. Drchriswilliams (talk) 02:28, 27 December 2015 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:36, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
Dreadnaut
- Dreadnaut (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
I came across this as a speedy as a recreation of an AfD'd page. However the article does now have sources that it previously did not, as the prior version was unsourced. It's enough for it to squeak by speedy criteria, but the overall notability is still in question so I'm bringing it here. The article asserts that it was considered the best of a local magazine, but I don't know that this would be enough for it to pass NBAND. If anyone can find sourcing I'm open to withdrawing this. Tokyogirl79 (。◕‿◕。) 06:26, 12 December 2015 (UTC)
- Delete - Ah yes thanks for AfDing Tokyogirl79 as I put it aside for my plans and I still echo and confirm my original PROD: "Nothing to suggest fully satisfying bands notability guidelines as the Junofest mention is simply performing there, not an award, and my searches found nothing better than a few local passing mentions exactly what the currently listed sources are here, simply local weeklies.". Notifying the only still active past users Shirik and Paul Erik. SwisterTwister talk 06:37, 12 December 2015 (UTC)
- That's kind of what I figured. It was enough to where I was worried that it could possibly be restored through DRV, so I figured the safest bet here was to just go through AfD and get a new consensus. I doubt that anything will change. Tokyogirl79 (。◕‿◕。) 06:39, 12 December 2015 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:37, 12 December 2015 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:37, 12 December 2015 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 09:20, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti Talk 17:26, 26 December 2015 (UTC)
- Delete and redirect to dreadnought as a {{R from misspelling}}. I found one review in Hollywood Music Magazine and a writeup on CBC Music, but I don't think it's enough to establish notability. Their writeups in the local papers only really mention that they played, which doesn't satisfy WP:NBAND, and they've opened for major acts but haven't themselves headlined on a national tour, which is generally a NBAND minimum requirement. They don't have a label, they haven't won or been nominated for any awards beyond local-level magazines, and their claim to fame of playing Manitoba Rocks isn't that impressive because that's really not a major show, it's just a show put on by a local radio station. Significant coverage of this band just isn't there. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 19:38, 26 December 2015 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was no consensus. Relisted twice and not enough participation to determine a consensus to either delete or keep the article. Please wait some time and relist the article if not new reliable sources are provided to establish notability of the subject. (non-admin closure) → Call me Razr Nation 01:35, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
Okieriete Onaodowan
- Okieriete Onaodowan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
He'll probably be notable eventually, but currently he only has one notable credit to his name. JDDJS (talk) 05:51, 12 December 2015 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. North America1000 07:02, 12 December 2015 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America1000 07:02, 12 December 2015 (UTC)
- User:JDDJS, baby, we've got to stop meeting like this. I mean, we just danced this set at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Javier Muñoz (actor). Would you consider rethinking this one, maybe withdrawing it? After all, 4,000 people a month come to this page to see who Onaodowan is.E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:53, 12 December 2015 (UTC)
- KEEP as per WP:HEY. Just expanded article; note that his earlier stage roles were reviewed in major dailies; and there is that Grammy nomination. As article creator, my iVote is hardly surprising. As Nom himself says: "He'll probably be notable eventually." I argue that he already meets: WP:BASIC.E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:53, 12 December 2015 (UTC)
- Hear him here: [24]. Original cast album. Can it be that a Grammy "means nothing"?E.M.Gregory (talk) 23:25, 12 December 2015 (UTC)
- If you can't score tkts. to see Onaodowan in Hamilton (musical), you can see him here: [25].E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:40, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
- Adding This argument for Onaodowan's "legacy" and "impact" as part of a unique, paradigm-changing cast, laid out by Mic here: [26].E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:49, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 09:20, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti Talk 17:26, 26 December 2015 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 09:52, 27 December 2015 (UTC)
Rowdy City (Hip-Hop Group)
- Rowdy City (Hip-Hop Group) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
The article is about a hip-hop group with no evidence that it meets the WP:NMUSIC standards and was created by an account with a username suggesting that it is being used for self-promotion (the username has been changed now that I have reported it). I nominated it for speedy deletion under WP:A7 and WP:G11. The author contested deletion 4 times and does not seem to get why it was nominated and that Wikipedia is not a place for advertising. BoxOfChickens (talk · contribs · CSD nominations) 03:40, 12 December 2015 (UTC)
- Delete - whenever an article is supported by so many social media refs + YouTube and nowadays SoundCloud, it always casts doubt on notability. I waded through them all (not for the faint-hearted) and could find no notability or even any significance. Fails WP:GNG — Preceding unsigned comment added by Velella (talk • contribs) 17:44, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 09:18, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti Talk 17:25, 26 December 2015 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. Kudos to Cullen328 for article improvement. The Bushranger One ping only 23:29, 27 December 2015 (UTC)
Zoo Art Fair
- Zoo Art Fair (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Looks not notable. Poor article, unreferenced, created and contributed to be SPA editors. Info outdated (defunct since 2009). Would appreciate the input from editors with an interest in art about notability. Rayman60 (talk) 23:30, 12 December 2015 (UTC)
- Delete No attempt made to meet Wikipedia's inclusion criteria including WP:GNG. Blue Rasberry (talk) 23:44, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
- Comment. Looking at RS this article is totally fixable. C'est la vie. --MurderByDeletionism"bang!" 00:55, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
- Keep. I think it is salvageable, but someone needs to put in the work to fix it. How about you, MurderByDeadcopy? Deb (talk) 10:02, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
- I tried that once on an article in AfD where I recognized the subject and was aggressively attacked for the attempt so no, I refuse to go through that torture again! --MurderByDeletionism"bang!" 17:39, 26 December 2015 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 09:39, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 11:05, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti Talk 17:25, 26 December 2015 (UTC)
- Keep A Google News search shows quite a bit of coverage, including a mention in the New York Times which helps explain why it closed . The fact that the event is no longer held should have no impact on this debate. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 00:05, 27 December 2015 (UTC)
- Comment I have added new content and references to coverage in three independent, reliable sources to the article. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 08:09, 27 December 2015 (UTC)
- Keep as it now stands the article passes GNG and WP:EVENT. The coverage in Contemporary British Art: An Introduction while short places it in context within the British art scene. JbhTalk 15:33, 27 December 2015 (UTC)
- Keep, thanks to Cullen328's good work. Drmies (talk) 22:13, 27 December 2015 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. WP:SOFTDELETE. The Bushranger One ping only 06:32, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
Kate MacGarry
- Kate MacGarry (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Based on the notability guides and my searches, this does not seem to be a significant gallery. It has mainly been created, edited and maintained by SPA editors. I do not have enough knowledge about the sector to satisfactorily pass judgement, but as an outsider it really seems to be short of notability. Hoping for some input from more informed editors. Rayman60 (talk) 23:06, 12 December 2015 (UTC)
- Delete Fails WP:GNG. I can find no significant coverage in reliable sources about the gallery itself. Also, all the content, bar copyediting, has been added by editors with what look to be prima facie WP:COI issues. Edwardx (talk) 20:58, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
- Comment: Indeed. and sad to say, it is endemic amongst related artists (i.e. a number of artists have had representation by this gallery inserted into their articles by infrequent contributors along a similar pattern). Being an outsider to the world of contemporary art, I found it difficult to assess notability and was a little hesitant to nominate some (so apologies if I'm way off the mark). Rayman60 (talk) 21:43, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
- I'd say 90% of Wikipedians have zero idea about the world of art which is why they so easily get deleted. On the other hard, sports figures on Wikipedia is like International Triviaville Extraordinaire! --MurderByDeletionism"bang!" 00:49, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
- Comment: Indeed. and sad to say, it is endemic amongst related artists (i.e. a number of artists have had representation by this gallery inserted into their articles by infrequent contributors along a similar pattern). Being an outsider to the world of contemporary art, I found it difficult to assess notability and was a little hesitant to nominate some (so apologies if I'm way off the mark). Rayman60 (talk) 21:43, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 09:38, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti Talk 17:25, 26 December 2015 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was redirect to Newsboys discography; always preferable to deletion--Ymblanter (talk) 09:46, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
Christmas! A Newsboys Holiday
- Christmas! A Newsboys Holiday (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Non-notable album. Does not meet the guidelines at WP:NALBUMS and does not meet the policy requirements of WP:GNG. KDS4444Talk 21:51, 12 December 2015 (UTC)
- Delete - This album fails NALBUMS. Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:31, 12 December 2015 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 09:37, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti Talk 17:25, 26 December 2015 (UTC)
- Redirect to Newsboys discography. Not a notable album but a plausible search term and redirects are cheap. - The Bushranger One ping only 23:30, 27 December 2015 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. The Bushranger One ping only 06:32, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
Sarah Duque Lovisoni
- Sarah Duque Lovisoni (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Despite all the references, there appears to be nothing here to attest to notability. After removing the Facebook, YouTube, and internal Wikipedia refs only one seems to actually mention here , and then only in passing as a one time Playboy model. Reads very much like a publicity piece but fails WP:GNG Velella Velella Talk 21:09, 12 December 2015 (UTC)
- Comment Does making a Playboy cover qualify for WP:NMODEL? Nothing about the way her career is described tells us whether she was a highlight of the various campaigns she appeared in or whether she had the spotlight on the TV programs on which she appeared, or whether she was an anonymous body modeling clothes in all those cases. The last couple of examples look like instances of that coupled with attempts at notability by association. —Largo Plazo (talk) 21:19, 12 December 2015 (UTC)
- Delete. Fails WP:GNG. Lacks substantial coverage from independent, reliable sources, offered or to be found. WP:NOTPROMO. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 17:42, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 09:37, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
- Delete In the absence of feedback, I'm going with my feeling that Playboy, in the context of the whole world, isn't the counterpart of the Academy Awards for the modeling field. There's no reason why it would be: The Academy Awards are based on group acclaim, while Playboy cover models are chosen by one publisher's editorial staff. I see no evidence of notability. —Largo Plazo (talk) 17:20, 24 December 2015 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti Talk 17:24, 26 December 2015 (UTC)
- Note Because of where I'd originally placed my 24 December !vote, the person who relisted this discussion on the 26th may not have noticed that there had in fact been a contribution to the discussion since the first relisting. —Largo Plazo (talk) 15:15, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Sandstein 09:48, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
Criminal Spin
- Criminal Spin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
First three works under "Further reading" (article has no direct citations) are unpublished MA theses (failing WP:V, the fourth is an unpublished PhD thesis (same), the fifth links to an article that gives no indication of using this term in its text (and in all likelihood does not), a the sixth, to which the reader also has no direct access, appears to be a reference to a book chapter in which the author invents this term (making it a WP:NEOLOGISM in a WP:PRIMARY SOURCE). Article requires references (in-line citations will make these much easier to trace) to secondary published sources in order to verify its notability. KDS4444Talk 20:52, 12 December 2015 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:03, 12 December 2015 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 09:37, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti Talk 17:24, 26 December 2015 (UTC)
- Keep There seem to be many academic publications referencing the term. Many are by the inventor (but several in different journals, with co-authors), but the theory seems to be mentionned and discussed at least a little by others: [27] and [28] for example. user:penbat seems to be doing a good job of adding these to the article as inline citations. Happy Squirrel (talk) 17:09, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
- Delete. A WP:NEOLOGISM that appears to have WP:BOMBARDMENT going on to pretend that it's notable. I'm also getting a very WP:ESSAY feeling from this article, and it has the distinct scent of WP:SYNTH. There may be a notable topic here, but the subject would be best served by application of WP:TNT. - The Bushranger One ping only 06:35, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep (non-admin closure). Sir Sputnik (talk) 00:52, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
God's Not Dead (Like a Lion)
- God's Not Dead (Like a Lion) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Article appears to have no content other than a list of chart histories. No sources demonstrate notability. Had marked it for speedy deletion but tag was removed. Bringing to AfD instead. KDS4444Talk 21:35, 12 December 2015 (UTC)
Dear All,
As far as this goes, if you actually look at the article, there are two paragraphs, along with the charts, and about five citations. I added all of this last night. Please check this, to see that it is indeed a complete article.I put work into this overnight, and this morning. Actually, I just checked, and there are six sources. Clearly, I cited my references, and I put everything together. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bcplayer383 (talk • contribs) 22:02, 12 December 2015 (UTC)
- Weak keep - The song charted, in two different years, meaning it meets WP:NSONGS. It should be filled-out, not deleted. It was also featured in a minor film. Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:15, 12 December 2015 (UTC)
- Exactly - Things are being fixed, although deleting isn't the solution. I definitely have to incorporate some suggestions. Bcplayer383 —Preceding undated comment added 22:19, 12 December 2015 (UTC)
- Which is great, but you do not have forever to do this. While we all understand that there is no deadline, neither is Wikipedia obligated to indefinitely retain half-finished articles with inadequate references on non-notable subjects. That is what the user sandbox is for. By bringing the article into the Wikipedia mainspace, you are opening it up to scrutiny by other editors. If one of those editors believes the subject of the article is not notable and nominates it for deletion, then other editors usually have seven days (sometimes more) to address the concerns raised and fix the problem or else the article is removed. In this instance, the last four "sources" are rankings on a music chart— none of them "discusses" the song at all, none of them "says" anything about the song except that it must have received a certain amount of air play and sold a certain amount of copies relative to other songs. If the song were truly notable, there would be actual articles about it by reviewers and music critics, not just chart rankings. And while having been the title song of a[n apparently dismal] film, there still appears to have been no actual coverage of the song anywhere, no discussion of it in the press. WP:NSONGS is a guideline, a useful tool for quickly assessing possible notability; WP:GNG is a set of policies which establishes what the criteria are for actual notability. If the song is notable, great! Let's see some citations to sources that demonstrate that (sources other than chart standings or the bands own website). Yes? KDS4444Talk 06:35, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
- He actually does have forever. Deletion discussions are not about whether an article is good or not, but whether the subject is notable or not. If the subject is notable, which is the case here, then the article should exist. If the article should exist but is of poor quality, it should be improved. Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:53, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
- Comment Only. Not quite true, NSONGS also says, "Notability aside, a standalone article is only appropriate when there is enough material to warrant a reasonably detailed article; articles unlikely ever to grow beyond stubs should be merged to articles about an artist or album." Although it should be noted that I am not making any recommendations of any description in this instance, I wonder whether there is anything of "encyclopedic content" when all the article contains is chart placements. --Richhoncho (talk) 11:42, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
- I understand that. The point is that we determine if a subject is notable or not, but this subject is notable and there should be sufficient content. Just because it has little less than charts now is not grounds for it to be deleted. This debate still has not been listed in any projects so I'll pint two Christian music project members, @3family6: and @The Cross Bearer:. They both tend to find good sources for albums. If they think they can find additional content, then we'll expand the article. If they think they can't, I'll strike my decision and let this go. I'll also mention that their album Born Again (Newsboys album) is up for AfD as well. Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:41, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
- Comment Only. Not quite true, NSONGS also says, "Notability aside, a standalone article is only appropriate when there is enough material to warrant a reasonably detailed article; articles unlikely ever to grow beyond stubs should be merged to articles about an artist or album." Although it should be noted that I am not making any recommendations of any description in this instance, I wonder whether there is anything of "encyclopedic content" when all the article contains is chart placements. --Richhoncho (talk) 11:42, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
- He actually does have forever. Deletion discussions are not about whether an article is good or not, but whether the subject is notable or not. If the subject is notable, which is the case here, then the article should exist. If the article should exist but is of poor quality, it should be improved. Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:53, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
- Which is great, but you do not have forever to do this. While we all understand that there is no deadline, neither is Wikipedia obligated to indefinitely retain half-finished articles with inadequate references on non-notable subjects. That is what the user sandbox is for. By bringing the article into the Wikipedia mainspace, you are opening it up to scrutiny by other editors. If one of those editors believes the subject of the article is not notable and nominates it for deletion, then other editors usually have seven days (sometimes more) to address the concerns raised and fix the problem or else the article is removed. In this instance, the last four "sources" are rankings on a music chart— none of them "discusses" the song at all, none of them "says" anything about the song except that it must have received a certain amount of air play and sold a certain amount of copies relative to other songs. If the song were truly notable, there would be actual articles about it by reviewers and music critics, not just chart rankings. And while having been the title song of a[n apparently dismal] film, there still appears to have been no actual coverage of the song anywhere, no discussion of it in the press. WP:NSONGS is a guideline, a useful tool for quickly assessing possible notability; WP:GNG is a set of policies which establishes what the criteria are for actual notability. If the song is notable, great! Let's see some citations to sources that demonstrate that (sources other than chart standings or the bands own website). Yes? KDS4444Talk 06:35, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
- Actually, it's alright. All the references I used, and all I wrote, can be deleted. If you even took the time to look right now, you would see a list of five references. But, if you want it deleted, then please just do it. I am no longer going to involve myself in any further discussion, because this is all very stressful. I will let you guys sort this out, if you would like. I am just writing articles, and contributing. If this isn't worthy, then fine. You can be the judge. I understand. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bcplayer383 (talk • contribs) 17:32, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
- This isn't a personal commentary on your editing or abilities. Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:41, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
- Interesting. I'm only saying, that I actually did have references, and did add writing. Did they just miss it somehow? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bcplayer383 (talk • contribs) 17:43, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
- What we're saying is wikipedia should have more than charts and blogs to support the subject. Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:50, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
- Interesting. I'm only saying, that I actually did have references, and did add writing. Did they just miss it somehow? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bcplayer383 (talk • contribs) 17:43, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
- This isn't a personal commentary on your editing or abilities. Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:41, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 09:37, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti Talk 17:24, 26 December 2015 (UTC)
- Keep. Passes WP:NSONGS #1. It needs expansion and referencing, but AfD is not for cleanup. - The Bushranger One ping only 23:34, 27 December 2015 (UTC)
- Redirect to God's Not Dead or Newsboys discography since the only information imparted here are chart positions, which are nicely summed up in the discography page. If it can be expanded by showing the song has been "the subject of multiple, non-trivial published works whose sources are independent of the artist and label" (which is what WP:NSONGS really says), then keep it. --StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 09:19, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
- Your job is to determine if it should be kept or not based on available sources, not determine its fate based on its current state. Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:42, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
- OK, it should be redirected based on available sources, too. I didn't know this was a job. --StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 22:25, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
- When you make a !vote, it is your responsibility to do the research. That's why there are search links at the top of the discussion. Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:32, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
- And for the record, added several additional sources and some backstory for the song. Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:58, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
- OK, it should be redirected based on available sources, too. I didn't know this was a job. --StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 22:25, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
- Your job is to determine if it should be kept or not based on available sources, not determine its fate based on its current state. Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:42, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
- Keep. I'm not a fan of some of Billboard's more obscure charts as a guide to notability but there's enough here to justify keeping. Whether or not it eventually gets merged elsewhere can be discussed on the article's talk page. --Michig (talk) 07:51, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
- Keep - I agree with Michig's sentiment about obscure charts, but the totality of this article meets WP:SONG. Onel5969 TT me 15:11, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was no consensus. Sandstein 09:45, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
Lee Harvey Oswald Rooming House
- Lee Harvey Oswald Rooming House (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Any notability is inherited TheLongTone (talk) 15:19, 12 December 2015 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. ssт✈(discuss) 16:05, 12 December 2015 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. ssт✈(discuss) 16:05, 12 December 2015 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. ssт✈(discuss) 16:05, 12 December 2015 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. ssт✈(discuss) 16:05, 12 December 2015 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:50, 12 December 2015 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Museums and libraries-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:55, 12 December 2015 (UTC)
- Comment The owner has opened it to the public as a private museum, but there doesn't seem to be any historic designation. There also has been enough media coverage of the house's reopening to the public in 2013, including overseas, that it could be argued to meet GNG, though I agree with the nominator that its brief association with JFK's assassin and its current role as a for-profit tourist attraction in Dallas don't add up to lasting notability for our purposes. However, if others do, then the article would need to be rewritten as more about the house museum, which is what garnered the press. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:54, 12 December 2015 (UTC)
- Anything to do with JFK's assassination will attract some publicity. I'd argue that coverage resulting from this surely duller than dull "visitor attraction" is WP:NOTNEWS, basically generated by a PR push when it opened. Can there be anything of interest to say about the place?TheLongTone (talk) 15:12, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
- Delete -- Notability is not inherited. The museum is no doubt a speculative venture. I wonder how long it will pay its way. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:07, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
*Comment The intent of this page was not to promote the home. I have no connection to the home or it's tours. If it helps, I deleted the tour related links. Although this structure is not on the Nat. List of Historical Places, it does have historical significance. As a side note, it is interesting to note that the home where his wife was living (Ruth Paine home) HAS been designated as such a place. One could argue that this location is just as critical due to it's immediate connection to not only the assassination but also the killing of Officer Tippit.Timcdfw (talk) 02:54, 14 December 2015 (UTC)Timcdfw
- Redirect to Lee Harvey Oswald for now at best as I'm a local from here and can confirm its local historic significance even if only marginal, but encyclopedia-wise, there may not be enough for a considerably better article yet. SwisterTwister talk 06:50, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 09:32, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
- Keep - Notable on its own, as a new & unusual museum and a well-established place of significance within the events of the JFK assassination. The museum may be too new and unpublicized to have much RS coverage, but the site itself is discussed at length in virtually all books on Oswald, Ruby, Tippit, and the assassination. It figures prominently in treatments of the topic from all points on the spectrum, i.e. traditionalists like Manchester and Bugliosi, theorists like Lane, as well as government reports and journalism from then till now. SteveStrummer (talk) 20:31, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti Talk 17:23, 26 December 2015 (UTC)
- Keep After careful consideration, I find SteveStrummer's argument persuasive. This article can summarize useful information for serious scholars of the Kennedy assassination. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 04:42, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
- Redirect to Lee Harvey Oswald and incorporate content (if not already there) into that article. Notability isn't inherited, even for buildings. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 17:42, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
- Keep - per SteveStrummer's analysis. The JFK assassination still holds a morbid fascination for many Americans. While notability isn't inherited, This was s key piece in the investigation into Harvey, the fact that it's still being mentioned in news articles 50+ years after it became notable, shows that it is lasting notability. Onel5969 TT me 15:15, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. But userfy on request for improvement. Consensus is that the topic is notable, but that the present content is very poor. Although AfD isn't cleanup, the presence of copyvios, as pointed out by one "keep" opinion, makes deletion mandatory. Sandstein 09:44, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
Dalit Marxism
- Dalit Marxism (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
This seems to be a very scantily sourced essay, and a doubt that the topic is truly notable. The fact that it is nearly incomprehensible is, unfortunately, irrelevant. TheLongTone (talk) 14:39, 12 December 2015 (UTC)
- Delete The topic may be notable, but this article doesn't show it. Instead, it strays into promotion, for example "We are in the business of bringing Marxism back to where it belongs: lowest in stature and biggest in numbers of the Hindu society, the lower castes. This also means releasing Marxism from the shackles of upper-castes. Marxism can and must do better than being monopolized by the upper-castes...". That is not encyclopaedic writing - that is polemic. (I do rather enjoy the idea of Marxism being the property of the upper castes... Mind you, Marx was from a "wealthy middle-class family", and Engels' family were industrialists.) Peridon (talk) 14:54, 12 December 2015 (UTC)
- Delete - The tone of the article is quite promotional, it maybe because it have nearly 60% copyvio from https://flyingfootage.wordpress.com/2014/11/25/a-dalit-marxist-manifesto-2/ — Sanskari Hangout 16:38, 12 December 2015 (UTC)
- Keep a poorly written article (with copyvios) about a thing that has significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject:
- Rao, Anupama (2012): "Stigma and labour: remembering Dalit Marxism", Seminar 633.
- Rao, Anupama (2013). "Revisiting Interwar Thought: Stigma, Labor, and the Immanence of Caste-class". In Cosimo Zene (ed.). The Political Philosophies of Antonio Gramsci and B. R. Ambedkar: Itineraries of Dalits and Subalterns. Routledge. ISBN 978-1-134-49401-9.
- Rathore, Aakash Singh (2011): "The Romance of Global Justice? Sen's Deparochialization and the Quandary of Dalit Marxism" Indian Journal of Human Development 5 (2).
- Jai Bhim Comrade (according to Barry Maxwell, 2015. No Gods, No Masters, No Peripheries: Global Anarchisms. PM Press. p. 57. ISBN 978-1-62963-098-4.
{{cite book}}
: CS1 maint: numeric names: authors list (link))
- Finnusertop (talk | guestbook | contribs) 09:18, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
- Draftify it for now. I am not sure if it is a copyvio or just a stub with a WP:QUOTEFARM problem. Ceosad (talk) 15:01, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
- Draftify and remove from main WP. It is too much of WP:OR and bad copyedit for now. Zezen (talk) 00:37, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 09:31, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti Talk 17:23, 26 December 2015 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:57, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
- Keep Deletion is not a substitute for a clean-up. AusLondonder (talk) 23:44, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Sandstein 09:54, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
List of Pacific-12 Conference Men's Basketball Tournament Finals broadcasters
- List of Pacific-12 Conference Men's Basketball Tournament Finals broadcasters (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Fails WP:LISTN, with lack of independent, reliable sources that discuss this grouping. A merge seems WP:UNDUE, as games are about the teams participating and not worth inundating with minutiae like this. —Bagumba (talk) 20:45, 12 December 2015 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. —Bagumba (talk) 20:48, 12 December 2015 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. —Bagumba (talk) 20:48, 12 December 2015 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger One ping only 07:00, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. North America1000 09:56, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
- Delete It is listcruft. ~EDDY (talk/contribs)~ 01:37, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
- Weak keep I agree this seems like a very trivial list, however every other NCAA Division I Conference and postseason (i.e. NCAA Final Four, NIT) tournament has a list just like this one. In my judgement if this article is deleted, the same logic should be used for all other conference tournament finals. If that happens, maybe just keep List of NCAA Men's Final Four broadcasters, List of National Invitation Tournament postseason broadcasters, and List of NCAA Women's Final Four broadcasters? Cubbie15fan (talk) 15:51, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
- WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. However... - The Bushranger One ping only 23:36, 27 December 2015 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti Talk 17:13, 26 December 2015 (UTC)
- Keep. This is a WP:SPINOUT from the parent articles on the finals. While it may seem like "minutiae", one man's cruft is another man's important detail, and WP:WHOCARES is an argument to avoid. - The Bushranger One ping only 23:36, 27 December 2015 (UTC)
- @The Bushranger: Spinouts are generally not exempt from meeting notability guidelines. Per the guideline WP:AVOIDSPLIT: "Editors are cautioned not to immediately split articles if the new article would meet neither the general notability criterion nor the specific notability criteria for their topic." Not sure how WHOCARES is relevant when the nomination is based on lack of notability. Thanks.—Bagumba (talk) 00:48, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
- "ames are about the teams participating and not worth inundating with minutiae like this" - ergo, "it's minutiae, nobody cares". - The Bushranger One ping only 01:41, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
- Your quote was in reference to a merge in lieu of a delete, and omitted the preceding reference to the WP:UNDUE policy, which suggests "avoiding giving undue weight mean that articles should not give minority views or aspects as much of or as detailed a description as more widely held views or widely supported aspects." Feel free to identify independent, reliable sources that demonstrate the subject's notability. Thanks.—Bagumba (talk) 01:54, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
- "ames are about the teams participating and not worth inundating with minutiae like this" - ergo, "it's minutiae, nobody cares". - The Bushranger One ping only 01:41, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
- @The Bushranger: Spinouts are generally not exempt from meeting notability guidelines. Per the guideline WP:AVOIDSPLIT: "Editors are cautioned not to immediately split articles if the new article would meet neither the general notability criterion nor the specific notability criteria for their topic." Not sure how WHOCARES is relevant when the nomination is based on lack of notability. Thanks.—Bagumba (talk) 00:48, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. The names of the broadcasters can be captured in the main tournament article if desired. I am ambivalent about if this is worth keeping, but it certainly shouldn't be its own article in my opinion. Rikster2 (talk) 16:58, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
- Exactly right: if anyone cares, the names of the broadcasters may be captured in the individual tournament articles, e.g., 2015 Pac-12 Conference Men's Basketball Tournament. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 17:02, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
- Delete - No independent reliable sources are providing significant coverage of past broadcasters, as a group, of Pac-10/12 tournaments. The burden is on the "keep" proponents to demonstrate that significant coverage exists. We have recently deleted list of past broadcasters of college football bowl games and NFL games, and we probably need to delete more. These topics are meaningless trivia that fail WP:GNG and WP:NLIST. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 17:02, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
- Delete. WP:GNG requires \significant coverage of a topic in multiple, reliable, independent sources in order to support a stand-alone article. Here, I can find no such coverage of this topic. Notices on CBS or Westwood One sites don't work because (i) they are not independent insofar as the simply identify their own broadcasters, and (ii) they simply identify the names of broadcasters rather than providing significant coverage into the topic of this article. Cbl62 (talk) 17:26, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. Consensus to keep following relisting. The Bushranger One ping only 23:37, 27 December 2015 (UTC)
Politics in the British Isles
- Politics in the British Isles (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Previously nominated for deletion, no activity in over a year. Replicates material on more appropriate articles. British Isles is a geographical term not a political one. Danger is this becomes a coatrack article as it is poorly patrolled. History of the United Kingdom up to the time of Irish Independence covers all of the material here, as do other articles --Snowded TALK 06:30, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
- Neutral My decline of PROD was purely on procedural grounds and does not reflect a preference towards keeping or deleting the article, though I may take look back at this tomorrow and weigh in. Safiel (talk) 06:37, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
- Keep - I feel this is a notable, well-covered topic, also encompassing articles in category with same name. Category:Politics of the British Isles —МандичкаYO 😜 08:29, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. North America1000 09:53, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. North America1000 09:53, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. North America1000 09:54, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
- Delete - Politics in the sovereign states in the British Isles is better covered in their relevant articles. Snappy (talk) 14:18, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
- Keep: Highly notable topic. The relationship between the various political entities within the British Isles is highly complex and merits its own article. Of course, this article is far from perfect and needs a great deal of work. Antiochus the Great (talk) 19:23, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
- Keep: Highly notable topic. Clearly notable and well-covered. That article can be improved (can't they all) is no reason to delete. WP:Not paper. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 19:26, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti Talk 17:12, 26 December 2015 (UTC)
- Keep per Antiochus and 7&6=thirteen. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 17:54, 26 December 2015 (UTC)
- Keep no doubt about the established notability. Capitals00 (talk) 05:17, 27 December 2015 (UTC)
- Keep-- I am far from convinced that this is a good article, but it is not so bad that it deserves TNT. It is partly about international relations within the British Isles. I think we have a mass of articles on relations between one country and another. This belongs to that family, though slightly complicated by things like relationships between RoI and Isle of Man, and cross-border institutions relating to Northern Ireland. This is something that does not usually occur in other diplomatic relationships. Peterkingiron (talk) 12:47, 27 December 2015 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. The one "keep" doesn't address the arguments for deletion. Sandstein 09:42, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
Ninjaspy
- Ninjaspy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
I almost even speedied and/or PRODed this as there's simply hardly much but considering there are a few reviews, I'll simply take it here. The best my searches found were only this which is quite hardly much. SwisterTwister talk 06:32, 12 December 2015 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. North America1000 07:01, 12 December 2015 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions. North America1000 07:01, 12 December 2015 (UTC)
- Comment. Ninja code of honor says I can't vote to delete this. But I did find this article at The Georgia Straight. Do reviews of live performances count toward notability? NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 07:52, 12 December 2015 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger One ping only 06:16, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
- Keep: Let's keep the article but, get more sources and do proper detailed citations. Garagepunk66 (talk) 03:58, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
- The question, however, is not the current state of the article, but whether more third-party reliable sources even exist. Mz7 (talk) 01:48, 26 December 2015 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti Talk 17:11, 26 December 2015 (UTC)
- Delete. The issue isn't just one of sourcing -- I'm not seeing any credible claim to notability here. A self-published album and EP doesn't do it. NewYorkActuary (talk) 23:06, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. The Bushranger One ping only 06:38, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
Sobha Ltd.
- Sobha Ltd. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Promotional and non-notable; The revue etc. are in Rupees, not dollars, so it's not all the large a company as it might look. The awards do not seem reliable criteria of notability; the refs are notices or PR. As forpromotionalism , look at the repetition. and the puffery . If there were underlying notability it could be rewritten, so it isn't a G11; but the notability is just not there. See also the adjacent afd, part of the same publicity campaign. The talk p.of the article indicates the scoiped of the problem here--its an obvious COI editor. . DGG ( talk ) 05:39, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 05:47, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 05:47, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 05:47, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
- @DGG: I am not sure bringing all these articles to AfD will solve the problem. Why not instead come over to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Business and talk to some frustrated wanabee editors who are trying, without success to figure out what they are supposed to do. Ottawahitech (talk) 00:06, 20 December 2015 (UTC)please ping me
- I did comment there. This is an article which does serve as a good example of the problems. DGG ( talk ) 01:18, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
- Thank you DGG, I know you are busy so your effort is appreciated. I hope there are still editors interested in wiki-proj Business (the entry you posted at sat unanswered since November 22). This is not a project I know much about so I checked the stats and it appears that it was much busier about a month ago. Go figure, maybe its the holidays? Ottawahitech (talk) 01:30, 20 December 2015 (UTC)please ping me
- I did comment there. This is an article which does serve as a good example of the problems. DGG ( talk ) 01:18, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
- Keep the article is a simple overview of a notable company.
- New realty bill will provide Sobha Ltd a near-term edge: JC Sharma, VC & MD
- Sobha Limited forays into Commercial Space, launches 'Sobha City Mall' at Sobha City Thrissur
- Sobha Ltd to build new housing project in Gurgaon at Rs 1,000 cr
- Sobha Ltd Q2 profit dives 33% on lower sales
- Realty firm Sobha's Q2 sales bookings down 11% at Rs 495 crore
- This is obviously highly watched stock in the Indian markets, mentioned in their press at least weekly and certainly meets notability. The awards might be a little fluffy, I reduced the section to somewhat of a list, one of the awards cites might be self sourced press release, the others are from recognizable Indian news outlets. Not cause for deleting the article, the firm obviously meets notability on other merits. 009o9 (talk) 07:36, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
- Keep Below Sobha Ltd finance reports from Google, NDTV, economic times shows this article is notable & adhere to wiki guidelines.
- Google Finance
- Sobha Ltd(NSE:SOBHA) on Google Finance
- Sobha consolidated yearly results, Financial statement & accounts
- Sobha Reports, company history
--Deepak HM 12:21, 21 December 2015 (UTC)Deepakhmwiki
Dear DGG got few verifiable sources, might help to verify for notability
- Bangalore: Karnataka government on Tuesday gave its green signal to take up second phase of Bangalore metroproject at an investment of about Rs 27,000 crore.Sobha Developers would be given the contract to develop this project
- Sobha Ltd. indepth history & reports on ndtv
- Real Estate Companies in India
--Deepak HM 14:46, 22 December 2015 (UTC)Deepakhmwiki
Notability: Few Reliable sources to provide verifiable evidence that they have developed India's largest IT parks & corporate offices for companies like Infosys, Bayer, Biocon, HCL,
- Sobha has developed the Infosys campus in Bangalore
- INFOSYS DOME Consultants: Sobha Developers
- SSC&B, Bangalore, bags prestigious Sobha Developers account
- BNGALORE: Sobha Developers got Rs 168 crore worth of contractual development work for office spaces in Bangalore, from PC manufacturer Dell and European automotive major Bosch.
--Deepak HM 09:00, 23 December 2015 (UTC)Deepakhmwiki
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti Talk 17:10, 26 December 2015 (UTC)
- Keep per the significant coverage in The Hindu, The Times of India, Business Line, The Financial Express, and Daily News and Analysis provided by 009o9 (talk · contribs) and Deepakhmwiki (talk · contribs). The subject passes Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Sobha is a publicly traded corporation. Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)#Publicly traded corporations says (my bolding):
Cunard (talk) 01:42, 2 January 2016 (UTC)There has been considerable discussion over time whether publicly traded corporations, or at least publicly traded corporations listed on major stock exchanges such as the NYSE and other comparable international stock exchanges, are inherently notable. Consensus has been that notability is not automatic in this (or any other) case. However, sufficient independent sources almost always exist for such companies, so that notability can be established using the primary criterion discussed above. Examples of such sources include independent press coverage and analyst reports. Accordingly, article authors should make sure to seek out such coverage and add references to such articles to properly establish notability.
Editors coming across an article on such a company without such references are encouraged to search (or request that others search) prior to nominating for deletion, given the very high (but not certain) likelihood that a publicly traded company is actually notable according to the primary criterion.
- Keep - coverage as shown by above editors passes WP:GNG. Unlike other AfD discussions where I've cited WP:DEL4 as a rationale for deletion, I do not feel that guideline is relevant in this instance. Onel5969 TT me 15:23, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was no consensus. The Bushranger One ping only 06:38, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
Þórhallur Gunnarsson
- Þórhallur Gunnarsson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Does not have what seems like a notable career, especially in non Icelandic (country and language) media. Poorly referenced too. Rayman60 (talk) 22:44, 12 December 2015 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger One ping only 07:16, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. —UY Scuti Talk 17:07, 26 December 2015 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iceland-related deletion discussions. —UY Scuti Talk 17:07, 26 December 2015 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti Talk 17:10, 26 December 2015 (UTC)
- Delete non-notable actor.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:26, 26 December 2015 (UTC)
- Keep This article only needs cleanup and updating.--Snaevar (talk) 20:11, 26 December 2015 (UTC)
- Delete as I simply found no signs of better notability and improvement from my searches, but anyone is of course welcome to improve this better if likely. SwisterTwister talk 06:23, 27 December 2015 (UTC)
- Keep - afd is not a clean-up service. notable per WP:GNG.--BabbaQ (talk) 00:43, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. (non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 00:35, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
Energy security
- Energy security (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
This article has had a tag on since 2010 as it reads like an essay with personal opinions. Having looked at the refs (very few which actually work) - they all come from a particular view point and I couldn't find any that provide information about 'Energy Security' as the focus. There is a lot of information that lacks citations too. Wikipedia already has quite a few articles which describe individual countries policies on Energy Security - Energy security and renewable technology also covers this topic. ツStacey (talk) 16:13, 26 December 2015 (UTC)
- Weak keep - The page needs additional references for verification but the subject seems notable. Meatsgains (talk) 17:04, 26 December 2015 (UTC)
- Keep I'm not seeing any discernable personal opinions and so am removing that tag as it seems to be unhelpful. If the current sources are inadequate then it seems easy to find plenty more books about the topic including International Handbook of Energy Security; Energy Security: Economics, Politics, Strategies, and Implications; Energy Security Challenges for the 21st Century. Andrew D. (talk) 17:07, 26 December 2015 (UTC)
- Keep. This is a notable topic that has received widespread coverage in legal and political scholarship. See, for example, this article in the Yale Human Rights and Development Journal and this article from the Fordham International Law Journal. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 18:26, 26 December 2015 (UTC)
- Delete per nom; see WP:TNT. Notability notwithstanding, the current content is rather junky, and we might be better off without this article so that we can start again from the beginning. Nyttend (talk) 23:41, 26 December 2015 (UTC)
- Keep with a purge it sounds like there is need for a purge of material that doesn't support the consensus scholarly positions, and is based on synthesis. Its clearly notable, Sadads (talk) 15:23, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
- Keep Clearly notable. A quick search shows it is something the EU is seriously considering[29] as well as being written about in various other places. Certainly a fairly mainstream concept in Canada (was part of the curriculum when I went through High School, if I recall). Happy Squirrel (talk) 20:09, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. The Bushranger One ping only 07:31, 27 December 2015 (UTC)
Apsmart
- Apsmart (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
The only coverage I can find of this company is about its acquisition by Thomson Reuters (i.e. [30]), otherwise not notable. Sam Walton (talk) 13:42, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. clpo13(talk) 19:33, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. clpo13(talk) 19:33, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
- Delete as obvious material for deletion which I've voraciously been searching all the site for, and my searches found nothing better at all than a few passing mentions at News and browsers both which insinuate this is only a local "starting" company. SwisterTwister talk 05:34, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dat GuyTalkContribs 15:56, 26 December 2015 (UTC)
- Delete - Only mentioned in passing in reliable sources. Startup is not notable yet, may be too early. Meatsgains (talk) 17:07, 26 December 2015 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:12, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
Miss Earth country rankings
- Miss Earth country rankings (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
The Miss Earth company seems to have an aggressive policy of building many endless pages of intricate detail for their business. This unsourced list page has no encyclopedic value, and is clearly not at all like the Olympic metals. Delete as WP:VANISPAM Legacypac (talk) 13:47, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. clpo13(talk) 19:32, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. clpo13(talk) 19:32, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
- Strong Delete: This material is technically unverifiable because its sourcing is unknown and the sourcing is unretrievable on attempting a reasonable search. Technically, unless an editorially reviewed journalist were to compile this in a proper WP:RS, and none has, only the organization itself could hope to generate or maintain a correct list that corresponds to its organizational rules and procedures, which can change (and actually have) over time. (For example, among many possible questions, if there were an available official tabulation by Miss Earth would dethroned awardees be counted or not?) As such, Wikipedia policy is for deletion here. Parenthetically, from a utilization viewpoint, this table has no encyclopedic merit whatsoever (I will keep this brief but I will expound in detail if asked). The sole purpose of this table is commercial promotion. The organization itself or a fan site could opt to host any definitive official data they wish to maintain for their commercial purposes. FeatherPluma (talk) 18:43, 24 December 2015 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dat GuyTalkContribs 15:56, 26 December 2015 (UTC)
- Delete - Couldn't really put it any better than Featherpluma has. Mabalu (talk) 16:51, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
- Delete unsourced, WP:OR and plain fancruft. The Banner talk 23:28, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:57, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
Lusophilia
- Lusophilia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Delete per WP:NOTDICT. The article simply defines the word and gives its etymology like a dictionary, which Wikipedia is not. It then makes an uncited claim about the "obvious" source of lusophilia, the obviousness hinting at WP:OR. A google search reveals the existence of the word but little else to say about it. Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:26, 20 December 2015 (UTC) Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:26, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Portugal-related deletion discussions. clpo13(talk) 19:30, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dat GuyTalkContribs 15:55, 26 December 2015 (UTC)
- Delete - Not only does the page read like a dictionary, but there are no reliable sources. Meatsgains (talk) 17:09, 26 December 2015 (UTC)
- Delete. Dictionary definition of a random neologism. I could sit around and come up with a few more like this if you gave me a Latin or Greek dictionary. Lusophobia seems like it may have issues with notability, too. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 02:04, 27 December 2015 (UTC)
- Delete Unsourced dictionary definition. A search shows the word is used but there is no significant coverage with which to create an encyclopedic article. Already at Wiktionary. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 01:41, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. Consensus is that sources exist to show notability though they aren't yet included in the article. At least one of the delete !votes references (in a roundabout way) WP:HOLE, which is an essay and not policy. (non-admin closure) clpo13(talk) 21:12, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
Terry MacAlmon
- Terry MacAlmon (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
While the previous AfD for this musician claimed some albums were published by a major record label (thus satisfying NMUSIC), I can't find a single independent reliable source to back this up; as far as I can tell they are therefore not notable. Sam Walton (talk) 16:25, 20 December 2015 (UTC) Sam Walton (talk) 16:25, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. clpo13(talk) 19:25, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. clpo13(talk) 19:25, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. clpo13(talk) 19:25, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
- Delete as my searches easily found nothing better for a better notable article here. Notifying 1st AfDer Stifle and also Christian user who participates at Christian music AfDs, The Cross Bearer. SwisterTwister talk 05:19, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
- Delete per the reasons given in the previous AFD. Stifle (talk) 09:15, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
- Keep: He is notable per general notability guidelines and musician's biographies, where he has been written about in Cross Rhythms (here) and per the Google books search. His music has been released by Integrity Music and INO Records, where they are major record labels in the Christian music industry, per AllMusic and Cross Rhythms.The Cross Bearer (talk) 02:34, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
- I am going to ping some other editors who edit Christian music related articles and bring them into the discussion. @3family6, Ilovechristianmusic, Metalworker14, and Walter Görlitz:The Cross Bearer (talk) 02:36, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
- Hi everyone, I'm Metalworker14, I was brought in via The Cross Bearer. In my opinion, he might be notable, but it needs more references and notes to prove that case. Just my opinion, not that it matters. --Metalworker14 (Yo) 14:45, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
- Everyone's opinion matters on an AfD, as long as they aren't a sockpuppet or blocked/banned.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 17:22, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
- Hi everyone, I'm Metalworker14, I was brought in via The Cross Bearer. In my opinion, he might be notable, but it needs more references and notes to prove that case. Just my opinion, not that it matters. --Metalworker14 (Yo) 14:45, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
- I am going to ping some other editors who edit Christian music related articles and bring them into the discussion. @3family6, Ilovechristianmusic, Metalworker14, and Walter Görlitz:The Cross Bearer (talk) 02:36, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
- Keep if better referenced: There are at least two books that discuss MacAlmon in detail, as well as the Cross Rhythms source. I also found a Crosswalk] piece. Per Metalworker14, though, these sources must be integrated into the article. --3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 17:22, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
- Keep I have found source that show significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject: http://www.crossrhythms.co.uk/articles/news/Return_To_Ministry/39379/p1/ and http://www.crosswalk.com/church/worship/meet-and-greet-terry-macalmon-1187262.html among others. There are even two AllMusic reviews: http://www.allmusic.com/album/live-worship-mw0000663283 and http://www.allmusic.com/album/i-came-to-worship-you-mw0000229115 albeit without prose. Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:49, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
- Potential keep -- He seems quite sufficiently prolific to be worth an article. I do not read it as overly promotional. Peterkingiron (talk) 00:03, 26 December 2015 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dat GuyTalkContribs 15:54, 26 December 2015 (UTC)
- Really? Seems like a fairly straightforward keep; the sources above are enough to convince me at least. Sam Walton (talk) 16:00, 26 December 2015 (UTC)
- @Samwalton9: If so, I'll close it as speedy keep. Will wait for your reply. Dat GuyTalkContribs 20:16, 26 December 2015 (UTC)
- @Dat GuyWiki: It's a bit late for a speedy keep, I just meant that you could have safely left it for an admin to close since it seems a fairly clear decision. Will post somewhere to get it closed, to save this being open for another week. Sam Walton (talk) 20:50, 26 December 2015 (UTC)
- @Samwalton9: If so, I'll close it as speedy keep. Will wait for your reply. Dat GuyTalkContribs 20:16, 26 December 2015 (UTC)
- Keep - Appears to pass notability criteria. I don't think the relisting was a waste, other than the fact that no one else commented. Onel5969 TT me 15:48, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 05:34, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
Nelson Wong (actor)
- Nelson Wong (actor) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
WP:BLP of an actor, making no substantive claim of notability per WP:NACTOR as all of his listed roles to date have been as supporting or one-off guest characters. This is referenced only to a single news article about something else, in which he's briefly namechecked as a provider of soundbite but fails to be the subject of the article, so it doesn't pass WP:GNG either. Possibly just WP:TOOSOON. Delete, without prejudice against recreation in the future if and when there's more substance and better sourcing to be had. Bearcat (talk) 22:19, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
- Delete - Subject lacks notability at this time and is only mentioned in passing in reference provided. As Bearcat noted, it may just be too early. Meatsgains (talk) 00:15, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dat GuyTalkContribs 15:48, 26 December 2015 (UTC)
- Delete per nom - I am unable to find coverage to demonstrate that subject meets WP:GNG; roles to date do not appear to meet WP:ENT. Gongshow talk 16:41, 26 December 2015 (UTC)
- Delete per nominator and above commentators. NewYorkActuary (talk) 20:56, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was redirect to Andy Gaus. The Bushranger One ping only 06:39, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
Unvarnished New Testament
- Unvarnished New Testament (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Fails WP:NB. I also can't see much discussion of this as a notable bible trhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unvarnished_New_Testamentanslation in the academic publications, nothing substantial in the media.. etc I'd be interested to see if there is a notability guideline for bible translations (I can't find one if there is) but if it does fall within the perview of WP:NB, it fails. I can't see any real way that the article could be expanded beyond quoting from it as a primary source. JMWt (talk) 18:30, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:29, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:29, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bible-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:29, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:29, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
- Added references, including from a review by a top scholar in the field, published in the standard journal of the field. The translation has been noted, tho not widely praised. I will consider such a review to be adequate evidence of notability. Pete unseth (talk) 22:25, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
- Even accounting for the additional references, 3 of the 4 are from blogs and therefore are not WP:RS for notability. A single review in an academic journal in 1993 does not give notability. This article needs a lot of better references to be notable. If they are to be academic references, it needs more of them. I simply do not believe that these exist. A single review in an obscure academic journal 20 years ago is not good enough on its own. JMWt (talk) 11:20, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
- If something was notable at a certain point in the past, but becomes less noted, do we remove its Wikipedia article? No. Therefore, the fact that the review is from "20 years ago" is not adequate reason to discount it. Secondly, the fact that it was published by an established publisher (rather than self-published) contributes to a translation of any part of the Bible as being notable. If you check the article List_of_English_Bible_translations, you will see that almost every translation listed has its own Wikipedia article. The fact that a major figure in the Bible translation world thought it worthy of his writing a thorough review says that he considered it notable. I have never read a Wikipedia policy that a published source must not be an "obscure academic journal". The fact that it was published in THE journal devoted to Bible translation actually adds considerable weight. Quite the opposite of a book being mentioned in a popular magazine. In the world of Bible translators, this is considered notable. The well meaning suggestion from Swister Twister about making an article for the author would run into worse problems, since his notability is based on this translation. The translation is noted in its own right, he is not. I will consider the matter of notability for this translation established.Pete unseth (talk) 15:52, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
- OK, well on your first point, I was saying that there is a poverty of sources given that the best reference is from an academic journal 20 years ago. The WP:GNG calls for significant, non-trivial coverage as per WP:TRIVCOV. If this translation was notable, I suggest the best reference would be more than a 20 year old review. On the second point, WP:OTHERSTUFF is not a great argument either. For one thing, how do we know that the list you reference above contains all possible translations? It is a circular argument to show that all translations are notable if the notability is shown by having a wikipedia page. Indeed, it might well be the case that the translations considered worthy of being on the list have wikipedia pages. I will address the other points below. JMWt (talk) 08:27, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
- If something was notable at a certain point in the past, but becomes less noted, do we remove its Wikipedia article? No. Therefore, the fact that the review is from "20 years ago" is not adequate reason to discount it. Secondly, the fact that it was published by an established publisher (rather than self-published) contributes to a translation of any part of the Bible as being notable. If you check the article List_of_English_Bible_translations, you will see that almost every translation listed has its own Wikipedia article. The fact that a major figure in the Bible translation world thought it worthy of his writing a thorough review says that he considered it notable. I have never read a Wikipedia policy that a published source must not be an "obscure academic journal". The fact that it was published in THE journal devoted to Bible translation actually adds considerable weight. Quite the opposite of a book being mentioned in a popular magazine. In the world of Bible translators, this is considered notable. The well meaning suggestion from Swister Twister about making an article for the author would run into worse problems, since his notability is based on this translation. The translation is noted in its own right, he is not. I will consider the matter of notability for this translation established.Pete unseth (talk) 15:52, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
- Even accounting for the additional references, 3 of the 4 are from blogs and therefore are not WP:RS for notability. A single review in an academic journal in 1993 does not give notability. This article needs a lot of better references to be notable. If they are to be academic references, it needs more of them. I simply do not believe that these exist. A single review in an obscure academic journal 20 years ago is not good enough on its own. JMWt (talk) 11:20, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
- Added references, including from a review by a top scholar in the field, published in the standard journal of the field. The translation has been noted, tho not widely praised. I will consider such a review to be adequate evidence of notability. Pete unseth (talk) 22:25, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
- Delete and perhaps make a Andy Gaus article instead if he's solidly notable as my searches found nothing better at all. SwisterTwister talk 08:51, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
- Comment: This translation does appear to be extensively mentioned in this book from the University of Manchester. I can access it via Drexel's student database, so I'll try to add quotes from it as I can. Tokyogirl79 (。◕‿◕。) 12:22, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
- Here's a version with a preview function. Tokyogirl79 (。◕‿◕。) 12:32, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
- This one is a bit tricky. I get the impression that there is likely more coverage out there, but it just isn't on the Internet. Mostly I'm getting this from the book source I found, which mentions it fairly frequently and with no small amount of scorn. However without those other sources, I'm leaning towards making an article for Gaus and including a subsection about his Unvarnished works. Tokyogirl79 (。◕‿◕。) 12:42, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
- He and this translation is mentioned here, but the emphasis seems to be on Gaus. Tokyogirl79 (。◕‿◕。) 12:44, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
- Maybe this is a review? It seems like it but I'd have to investigate a bit more. Tokyogirl79 (。◕‿◕。) 12:47, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
- Good job on finding these. I take your point about there being non-digital sources and would be interested to hear what you find out about them. However, I still think that it would be reasonable to think that a bible translation that was notable would be found in more than a very small number of academic sources - if it was available to for sale to the public, one might expect articles in the media, or if it was really a notable academic step forward, some kind of continued reference in textbooks. If it is true that the author is only notable for producing a translation that is not-notable (and I've not been able to find out much about him, but maybe there are clues to who he is in the offline sources), I can't see how he can be notable either. JMWt (talk) 08:35, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
- I just looked at the preview of the Goodwin book you offered above, and the author appears to be briefly (half a page) attacking the premise of Gaus' translation (in particular apparently taking exception to the blurb on the cover and an introduction/review written by someone else). I don't think this can be fairly described as significant coverage of the translation under discussion. JMWt (talk) 08:41, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
- *I think that this would still be considered fairly in-depth. Now something I will note is that the version that I have access to via Drexel shows that the TUNT is mentioned on the following pages: 37, 115, 132, 163, 169, 170, and 179. It's either discussed or used as an example of this type of work. It's more than many other bible translations get as far as this work goes. Goodwin is fairly dismissive throughout the work, so the tone remains the same. Here's one of the quotes from the book concerning this translation: "What was understandable as a translation performed in the 17th Century with limited resources and linguistic know-how, is ridiculous when reproduced in the late 20th Century, particularly when the planes of discourse can, as in this case, be saved at very little cost to the reader. Gaus’ Unvarnished New Testament manages to conserve the clues from prominence rather well, at least in the main body of the story, 1 and he does so without straining English grammar or wearying the reader with unfamiliar forms". Now the author does use the abbreviation TUNT once, on page 191. However at the same time I'm still unsure as to whether or not this would be best served summed up in an article about Gaus. I would like to recommend that if this is the outcome, that the article history remain until the moment if/when other sources become available. The problem with searching for offline sources is that you kind of have to know where to look for them and it frequently requires in-person access. I might be able to eventually travel to the VUU's theological library (which is separate from the main library as far as I can remember), but I need to have permission to access it, which would require that I gain permission from another institution, likely VCU. My point in mentioning this is that this will take quite a bit of time since they take great lengths to actively restrict access, hence why I'm so far recommending that the article's history be preserved. I'll try to make a page for Gaus either today or tomorrow. Tokyogirl79 (。◕‿◕。) 14:30, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
- Comment -- I thought it was agreed that all bible translations were notable. This one seems to have had bad reviews, but should that make a difference? Peterkingiron (talk) 16:03, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
- As was pointed out to Peterkingiron on 4 October 2015 with this edit he/she is incorrect, there is no common outcome for Bible translations. (See, e.g. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Restored Holy Bible (deleted June 2015), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Complete Jewish Bible (deleted 2011), and marginally Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Work of God's Children Illustrated Bible (deleted October 2015).)
- Please point me to consensus that all bible translations are notable. Bad reviews are not going to affect the notability (it could be notable as a translation which is widely considered to be bad). But if the only available sources are very brief and bad, this is going to make writing an article that does not only reference the translation itself as a primary source very difficult. As far as I can see from the totality of the available sources we've all been able to dig up, the translation is barely noticed as existing. A very small number of sources mention its existence, of those few can be considered to be WP:RS. Of those, few cover it in enough depth to be useful to write a balanced article (which itself is going to be difficult if the majority of sources are negative). Based on what we can see referenced, I think even if it is kept, the content will need to be cut down to only that which can be reliably reference in secondary sources. Which is going to be next to nothing. JMWt (talk) 08:50, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
- Redirect to Andy Gaus. There's possibly enough out there to assert notability and I did find another source during my travels. However at the same time I was able to cover the gist of the article in the one I recently made for Gaus. From what I can see so far, this was the main thing he was known for, apart from his translation of a couple of German works that are frequently cited in academic sources. If the consensus is to keep the book's page then I'd endorse a redirect from Gaus's article to the one for TUV. Also, I'm moving this to the proper title of The Unvarnished Truth since the title has the term "the". Tokyogirl79 (。◕‿◕。) 06:27, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
- Good work on that, however it doesn't really resolve the issues for me. For our friends who want to keep the article about the translation, the new page doesn't really say much about the detail of the new translation, which one might reasonably want to know about, but will be difficult to cite without using the primary source. And I still don't see that the author is any more notable than the translation, if anything the former page was more informative and useful than this is. JMWt (talk) 08:29, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
- Then add in any missing information. The lack of information in an article should not be a reason to argue against inclusion. As far as his notability goes, I'd say that inclusion in an academic book about Bible translators is a pretty solid sign of notability, paired with the coverage of TUNT. Some of his translations are semi-frequently cited as a source, which can also be seen as a sign of notability. I'm also open to keeping the page for the translation and redirecting Gaus's page. I think at this point there's enough to keep TUNT or Gaus's article, but not really both. True, this guy hasn't received gobs of coverage, but what he has received is enough in my opinion to merit one of the two pages getting kept. The question here is which. I'm leaning somewhat towards a merge into Gaus's page since that enables us to include a bit more information about him as a whole and we can always add in information into Gaus's article from the article for TUNT. Tokyogirl79 (。◕‿◕。) 08:46, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
- TUNT is also extensively used as a source in this book. It's also used as a translation source in some works periodically like this one and this one. I'm also unsure if he's the same Andy Gaus that Now to answer your question about Bible translations, for a long while the general rule of thumb was that Bible translations are considered to be inherently notable because of the massive amount of work that goes into translation, since it can take years of work and research and not many people actually did this. There are many "translations" that are just someone re-writing an English translation with some spot checking here and there. Most translations are completed on behalf of notable organizations or institutions, which lends an extra air of authority to these works. Now do I necessarily agree with this? Not entirely. I can certainly see the reasoning behind this but I don't know that translation necessarily makes something automatically notable, although I do think that being a translation does give it an additional oomph. This is a borderline case here and I'm aware of that, but if we were to boil this down to notability for a book, there would be enough here for it to pass NBOOK. Tokyogirl79 (。◕‿◕。) 09:05, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
- Right, points taken. I don't think it is possible to add the information as I don't see any indication that there are secondary sources discussing the translation in this much detail - even whilst acknowledging that there may be offline sources. And I find it very surprising that Andy Gaus does not appear to work at an institution involved in translation. To me, the evidence suggests that this author is not a well-known expert in ancient Greek, is not known for being a bible scholar, is not working at a known academic institute etc. The translation itself appears to me to be more-or-less a vanity publication and I disagree it meets NBOOK. Also I'd be interested to know how you can tell that the Andy Gaus who did the poem translations is the same guy. I've also seen these books, but it seems to me to be a leap to assume it is the same person. JMWt (talk) 09:24, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
- Its the same person. I'd pulled that info from his WorldCat page, which lists him as the author of all of the work currently on his article. For that matter this author bio on Amazon also states that he's the same Gaus that's involved in musical theater. The thing with Amazon bios is that they're almost always written by the author and if not the author, then the publisher. While we can't use the Amazon page as a source for obvious reasons (it's an e-commerce site), this can be used to confirm that this is the same Gaus. Does this automatically prove notability above and beyond? No, but it does widen the net a little as far as coverage goes. Now when it comes to his musical theater, I'm finding some archive hits so between this translation and his musical theater reviews, I think that there's enough to establish notability for the author regardless of whether or not this article is kept. Tokyogirl79 (。◕‿◕。) 04:38, 24 December 2015 (UTC)
- Good work on that, however it doesn't really resolve the issues for me. For our friends who want to keep the article about the translation, the new page doesn't really say much about the detail of the new translation, which one might reasonably want to know about, but will be difficult to cite without using the primary source. And I still don't see that the author is any more notable than the translation, if anything the former page was more informative and useful than this is. JMWt (talk) 08:29, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
- It seems hard to satisfy all parties that this book is notable. Whether a translator is an academic or expert should not be a criterion. That would eliminate quite a number of translations, such as by Kenneth N. Taylor, Helen Barrett Montgomery, J. B. Phillips, Julia Evelina Smith, and also the Twentieth Century New Testament. Let's simply agree that the book has met the criterion of notability and end this. Certainly, it is not as notable as some translations, but it has certainly cleared the bar by now. Merry Christmas to all! Pete unseth (talk) 16:03, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
- Thanks, but I don't like being told to agree when I don't. Your solution does not address my comments, or the !vote of merge by Tokyogirl79. I also note that the example given of Helen Barrett Montgomery is pretty weak given a) that person has a far stronger claim to notability than the person who wrote the translation under discussion here and b) her translation doesn't seem to have a wikipedia page anyway. If anything, that would appear to support Tokyogirl79's position. JMWt (talk) 17:25, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
- JMWt, I'm trying hard to understand. I had thought that various editors had aequately addressed your comments. I had just addressed your comment about the translator not being "a well-known expert in ancient Greek, is not known for being a bible scholar, is not working at a known academic institute". That may be more relevant for judging the quality of a translation, but this discussion is about whether the translation itself is notable. Various editors have added several citations in the literature. Again, it was noted that the review in The Bible Translator was negative. But the same journal carried a negative translation of New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures, which is certainly a notable translation. A negative review in no way affects a book's notability. You are right about the notability of Helen B. Montgomery in comparison to the her translation, but I had brought that up to argue that being a recognized academic was not a measure of a translation's notability.
- Here, I think Gaus is only noted for this translation. If there is to be a merger, I strongly suggest merging the Andy Gaus article into this one since his notability is based on this work. Hope this is seen as still trying for peace on earth and good will among all people.Pete unseth (talk) 17:42, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
- Thanks, but I don't like being told to agree when I don't. Your solution does not address my comments, or the !vote of merge by Tokyogirl79. I also note that the example given of Helen Barrett Montgomery is pretty weak given a) that person has a far stronger claim to notability than the person who wrote the translation under discussion here and b) her translation doesn't seem to have a wikipedia page anyway. If anything, that would appear to support Tokyogirl79's position. JMWt (talk) 17:25, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
- It seems hard to satisfy all parties that this book is notable. Whether a translator is an academic or expert should not be a criterion. That would eliminate quite a number of translations, such as by Kenneth N. Taylor, Helen Barrett Montgomery, J. B. Phillips, Julia Evelina Smith, and also the Twentieth Century New Testament. Let's simply agree that the book has met the criterion of notability and end this. Certainly, it is not as notable as some translations, but it has certainly cleared the bar by now. Merry Christmas to all! Pete unseth (talk) 16:03, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
- JMWt, the sentence at the end of my last post did not call for anybody to celebrate any holiday. I merely expressed the hope that what I was saying would be seen as trying for peace and goodwill, using a quotation that is familiar and seasonal. Wishing for intangible forms of goodness and joy is not meant to make anybody celebrate anything. It's an encyclopedia we all contribute to. Pete unseth (talk) 22:27, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
- Delete due to lack of adequate coverage in reliable sources having at best one review and passing mentions, not significant coverage, fails WP:GNG. #1 in WP:NBOOK does not apply and nothing else is een close, and there is no WP:COMMONOUTCOME. --Bejnar (talk) 06:45, 26 December 2015 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Onel5969 TT me 14:08, 26 December 2015 (UTC)
- Redirect to Andy Gaus, which currently covers the topic sufficiently. – Fayenatic London 10:47, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:08, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
Razmig (Comedian)
- Razmig (Comedian) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Fails WP:ARTIST. Created by User:Alwayssmileguys, an indefinitely blocked paid editor. Magnolia677 (talk) 13:48, 26 December 2015 (UTC) Magnolia677 (talk) 13:48, 26 December 2015 (UTC)
- Delete No in-depth coverage from reliable sources, only passing mentions. OhNoitsJamie Talk 14:03, 26 December 2015 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. clpo13(talk) 16:59, 27 December 2015 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. clpo13(talk) 16:59, 27 December 2015 (UTC)
- Delete Fails WP:ENTERTAINER and WP:SIGCOV.Clearly lacks sources with indepth coverage of the subject except for brief mentions.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 23:49, 27 December 2015 (UTC)
- Delete No significant coverage or in depth coverage. WP:BEFORE does not reveal much. Mkdwtalk 08:09, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
- Delete ASAP. Deb (talk) 16:36, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:04, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
Seattle Seafair Commodores
- Seattle Seafair Commodores (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Fails WP:ORG. Created by User:Alwayssmileguys, an indefinitely blocked paid editor. Magnolia677 (talk) 13:39, 26 December 2015 (UTC) Magnolia677 (talk) 13:39, 26 December 2015 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. North America1000 21:41, 26 December 2015 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. North America1000 21:41, 26 December 2015 (UTC)
- Delete Per nom. The only mentions I can find are in Seattle publications which brings WP:LOCALFAME and WP:INDISCRIMINATE into the picture as well. MarnetteD|Talk 05:18, 27 December 2015 (UTC)
- ...WP:LOCALFAME is on the arguments to avoid page. - The Bushranger One ping only 23:38, 27 December 2015 (UTC)
- Delete. Their fame is purely local. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 07:37, 27 December 2015 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010 Merry Xmas / Happy New Year 02:07, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
Commander One
- Commander One (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline and the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (companies) requirement. Marslo2015 (talk) 12:58, 26 December 2015 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Appears to be spam. Citobun (talk) 18:18, 26 December 2015 (UTC)
- Keep. The article has references to Lifehacker, Softpedia, Apple World Today, about.com. TechRepublic, and Macworld. It is notable. CarnivorousBunnytalk 22:11, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. North America1000 10:32, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. North America1000 10:33, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
- Keep. I already added 4 resources last week (Macworld, TechRepublic, about.com, Envato). I will be glad to improve the article, please let me know what should I do for it.DashaG11 (talk) 11:21, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
- Keep. The references are to high quality, reputable sites and give good coverage. White Arabian Filly (Neigh) 16:24, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
- Keep - The article is well-sourced as per comments. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:56, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
- Keep and I nearly almost closed this as such but I'll let anyone else comment as this certainly seems like enough for now. SwisterTwister talk 21:12, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
- Keep per above, lots of reliable sources to pass WP:GNG. @Citobun: How is this just spam? I don't much like the Features list, but apart from that it seems encyclopedic and well-sourced. Joseph2302 (talk) 21:27, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
- Delete. Apart of a lot of maybe reliable sources, this kind of features list is not acceptable in encyclopedic form of wikipedia article and it is suggestion that it's commercial article Marslo2015 (talk) 23:30, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:05, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
Bobby Badfingers
- Bobby Badfingers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Only claim to fame is a WP:1E as a runner up in America's Got Talent. Sources are all primary, no further independent RS found. Was dePRODed by an SPA. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 13:08, 26 December 2015 (UTC)
- Delete: blatant autobiography of non-notable individual. Quis separabit? 15:11, 26 December 2015 (UTC)
- Delete - subject is not notable. Runner up does not warrant a page. Meatsgains (talk) 17:20, 26 December 2015 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. clpo13(talk) 17:41, 26 December 2015 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. clpo13(talk) 17:41, 26 December 2015 (UTC)
- Delete - clearly non-notable individual. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 20:14, 26 December 2015 (UTC)
- Delete – I'm a little surprised: I thought there would be more press coverage of this guy, but all I could find after a quick search was this from the OC Register and this (rather local) story from SF Weekly. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 21:25, 27 December 2015 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. (non-admin closure) → Call me Razr Nation 08:42, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
2016 French F4 Championship season
- 2016 French F4 Championship season (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Only one source that too in PDF does not claim notability and no official announcements for the upcoming championship has been made. Falls under WP:Crystal and WP:TOOSOON SuperHero ● 👊 ● ★ 11:45, 26 December 2015 (UTC)
- Keep. This PDF file was made by the championship promoter Auto Sport Academy, so it is an official announcement. Corvus tristis (talk) 11:58, 26 December 2015 (UTC)
- Userfy until more sources become available Seasider91 (talk) 15:17, 26 December 2015 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. North America1000 06:41, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. North America1000 06:42, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. North America1000 06:44, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
- Keep. This passes WP:CRYSTAL as "the event is notable and almost certain to take place"; the official announcement has, as mentioned, been made. Even userification at this point would be pointless bureaucracy. - The Bushranger One ping only 09:36, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
- Keep. Other sources. Fédération Française du Sport Automobile announced that six rounds.[31] French F4 is a support race(excepting Marrakech and Lédenon rounds) of FFSA GT.2016 FFSA GT calendar Articles of news sites.[32]--Bakete (talk) 05:59, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was merge to Lagos State University. The majority of the keep !votes were made by sockpuppets. The remaining keep !vote (by the sockmaster) doesn't address the notability concerns brought up by the merge !votes. Wikipedia notability is distinct from real-world notability in many cases. (non-admin closure) clpo13(talk) 21:07, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
Lagos State University Epe Campus
- Lagos State University Epe Campus (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Fails WP:GNG. I can't find any valid reason for a stand-alone article. Wikic¤l¤gyt@lk to M£ 11:39, 26 December 2015 (UTC) I have no prejudice against a merge into Lagos State University per suggestions below. Wikic¤l¤gyt@lk to M£ 21:33, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Wikic¤l¤gyt@lk to M£ 11:40, 26 December 2015 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Wikic¤l¤gyt@lk to M£ 11:40, 26 December 2015 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Wikic¤l¤gyt@lk to M£ 11:40, 26 December 2015 (UTC)
- Selectively merge into Lagos State University. No reason why a separate article would meet any notability criteria. sst✈discuss 13:47, 26 December 2015 (UTC)
- Merge into Lagos State University per SSTflyer. --Rubbish computer (Merry Christmas!: ...And a Happy New Year!) 18:05, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
- keep I can not personally understand why the article was submitted for deletion.
Although I have removed the deletion tag I'd like you to note a few things.
- The article is about a prominent department in the Lagos state university and a stand alone one for that matter, it has graduated over a thousand people with hundreds of notable alumni.
- The article is still in the preparatory stage as I took a Christmas break to continue my findings and edits on the article.
- Within a short time as this, the article has attracted a large number of viewers which implies that people are willing yo know about the "Epe campus"which you can also verify yourself.
- Importantly also to note is that that the campus in discussion houses the Engineering student and more also will hopefully next year house the Faculty of Agriculture, the schools Predegeee progremme, and a new department also (Department of aerospace engineering).
- The article is well reserched and some more is been continued which I see violates no rule according to Wikipedia's article creating page.
Having noted all this I see it as being unreasonable and sheer lack of credibility for an individual to either suggest it for deletion or support the motion. Do you still have any correction or complaint about what I did, do notify me on my talk page and I'd at the soonest time possible be glad to answer.Mahveotm (talk) 19:20, 29 December 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mahveotm (talk • contribs) 23:57, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
- keep I'm totally opposed to this article being deleted I feel that since its a notable campus of the school it remains that way or how? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 105.112.17.244 (talk) 07:48, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
Keep I suggest this work should be kept as it covers broad aspect about the institutions Epe campus good work bro keep it upHilariousology (talk) 18:33, 30 December 2015 (UTC) — Hilariousology (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
KEEP I SUGGEST WE KEEP THIS ARTICLE AS THERE ARE OTHER ARTICLE WITH JUST EVEN FACULTIES OF THE SCHOOLS ON THE ENCYCLOPEDIA SO WHATS WRONG WITH THIS LASU's EPE CAMPUS ENTRY. EXAMPLES INCLUDEShttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Afe_Babalola_University_Faculty_of_SciencesGeniusez and this https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Afe_Babalola_University_Faculty_of_Sciences (talk) 13:22, 31 December 2015 (UTC) — Geniusez (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
- Merge to Lagos State University. University campuses are very rarely notable enough for their own standalone articles, but sourced and neutral information about different campuses is of course relevant for the main article about the university. Look at Middlesex University for an example of what that might look like. At the moment there isn't a single source in the Epe Campus article that shows notability - in fact there is only one source, which mentions the campus in passing. --bonadea contributions talk 13:48, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
- Merge: Should be merged to Lagos State University. All accounts voting for this subject to be kept are suspected sockpuppet accounts by Mahveotm —OluwaCurtis »» (talk to me) 22:06, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
- You seem so daft to suggest that, and one thing I know oluwacurtis is that I am not needed here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mahveotm (talk • contribs) 02:16, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
- Note to closing admin: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Hilariousology pertains to this discussion. OluwaCurtis, I don't see blatant evidence that connects Mahveotm with the other single-purpose accounts, and an SPI hadn't been filed yet when you made the claim. Please remember to support serious accusations with serious evidence. Mz7 (talk) 02:30, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
- Checkuser note: Hilariousology and Geniusez are Confirmed socks of Mahveotm.--Bbb23 (talk) 05:51, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
- @Mz7:, my comments have no trace of personal attack. Bbb23 just confirmed my suspicion. —OluwaCurtis »» (talk to me) 06:37, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
- It was too obvious to ignore.Wikic¤l¤gyt@lk to M£ 06:45, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
- @OluwaCurtis and Wikicology: I apologize—my intention was not to sound accusing myself. I saw that Mahveotm had been editing since November across a broader range of articles than the single-purpose accounts, so I wasn't ready to make the accusation without a technical investigation. Good eye, but out of an abundance of caution, I would have opened an WP:SPI first before claiming the connection. I hate it when we get a sockpuppetry accusation wrong (per WP:WER), so luckily, that didn't happen here. All the best, Mz7 (talk) 06:50, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
- No apology. You are right that accusation of sock is a very serious allegation. I wish, I was able to preach to User:Mahveotm before they were blocked. They are probably not aware of the implication of engaging in socks being a new editor. Wikic¤l¤gyt@lk to M£ 06:59, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:06, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
Pouch Card
- Pouch Card (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Appears to be a non-notable product launched by a non-notable company. No ghits other found other than those on the product or company websites. PamD 11:20, 26 December 2015 (UTC)
- Delete per nom, simply not notable. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 11:24, 26 December 2015 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. North America1000 21:42, 26 December 2015 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. North America1000 21:42, 26 December 2015 (UTC)
- Delete - None of this currently suggests a better notable article. Notifying tagger Dat GuyWiki. SwisterTwister talk 06:36, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
- Delete. A product produced by a non-notable company and which has not been launched yet. No news coverage, no books coverage, no scholar coverage, no significant coverage in independent reliable sources. Not notable. This is just advertising in my view which is not what Wikipedia is for. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 01:32, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was speedy keep. Per WP:SK 1. Also suggested deletion by speedy deletion criteria Wikipedia:CSD A1 and just all around false. (non-admin closure) Dat GuyTalkContribs 20:26, 26 December 2015 (UTC)
Uvuru-agada
- Uvuru-agada (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Articles lacking sufficient context to identify the subject of the article Alvin the Almighty (talk) 10:29, 26 December 2015 (UTC)
- Keep I'm not sure how you consider this to be "lacking sufficient context to identify the subject of the article" — it's quite explicitly about "a community in Uzo Uwani LGA, Enugu State, Nigeria". If your concern is about the article's short size, this isn't a reason for deletion, it's perfectly reasonable to keep it as a stub. If it's about the subject's notability, then per WP:GEOLAND "populated, legally recognized places are typically presumed to be notable, even if their population is very low". A cursory glance on Google reveals sufficient evidence that the place does actually exist. I've just edited the article to add an infobox & co-ordinates too. └ UkPaolo/talk┐ 11:04, 26 December 2015 (UTC)
- Keep per WP:GEOLAND. A quick Google search confirms its existence as a named populated place. Also, this is not the first nomination from this editor where he has been reminded of GEOLAND in cases such as this and to continue to bring these to Afd seems to be WP:POINTy behaviour and rather a waste of time. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 11:55, 26 December 2015 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. WP:NOTBURO - typo fixed, issue resolved, discussion closed. The Bushranger One ping only 21:14, 26 December 2015 (UTC)
Jaisalmer railway stadium
- Jaisalmer railway stadium (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
There is nothing by this name in Jaisalmer town. Shyamsunder (talk) 10:22, 26 December 2015 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor Talk! 12:32, 26 December 2015 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor Talk! 12:33, 26 December 2015 (UTC)
- Comment: I believe the article title is a simple typo and should be moved to Jaisalmer railway station. Maybe the article creator, Jaywardhan009, would join the discussion? Sam Sailor Talk! 12:38, 26 December 2015 (UTC)
- REDIRECT to Jaisalmer railway station. Yes, it certainly was. I've boldly moved it to the correct title as it is obvious from the text that this is what is meant, and suggest we CLOSE as the article can now simply be kept: there's definitely a railway station in the town. The version with the typo might as well stay as a redirect, too. Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:39, 26 December 2015 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was speedy keep. The nominator has withdrawn his nomination and there are no other arguments for deletion. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 05:25, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
Zi Corporation
- Zi Corporation (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Not notable per WP:CORP or WP:GNG. The only sources I could find are routine "directory"-style listings and non-independent press releases about the "patent war" and eventual takeover. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 09:15, 26 December 2015 (UTC)
- Keep. Zi was an interesting case for software patents, it was also listed on NASDAQ, made products that shipped in huge volumes that made a big difference for many users, esp. re. Chinese text entry. The company did receive significant coverage in independent media (see refs), which in sum should be more than enough to make it notable in an encyclopedia that is not paper. The Klein and Lancer controversies are also noteworthy. -- Egil (talk) 14:43, 26 December 2015 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America1000 21:43, 26 December 2015 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. North America1000 21:43, 26 December 2015 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. North America1000 21:43, 26 December 2015 (UTC)
- Keep . I find it compliant with WP:NN. More so , in current form, it is definitely worth enough an interesting read. Devopam (talk) 04:51, 27 December 2015 (UTC)
- Keep likely as this article at least has considerable information and sources, sure it's now non-existent but the coverage is certainly enough. SwisterTwister talk 08:05, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
- Withdraw AFD nomination - sourcing has improved substantially since nomination. My BEFORE search (a Google "news" search) did not deliver many of the sources now used in the article. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 09:13, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete--Ymblanter (talk) 10:13, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
Aminu Alan Waka
- Aminu Alan Waka (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Promotional article with no evidence of notability Wikic¤l¤gyt@lk to M£ 08:51, 26 December 2015 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Wikic¤l¤gyt@lk to M£ 09:00, 26 December 2015 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Wikic¤l¤gyt@lk to M£ 09:00, 26 December 2015 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Wikic¤l¤gyt@lk to M£ 09:00, 26 December 2015 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Wikic¤l¤gyt@lk to M£ 09:00, 26 December 2015 (UTC)
- Comment: The "Work and Archivement" section is a WP:COPYVIO of this, complete with its thick layer of WP:PEACOCKery. I haven't deleted it at this time, as it contains any claim that the person may have to notability, but it would have to be replaced if the article did survive AfD. AllyD (talk) 09:09, 26 December 2015 (UTC)
- Delete - Certainly not even a minimally better notable and acceptable article. SwisterTwister talk 06:49, 27 December 2015 (UTC)
- Delete, does not meet WP:GNG or WP:ANYBIO, article references are not useable, a search brings up similar sites, blogs, listings only. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:46, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
- Delete. Nothing credible here regarding encyclopaedicity. --Michig (talk) 07:57, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Delete. Michig (talk) 07:25, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
UC Berkeley financial aid
- UC Berkeley financial aid (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Fails WP:NOTGUIDE. Article is essentially a brochure. Regards, James(talk/contribs) 06:32, 26 December 2015 (UTC)
- Delete An intersection of two things: A school and a list of possible sources of financial aid. Obviously the same thing could be written about any school in the world, just about. Seems to be original research as well as a guide or how-to, mainly.Borock (talk) 09:26, 26 December 2015 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor Talk! 12:48, 26 December 2015 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor Talk! 12:48, 26 December 2015 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. North America1000 21:44, 26 December 2015 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. North America1000 21:44, 26 December 2015 (UTC)
- Delete as this is simply not yet set for an acceptable article especially given its current state. SwisterTwister talk 06:31, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
- Delete per WP:NOTHOWTO. --Rubbish computer (Merry Christmas!: ...And a Happy New Year!) 19:13, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete--Ymblanter (talk) 10:05, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
Hans Fries (politician)
- Hans Fries (politician) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Biography of a person notable only as a non-winning candidate for political office. While there was once a time when unsuccessful candidates in leadership conventions were accepted as notable on the grounds that they added valuable context to the convention coverage, that's no longer accepted as a claim of notability in its own right if you can't get him over any other inclusion criterion besides that fact alone — but nothing else here does that, and with just one incomplete citation for sourcing he doesn't get a WP:GNG pass either. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 03:18, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. North America1000 09:45, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Manitoba-related deletion discussions. North America1000 09:45, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
- Delete loosing the political race he lost does not make a person notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:55, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor Talk! 01:40, 26 December 2015 (UTC)
- Delete: On the given content, the subject appears well short of WP:POLITICIAN or broader WP:BIO criteria, nor are my searches locating anything better. AllyD (talk) 09:15, 26 December 2015 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was merge to Sacred Name Bibles. Closing as a merge because consensus is split on whether any information here is worth keeping. (non-admin closure) clpo13(talk) 21:02, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
Names of God Bible
- Names of God Bible (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
I can't find coverage of this book in reliable sources, suggesting that it is not notable. The creator suggested a merge, but I don't see the point since there's no reliable third-party sourcing. Not every book gets coverage in Wikipedia, that's just not how it works. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 16:40, 12 December 2015 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bible-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:28, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mz7 (talk) 02:13, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
- Redirect to Sacred Name Bibles, as it is one of those, and it is a plausible search term. - The Bushranger One ping only 06:04, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. North America1000 09:43, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
- Merge (rather than plain redirect), unless all the others give the same detail of all the divine names. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:59, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor Talk! 01:38, 26 December 2015 (UTC)
- Limited merge, probably just the name (as a list entry) and the Rau citation, and redirect. – Fayenatic London 10:21, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
- Redirect to Sacred Name Bibles, as per Bushranger. As for merging, this book already does appear in a list on the target page. And the Rau citation doesn't seem to be so much about this book itself, but more of a generic discussion of sacred-name translations. NewYorkActuary (talk) 22:52, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
- IMHO the Rau citation still confers more notability than the existing publisher's citation in the Sacred Name Bibles list. – Fayenatic London 22:57, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. North America1000 03:30, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
Singularity art
- Singularity art (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Article about the future of art, seemingly consisting of original research. Almost all of the sources make no mention of the subject. I am unable to find any reliable, independent sources that establish this as a coherent, notable subject. - MrX 01:35, 26 December 2015 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. sst✈·discuss· 07:32, 26 December 2015 (UTC)
- Delete: Original research. Nothing on Scholar, can't find anything relevant after several pages of ordinary Google results either. Either way, the article is a mess of original synthesis. Kolbasz (talk) 18:17, 26 December 2015 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. North America1000 21:46, 26 December 2015 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. North America1000 21:46, 26 December 2015 (UTC)
- Delete. Unsourced. I thought it was a hoax but I fear that somebody is dead serious about it. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:54, 26 December 2015 (UTC).
- Delete per Xxanthippe. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 00:16, 27 December 2015 (UTC)
- Delete as appears to have insufficient coverage in reliable sources. --Rubbish computer (Merry Christmas!: ...And a Happy New Year!) 08:10, 27 December 2015 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Delete. Michig (talk) 07:22, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
Air Tycoon 2
- Air Tycoon 2 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
The video game fails WP:GNG -- no multiple, reliable, independent, in-depth sources, such as WP:VG/RS. No meaningful hits in reliable source search [33] and regular searching reveals only short and unreliable reviews (e.g. [34][35][36] (AppSpy is under review on WT:VG/RS, but it would still be the only one)). — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 00:22, 26 December 2015 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. North America1000 21:47, 26 December 2015 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. North America1000 21:47, 26 December 2015 (UTC)
- Delete. Article topic lacks significant coverage from reliable, independent sources. (?) It had no meaningful hits in a video game reliable sources custom Google search. I'd redirect to the dev or series article, but none exists. If someone finds more (non-English and offline) sources, please {{ping}} me. czar 00:32, 27 December 2015 (UTC)
- Delete - Clearly not yet notable and acceptable at all. Draft and userfy later if needed at best, SwisterTwister talk 06:15, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
- Delete Hate to "per nom", but per nom. Can't find any reliable sources. -- ferret (talk) 22:22, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.