Deletion discussions |
---|
|
Articles |
Templates |
Files |
Possibly unfree files (PUF) |
Categories |
Redirects |
Miscellany |
Speedy deletion |
Proposed deletion |
This page transcludes (or when this is not feasible, links to) all of the deletion debates opened today on the English-language Wikipedia, including articles, categories, templates, and others, as a convenience to XfD-watchers. Please note that because this material is transcluded, watchlisting this page will not provide you with watchlist updates about deletions; WP:DELT works best as a browser bookmark checked regularly.
Contents
- 1 Speedy deletion candidates
- 2 Articles
- 2.1 Smile Please foundation
- 2.2 Mohabat Kar Da Lewno Da
- 2.3 Parallelities
- 2.4 Jashan (2016 film)
- 2.5 Pulse (rock)
- 2.6 EasyShiksha
- 2.7 Chris Hyde (musician)
- 2.8 Deep hypothermic circulatory arrest
- 2.9 Reservoir Media Management
- 2.10 Leonard Sweet
- 2.11 David Auerbach
- 2.12 Aimee Cheng-Bradshaw
- 2.13 Miss Asia Pacific 1969
- 2.14 Kozicki coat of arms
- 2.15 Kuusou Mesorogiwi
- 2.16 Embassy of Lithuania, Brussels
- 2.17 MacDonald Turkey Point Marina
- 2.18 Embassy of India, Brussels
- 2.19 Maclain Nelson
- 2.20 Kammatipaadam
- 2.21 Miss Asia Pacific 1981
- 2.22 Miss Asia Pacific 1980
- 2.23 Miss Asia Pacific 1982
- 2.24 Miss Asia Pacific 1983
- 2.25 Miss Asia Pacific 1984
- 2.26 Miss Asia Pacific 1986
- 2.27 Miss Asia Pacific 1988
- 2.28 Nee Vaa Sruthi Polam
- 2.29 Dennis Phua
- 2.30 2013 Orange County Blue Star season
- 2.31 Ariana Jollee
- 2.32 Doubleclouder
- 2.33 Houzan Mahmoud
- 2.34 Mohamed Omar Dubad
- 2.35 Double Clutch (Transformers)
- 2.36 Dion (Transformers)
- 2.37 Crosswise
- 2.38 City Commander
- 2.39 Erina language
- 2.40 List of Alien characters
- 2.41 Tena Palmer
- 2.42 Stage Accompany
- 2.43 Pam Seatle
- 2.44 Boxing at the 2015 European Games – Men's 64 kg
- 2.45 Angela Ryder
- 2.46 Hangmen Motorcycle Club
- 2.47 Haulmont
- 2.48 The Dawn and Drew Show
- 2.49 Nordan Shat
- 2.50 Janet Turpin Myers
- 2.51 Waldo Cabrera
- 2.52 Roger W. Stoller
- 2.53 Koi and the Kola Nuts
- 2.54 Fauxtography
- 2.55 David Olivera
- 2.56 Qaraimits
- 2.57 European Law Group
- 2.58 Paper Garden Records
- 2.59 Connor Goggin
- 2.60 Andy Taranto
- 2.61 Tommy Mele
- 2.62 Shavit Bar-On Gal-On Tzin Yagur
- 2.63 Justin Davis (ice hockey)
- 2.64 Garet Hunt
- 2.65 Darren Lynch
- 2.66 Bryan Bridges
- 2.67 J. D. Watt
- 2.68 Adam Courchaine (ice hockey, born 1989)
- 2.69 Dan Gendur
- 2.70 Dennis Yan
- 2.71 Blake Speers
- 2.72 Vili Saarijärvi
- 2.73 Daniel Vladař
- 2.74 Patrick Sanvido
- 2.75 Connor Chatham
- 2.76 Anthony Cirelli
- 2.77 Trevor Murphy
- 2.78 Sindre Goksøyr
- 2.79 Samantha Massell
- 2.80 Neva Leoni
- 2.81 Sara Ali Khan
- 3 Files
- 3.1 Files for discussion
- 3.1.1 April 10
- 3.1.1.1 File:Pentax 18-55mm in lightbox.jpg
- 3.1.1.2 File:Sire.png
- 3.1.1.3 File:Lucky Star Single Cover.jpg
- 3.1.1.4 File:Cursive IPA sample (1912) (2).png
- 3.1.1.5 File:DJ-Elephante-headshot.jpg
- 3.1.1.6 File:North Geelong Warriors Hall of Fame.jpg
- 3.1.1.7 File:Luka Glavas and kids.jpg
- 3.1.1.8 File:Paperback Writer by The Beatles UK vinyl.jpg
- 3.1.1.9 File:Sweet Love by Anita Baker US vinyl.jpg
- 3.1.1.10 File:Liam McLaughlan.jpg
- 3.1.1.11 File:SEECP members.png
- 3.1.1.12 File:SteveNeil 85weirdest.jpg
- 3.1.1.13 File:Trolley01.JPG
- 3.1.1.14 File:Uop.jpg
- 3.1.1.15 File:Masoud Alimohammadi.jpg
- 3.1.1.16 File:Whiskey Ring 03.jpg
- 3.1.1.17 File:Whiskey Ring.JPG
- 3.1.1.18 File:Xiuhmolpilli.1.jpg
- 3.1.1.19 File:Fred Meyer Jewelers.jpg
- 3.1.1.20 File:600px-Arab League members colored by joining date with Israel colored in blue.png
- 3.1.1.21 File:Abre la Muralla.jpg
- 3.1.1.22 File:AdhiKumbheshwararTemple trimmed.jpg
- 3.1.1.23 File:Akram ut tarajim 12 53.jpg
- 3.1.1.24 File:Allstonians Haunt.jpg
- 3.1.1.25 File:AlmaMaterMKHS.jpg
- 3.1.1.26 File:AlphaOmega2.jpg
- 3.1.1.27 File:Strictly Judges from series7.jpg
- 3.1.1 April 10
- 3.1 Files for discussion
- 4 Categories
- 5 Redirects
- 6 Templates
- 7 Miscellany
- 8 Deletion review
Speedy deletion candidates
The category is at Category:Candidates for speedy deletion.
Articles
Smile Please foundation
- Smile Please foundation ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: "Smile Please foundation" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · highbeam · JSTOR)
Insufficient indication of notability. IagoQnsi (talk) 18:48, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
Mohabat Kar Da Lewno Da
- Mohabat Kar Da Lewno Da ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: "Mohabat Kar Da Lewno Da" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · highbeam · JSTOR)
Non-notable film. Contested prod. Bradv 18:24, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
- Comment The creator of the article is a blocked sockpuppet. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Nk Khan Sherani. clpo13(talk) 18:28, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
- Delete Per nom, non-notable. ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 18:30, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
- Delete-Per nom, looks like the strange film articles that came from a sockpuppet about a year ago whose name I can't remember (though I do know one was Sadman or Sandman or something) Wgolf (talk) 18:31, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. clpo13(talk) 18:32, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. clpo13(talk) 18:32, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
- Speedy delete per G5 as a creation by a blocked sock of Nouman khan sherani (talk · contribs). Sam Sailor Talk! 18:37, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
Parallelities
- Parallelities ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: "Parallelities" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · highbeam · JSTOR)
Non-notable science fiction novel. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 18:24, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
Jashan (2016 film)
- Jashan (2016 film) ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: "Jashan (2016 film)" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · highbeam · JSTOR)
Non-notable film. Speedy deletion template was placed by another user and removed by an IP. Bradv 18:17, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
- Comment The creator of the article is a blocked sockpuppet. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Nk Khan Sherani. The IP is likely the same editor. clpo13(talk) 18:19, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
- Delete As per nom. Made by a blocked sockpuppet. ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 18:31, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
- Speedy delete per G5 as a creation by a blocked sock of Nouman khan sherani (talk · contribs). Sam Sailor Talk! 18:32, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. clpo13(talk) 18:32, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. clpo13(talk) 18:32, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
Pulse (rock)
- Pulse (rock) ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: "Pulse (rock)" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · highbeam · JSTOR)
Fails WP:BAND. Prod contested by author. Bradv 18:14, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 18:14, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
EasyShiksha
- EasyShiksha ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: "EasyShiksha" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · highbeam · JSTOR)
Fails WP:GNG. I'm also wondering whether the author wants this to be deleted, because he keeps adding promotional content and the advert tag. Adam9007 (talk) 17:58, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
- Delete I find it extremely hard to find secondary sources for this article. Daniel kenneth (talk · · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · SUL · CA · checkuser (log)) 18:14, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:32, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:32, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:32, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
Chris Hyde (musician)
- Chris Hyde (musician) ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: "Chris Hyde (musician)" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · highbeam · JSTOR)
Non-notable individual. The blogs mention his death, but no other coverage of the individual exists. Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:49, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
Deep hypothermic circulatory arrest
- Deep hypothermic circulatory arrest ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: "Deep hypothermic circulatory arrest" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · highbeam · JSTOR)
The subject of this article is covered better at Targeted temperature management in terms of current medical practice. This article as it stands, is a couple of quotes out of old sources. To the extent this is meant to be about cryonics this article is unhelpful and should just redirect there. But there is no here, here. This appears to be a failed WP:POVFORK. Jytdog (talk) 16:05, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
- Delete Well covered in TTM and could be included as an adjunct to Cardioplegia. The term may be useful, so a delete and redirect to TTM may be appropriate.--☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(ring-ring) 17:55, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:31, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
Reservoir Media Management
- Reservoir Media Management ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: "Reservoir Media Management" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · highbeam · JSTOR)
Very little independent coverage of this company, mainly a couple of industry articles about a corporate appointment. Additionally, outside of the scope of notability, has COI and promotional tone issues Rayman60 (talk) 16:11, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. clpo13(talk) 16:36, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. clpo13(talk) 16:36, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. clpo13(talk) 16:36, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
- Delete as searches found nothing better. SwisterTwister talk 17:35, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
Leonard Sweet
- Leonard Sweet ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: "Leonard Sweet" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · highbeam · JSTOR)
The article contains quite some claims of notability, but not the reliable sources to back up those claims. The only two sources that aren't Sweet's own website or his book are this self-published piece which in turn refers to this, which for all I can tell is, despite the self-description, neither in Russian nor particularly reliable, and this publication by a ministry. The majority of our article's content is not confirmed by either of these weak sources, and removing unsourced and unreliably sourced content would amount to blanking it. My own sources have brought up passing mentions in international newspapers such as The Hindu, but not any significant coverage. Articles by columnists about Sweet, which wouldn't be reliable sources anyway, disagree wildly, from calling him a best-selling author to claiming that not many people read the works of Leonard Sweet. In summary, this is a rather promotional piece not supported by the given references, and better references that would allow us to rewrite the article do not seem to exist. Huon (talk) 15:55, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
David Auerbach
- David Auerbach ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: "David Auerbach" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · highbeam · JSTOR)
(Previous deletion discussion was for an unrelated subject with the same name).
No indication from searches that the subject is covered by multiple independent, reliable sources. Sources cited in the article are predominantly written by the subject and are in any case only listed to note their work history or opinions. The only independent source cited on the page is an awards landing page which lists Auerbach's employment at Slate.
They do show up in Google Scholar/Books, but that's partially their patents (https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=l1LvKQIAAAAJ) and books referencing their articles (I've spot checked some of them and they don't appear to go beyond passing mentions). Protonk (talk) 15:45, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
Aimee Cheng-Bradshaw
- Aimee Cheng-Bradshaw ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: "Aimee Cheng-Bradshaw" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · highbeam · JSTOR)
Fails WP:NMODEL. The person seems to have been a contestant of Asia's Next Top Model (but not a winner) and hosted a local television show (which I am not sure is notable). Except for a couple of tabloid-y articles [1] and [2], other sources contain trivial mentions of her. (Note, the appearance in a single episode of "Style and the City" seems to have no secondary sources to back it up). Add to that the COI editing, I feel it is WP:TOOSOON to have an article about her. Lemongirl942 (talk) 15:27, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
- Weak to moderate keep - The amount of news coverage seen here, as well as the amount of modelling work she has done, covered e.g. here and by some of the article's sources establish that she is at least minorly notable. If not kept, I think a better option would be to redirect to Asia's Next Top Model (cycle 3). Linguist 111talk 16:32, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
- Weak Keep, as seems slightly notable from google searches. ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 18:36, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
Article is nominated for deletion since subject is not notable outside of her Wikimedia involvement and fails WP:GNG and WP:BIO. No favoritism should be displayed to insiders no matter how senior. Mohsinpathania (talk) 15:00, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
- Keep - as WP:ANYBIO:-
- 1.The person has received a well-known and significant award or honor, or has been nominated for one several times.
- Awarded the rank of chavalier by the president of France here as "présidente d'une fondation mondiale ; 15 ans d'activités professionnelles"
2.The person has made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in his or her specific field
- présidente d'une fondation mondiale - as above citation
- Moreover, I find it difficult to Assume good faith:-
- This nomination is malformed, and incorrect, as it is the 4th nomination, not the third
This nomination is not listed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2016 April 10
This nomination was started by an editor as their second edit, and occurred immediately after an IP had removed most of the references from the article. - Arjayay (talk) 17:00, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
- This nomination is malformed, and incorrect, as it is the 4th nomination, not the third
Miss Asia Pacific 1969
- Miss Asia Pacific 1969 ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: "Miss Asia Pacific 1969" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · highbeam · JSTOR)
Annual page of a pageant deemed not notable enough for an article. Sourced only to a blog site and the pageant's own website. Legacypac (talk) 15:03, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. clpo13(talk) 16:35, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. clpo13(talk) 16:35, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. clpo13(talk) 16:35, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
Kozicki coat of arms
- Kozicki coat of arms ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: "Kozicki coat of arms" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · highbeam · JSTOR)
De-PRODDED by Kvng on the basis of this AfD discussion, though no comment was made on this particular article. The article gives no context or indication of notability, and I can't find any sources non-trivially discussing a pre-19th century Alexander Kozicki, much less his coat of arms. The Polish Biographical Index does list one Aleksander Kozicki/Kosicki, but he is presumably not the subject of this article since he lived from 1802 to 1886, after the Commonwealth had been dissolved. —Nizolan (talk) 15:03, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. —Nizolan (talk) 15:05, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. I think I found this in userspace draft too. Will look. Legacypac (talk) 15:06, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
- Comment - The deletion discussion I cited is referenced on the article's talk page. ~Kvng (talk) 15:35, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
-
- It was a member of the long list given in that discussion, I just meant no one actually commented on this article specifically (and the consensus seemed to be to discuss each article on its own merits, rather than an affirmative keep for each one). Just meant to register it as a clerk note-type thing and courtesy ping anyway, not a complaint about your action! —Nizolan (talk) 16:30, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
Kuusou Mesorogiwi
- Kuusou Mesorogiwi ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: "Kuusou Mesorogiwi" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · highbeam · JSTOR)
No sources and no assertion of notability. Being the theme song of an anime alone does not make it notable enough to have its own article. It needs to have significant coverage from reliable sources. nyuszika7h (talk) 14:57, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
- Delete This article is not notable enough because it only discusses about a music video and there is not a lot of things you could add about this music video. Daniel kenneth (talk · · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · SUL · CA · checkuser (log)) 17:52, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
Embassy of Lithuania, Brussels
- Embassy of Lithuania, Brussels ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: "Embassy of Lithuania, Brussels" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · highbeam · JSTOR)
fails WP:ORG. Embassies are not inherently notable . This article merely confirms it exists. LibStar (talk) 14:51, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
MacDonald Turkey Point Marina
- MacDonald Turkey Point Marina ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: "MacDonald Turkey Point Marina" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · highbeam · JSTOR)
Non-notable business SmartSE (talk) 14:00, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 14:45, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
- Week Keep. A quick search turned up this [[3]]. Confirms it is the largest fresh water marina in Canada, and for 16 years has hosted the charity fishing tournament. May be enough. Article certainly needs much improvement. Mb66w (talk) 15:58, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
Embassy of India, Brussels
- Embassy of India, Brussels ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: "Embassy of India, Brussels" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · highbeam · JSTOR)
Belgium–India relations are notable; embassies themselves are often not-notable buildings. Nothing in this article to lead one to think this one is in itself notable.TheLongTone (talk) 13:47, 10 April 2016 (UTC) TheLongTone (talk) 13:47, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:50, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:51, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Belgium-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:51, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
- delete the article merely confirms it exists. Otherwise it's actually about foreign relations which is covered in other articles. LibStar (talk) 14:21, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
This article is not about a building. The Embassy of India in Brussels serves as India's Embassy to Belgium, Luxembourg, as well as India's Mission to European Union. If there can be article on a Mission like Mission of Canada to the European Union or an article on an Embassy like Embassy of Lithuania, Brussels, then surely the article in question deserves to be there, coz it's an Embassy as well as a Mission. As far as the article is concerned, I'l be making some changes to it in next few minutes to make it more deserving. Netstar1 (talk) 14:26, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
- WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a reason for keeping. LibStar (talk) 14:49, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
Sir, I beg to differ from u. What you are saying is something like "I will delete the wikipedia article on India, even if all/most other countries have dedicated articles on Wikipedia". There are hundreds of articles on embassies on Wikipedia, so please dont say that articles embassies are often non-notable "buildings", that dont deserve to have articles. In any case, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is there so that garbage articles are not created on minor pretexts, and I donot think that my article is garbage. I believe that the topic (India's Embassy to Belgium, Luxembourg and European Union) is important enough for an article to be created on it. And I think the matter that I've written on this article is decent enough. I've made some changes to the article since u nominated it for deletion. I request u that some other established editor shud be allowed to decide on this matter. Regards. Netstar1 (talk) 15:16, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
Maclain Nelson
- Maclain Nelson ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: "Maclain Nelson" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · highbeam · JSTOR)
Speedy was declined even though article is only a partial sentence that does not indicate any roles this actor played. Postcard Cathy (talk) 13:20, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
- Delete The speedy was declined because the IMDB suggested notability but, the unreliability of IMDB (WP:Citing IMDb) aside, there is no indication of notability in the text. I had left this for awhile on the hope that the SPA author would return to finish the sentence.Peter Rehse (talk) 13:33, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Musa Talk 14:28, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Musa Talk 14:28, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Musa Talk 14:29, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
- Delete as nothing for at least minimal notability. SwisterTwister talk 17:23, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
- Weak Delete Not notable. But, this could be a case of WP:AFDISNTCLEANUP . ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 18:38, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
-
- I wasn't sure of the best approach to this. WP:AFDISNTCLEANUP asks for good eventually souceable material but here we only had a half completed sentence. I really did think a speedy or a PROD was enough.Peter Rehse (talk) 18:43, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
Kammatipaadam
- Kammatipaadam ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: "Kammatipaadam" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · highbeam · JSTOR)
Unreleased film does not meet the film notability guideline's requirement of significant, independent coverage, and, per WP:NFF, "films that . . . have not yet been publicly released . . . should generally not have their own articles unless the production itself is notable per the notability guidelines." Rebbing 18:17, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:56, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:56, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
- a deeper look...
- proper spelling:(Find sources: "Kammatti Paadam" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · HighBeam · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · The Wikipedia Library)
- director:(Find sources: "Rajeev Ravi" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · highbeam · JSTOR
- star:(Find sources: "Dulquer Salman" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · highbeam · JSTOR
- star:(Find sources: "Vinay Forrt" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · highbeam · JSTOR
- studio:(Find sources: "United Global Media" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · highbeam · JSTOR
- type:(Find sources: "Kammatipaadam Movie" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · highbeam · JSTOR
- and with WP:INDAFD: Kammatti Paadam Rajeev Ravi Dulquer Salman Vinay Forrt Kammatipaadam
- Keep as while searches for this by an incorrect title creates issue, filming was in progress early February, and completed filming in early March, and WP:BEFORE shows that the project's production has coverage enough to meet WP:NFF (paragraph 3).[4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13] So... sorry Rebbing, but I believe it meets criteria and it is far better for the project that this be kept and improved through the many available sources. And the article will need to be moved to Kammatti Paadam. Schmidt, Michael Q. 23:33, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
- Nicely done. I went through your sources and added everything I thought was plausibly useful. I also moved the page as you suggested. (I understand moving a page while it's at AfD is discouraged, but, as I nominated this article, I feel I ought to do it since it clearly needs to be done.) Assuming the International Business Times qualifies as a reliable source (it seems to be in doubt, but, for the proposition that the film has begun principal photography, I have no objection), the film clearly passes WP:NFF. However, all of the coverage you linked as well as what I found myself for the film itself—not, say, its director or its studio—is pretty routine. Rebbing 01:14, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
- Excellent
and it does need more work (PS... it needs two t's. IE: Kammatti Paadam} Schmidt, Michael Q. 20:41, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
Moved to Kammatti Paadam. Rebbing 23:07, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
- Shall we close this AFD, or do you wish for others to speak up? Schmidt, Michael Q. 03:41, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
- At this point, I stand by my nomination in its entirety. In my view, the coverage presented is trivial and routine and does not come close to satisfying the notability requirement, especially for an unreleased film. Most tellingly, it doesn't appear that there's enough reliable source material to write more than a paragraph or two of encyclopedic, relevant, properly-sourced -content: compare WP:WHYN's admonition that "[w]e require 'significant coverage' in reliable sources so that we can actually write a whole article, rather than half a paragraph or a definition of that topic. If only a few sentences could be written and supported by sources about the subject, that subject does not qualify for a separate page, but should instead be merged into an article about a larger topic or relevant list." Rebbing 04:05, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
- Shall we close this AFD, or do you wish for others to speak up? Schmidt, Michael Q. 03:41, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
- Excellent
- Nicely done. I went through your sources and added everything I thought was plausibly useful. I also moved the page as you suggested. (I understand moving a page while it's at AfD is discouraged, but, as I nominated this article, I feel I ought to do it since it clearly needs to be done.) Assuming the International Business Times qualifies as a reliable source (it seems to be in doubt, but, for the proposition that the film has begun principal photography, I have no objection), the film clearly passes WP:NFF. However, all of the coverage you linked as well as what I found myself for the film itself—not, say, its director or its studio—is pretty routine. Rebbing 01:14, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
Response: It is unfortunate that Indian media do not usually write long and incisive articles about their films, but I believe just as you stated above "the film clearly passes WP:NFF" and also that the likelihood of there being even more toward WP:NF is pretty much assured in consideration of the notable director and cast.. it will just take looking. Toward your narrow interpretation of WP:NFF (paragraph 3), you might then offer a suitable place where the information might be merged for a few weeks, and in the meantime I'll do some work on it so others may also agree as do we both that WP:NFF is met and as a suitable stub article it can be kept and expanded over time and through regular editing. Thanks, Schmidt, Michael Q. 05:25, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
- Perhaps I wasn't clear above. I agree that the film doesn't have a problem under WP:NFF paragraph 1 (films not confirmed to have commenced principal photography should not have articles), but that's not the same as saying the film satisfies the notability guidelines. In my view, NPP paragraph 3 (unreleased films) forecloses notability as the production itself is not notable: the production coverage of which I am aware is either not reliable or very much routine and not at all significant, and I also believe it wouldn't be notable under WP:NF and WP:GNG even as a released film. Also, notability doesn't transfer (a film isn't notable merely because its performers or directors are notable), and the future possibility of notability doesn't make a subject notable today.
- As for merging, there is almost no content in this article to merge. The article can be summed up as: a certain Malayalam film was directed by a certain person, written by another, stars these people, was written at this time, and is slated to be released later this year. I would suggest mentioning the film in each participant's filmography, as appears to have been done. I believe retaining this stub, as you suggest, would be inappropriate at this time. Rebbing 05:51, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
- Yes, you were not clear. Either it passes the inclusion criteria (even if barely) of WP:NFF (paragraph 3) or it does not. So we await a consensus. If others agree it does, it can be allowed to stay as a (guideline encouraged) improvable stub (see WP:IMPERFECT)... for as as much as it would be wonderful if everything written for Wikipedia was already perfect, such wished-for perfection is not an absolute demand of guideline nor policy. Imagine how pointless this work would have been had all 682 been perfect at their outset. And to further disagree with you and since all sources speak toward the director Rajeev Ravi, I included a sourced statement therein worthy of being at most a very temporary redirect target. And if deleted, we definitely need to encourage someone to continue working on a version in a draftspace, as the current stub when WP:REFUNDED would be sent again to AFD by someone else (not you) impatient with the pace of regular editing, and/or unable or unwilling (not you) to find the many available sources. Schmidt, Michael Q. 08:56, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
- Please note that my objection to this article has little to do with its current imperfection and much to do with its subject: notability isn't based on the article's sourcing, and, therefore, no amount of improvement, encouragement, or patience could make this subject notable. Rebbing 14:27, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
- You are correct that notability is not based upon sources being used, but rather upon their being available. Abd while I only posted the first few I found to show what you missed in your own BEFORE, I feel there is enough more sourcing available to meet inclusion under WP:NFF (paragraph 3) and so to allow continued efforts. You do not. I feel the topic can be improved to serve the project. You do not. A difference of opinion is fine, but that is why I will await consensus. Cheers. Schmidt, Michael Q. 01:01, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
- Please note that my objection to this article has little to do with its current imperfection and much to do with its subject: notability isn't based on the article's sourcing, and, therefore, no amount of improvement, encouragement, or patience could make this subject notable. Rebbing 14:27, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
- Yes, you were not clear. Either it passes the inclusion criteria (even if barely) of WP:NFF (paragraph 3) or it does not. So we await a consensus. If others agree it does, it can be allowed to stay as a (guideline encouraged) improvable stub (see WP:IMPERFECT)... for as as much as it would be wonderful if everything written for Wikipedia was already perfect, such wished-for perfection is not an absolute demand of guideline nor policy. Imagine how pointless this work would have been had all 682 been perfect at their outset. And to further disagree with you and since all sources speak toward the director Rajeev Ravi, I included a sourced statement therein worthy of being at most a very temporary redirect target. And if deleted, we definitely need to encourage someone to continue working on a version in a draftspace, as the current stub when WP:REFUNDED would be sent again to AFD by someone else (not you) impatient with the pace of regular editing, and/or unable or unwilling (not you) to find the many available sources. Schmidt, Michael Q. 08:56, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Onel5969 TT me 12:56, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
Miss Asia Pacific 1981
- Miss Asia Pacific 1981 ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: "Miss Asia Pacific 1981" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · highbeam · JSTOR)
Year version belonging to a pageant that was deemed not notable. (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Miss Asia Pacific International) The Banner talk 11:52, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
- Delete since normally you would merge this into the pageant page but it is gone. Legacypac (talk) 14:45, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
Miss Asia Pacific 1980
- Miss Asia Pacific 1980 ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: "Miss Asia Pacific 1980" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · highbeam · JSTOR)
Year version belonging to a pageant that was deemed not notable. (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Miss Asia Pacific International) The Banner talk 11:51, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
Miss Asia Pacific 1982
- Miss Asia Pacific 1982 ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: "Miss Asia Pacific 1982" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · highbeam · JSTOR)
Year version belonging to a pageant that was deemed not notable. (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Miss Asia Pacific International) The Banner talk 11:51, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
Miss Asia Pacific 1983
- Miss Asia Pacific 1983 ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: "Miss Asia Pacific 1983" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · highbeam · JSTOR)
Year version belonging to a pageant that was deemed not notable. (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Miss Asia Pacific International) The Banner talk 11:51, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
Miss Asia Pacific 1984
- Miss Asia Pacific 1984 ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: "Miss Asia Pacific 1984" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · highbeam · JSTOR)
Year version belonging to a pageant that was deemed not notable. (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Miss Asia Pacific International) The Banner talk 11:50, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
Miss Asia Pacific 1986
- Miss Asia Pacific 1986 ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: "Miss Asia Pacific 1986" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · highbeam · JSTOR)
Year version belonging to a pageant that was deemed not notable. (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Miss Asia Pacific International) The Banner talk 11:50, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
Miss Asia Pacific 1988
- Miss Asia Pacific 1988 ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: "Miss Asia Pacific 1988" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · highbeam · JSTOR)
Year version belonging to a pageant that was deemed not notable. (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Miss Asia Pacific International) The Banner talk 11:50, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
Nee Vaa Sruthi Polam
- Nee Vaa Sruthi Polam ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: "Nee Vaa Sruthi Polam" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · highbeam · JSTOR)
Article about a film. Fails WP:GNG for lack of available sources. - MrX 12:08, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·C) 23:13, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·C) 23:13, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
- (Find sources: "Nee Vaa Sruthi Polam Movie" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · highbeam · JSTOR)
- filmmaker:(Find sources: "Saravana" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · highbeam · JSTOR)
- star:(Find sources: "Arun Ram" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · highbeam · JSTOR)
- star:(Find sources: "Shweta" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · highbeam · JSTOR)
- star:(Find sources: "Suvedha" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · highbeam · JSTOR)
- studio:(Find sources: "UGG Creations" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · highbeam · JSTOR)
- (Find sources: "Nee Vaa Sruthi Polam" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · highbeam · JSTOR)
- WP:INDAFD: Nee Vaa Sruthi Polam Saravana Arun Ram Shweta Suvedha UGG Creations
- Delete as WP:NF is failed. This 8 minute YouTube short film lacks coverage in reliable sources. If "UGG Creations" first short film ever gains coverage, a WP:REFUND is a consideration. Schmidt, Michael Q. 06:09, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
- Delete as no convincing notability at all. SwisterTwister talk 04:10, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 11:32, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
- Delete - As per nom. If this film's only claim to fame is 10k watches on youtube, obvious delete. ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 13:03, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
- DeleteList of rationale why it is not notable enough:
- The source (which is the youtube video) is not watched by enough people.Daniel kenneth (talk · · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · SUL · CA · checkuser (log)) 18:06, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
Dennis Phua
- Dennis Phua ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: "Dennis Phua" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · highbeam · JSTOR)
Fails WP:GNG Almost no sources exist to show notability. Lemongirl942 (talk) 10:44, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
- Strong Delete per nom. Completely fails to assert WP:BIO. scope_creep 12:20, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Joseph2302 (talk) 13:06, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. Joseph2302 (talk) 13:06, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
- delete being quoted in the media is not the same as being the subject of coverage. Fails WP:BIO. LibStar (talk) 14:54, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
2013 Orange County Blue Star season
- 2013 Orange County Blue Star season ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: "2013 Orange County Blue Star season" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · highbeam · JSTOR)
devoid of content Rathfelder (talk) 10:02, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Joseph2302 (talk) 13:04, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Joseph2302 (talk) 13:04, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
- Keep see WP:AFDISNTCLEANUP . ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 13:14, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
Ariana Jollee
- Ariana Jollee ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: "Ariana Jollee" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · highbeam · JSTOR)
Fails PORNBIO and the GNG. Negligible independent reliable sourcing. "Superslut of the Year" is not a significant award, and if Wikipedia were a sensible place it would be seen as a BLP violation. Tendentiously deprodded by the usual suspect. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by administrators since 2006. (talk) 19:16, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:27, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:28, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:28, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
-
No one's arguing that she passes GNG, buthow does she fail PORNBIO? She has two non-scene/ensemble wins, which is more than enough to satisfy the guideline. Rebecca1990 (talk) 01:51, 27 March 2016 (UTC)\- I never said anyone was did I ?, Because they're not notable awards and winning an award for "Superslut of the year" is as cheap as it gets, She has a lovely profile over at Pornhub (which I just found out can't be linked thanks to the blacklist!) so it's not as if we're disadvantaging anyone by deleting this poorly referenced article. –Davey2010Talk 02:05, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
- No, it isn't "cheap". The porn industry's most prestigious award is AVN's Female Performer of the Year and there is a very strong correlation between that award and XRCO's Superslut. 10 out of 11 Superslut winners have been nominated for/won Female Performer of the Year. Jollee was nominated for AVN's Female Performer of the Year award in 2005 and 2006, the same years in which she won XRCO's Superslut. AVN nominates 15 people every year for Female Performer of the Year while XRCO narrows AVN's list down to the strongest contenders for their own Female Performer of the Year award. Jollee was such a strong contender for Female Performer of the Year in 2005, that she made it onto XRCO's elite Female Performer of the Year nominees list of only 5 people. Now, I personally think that an AVN Female Performer of the Year nomination should be enough to pass PORNBIO. It is quite a reasonable request. I can assure you all I'd never ask for any other nomination into PORNBIO, not even Female Performer of the Year from XBIZ/XRCO/etc. or Best New Starlet, but the fact there's over 30 AVN Female Performer of the Year nominees without WP articles is preposterous. Despite being a reasonable addition to PORNBIO, it would probably not happen, but at the very least can we keep the current PORNBIO guideline? PORNBIO notability is already far enough from real-world notability, stop trying to take it even further from that by expanding its exclusions. PORNBIO#1 ("Has won a well-known and significant industry award. Awards in scene-related and ensemble categories are excluded from consideration.") is clearly met by XRCO's Superslut award. No good argument has been given against it so far in this AfD besides "I don't like the category because it has a funny name". You're all reacting to the Superslut category as if it were an award for "Best Amputee Porn Star", "Best Midget Porn Star", or some other obscure genre where it's nearly impossible for performers in it to become notable because of its unpopularity. Evil Angel produces pornography so extreme, that it has led to obscenity charges, and it is among the porn industry's top companies, which demonstrates that extreme sex acts are part of mainstream pornography. Some porn stars who perform extreme sex acts become notable for doing so, so it makes sense for porn award shows to recognize them. Out of the 13 years the award has been give out, only two recipients of it have won it twice, and Jollee is one of them. Rebecca1990 (talk) 17:39, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
- I never said anyone was did I ?, Because they're not notable awards and winning an award for "Superslut of the year" is as cheap as it gets, She has a lovely profile over at Pornhub (which I just found out can't be linked thanks to the blacklist!) so it's not as if we're disadvantaging anyone by deleting this poorly referenced article. –Davey2010Talk 02:05, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
- Delete: Little reliable sourcing or coverage; significant coverage is only by one source. Esquivalience t 21:20, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
-
No one's arguing that she passes GNG, butshe does pass PORNBIO, which is enough, by consensus, for articles to be kept. Rebecca1990 (talk) 01:51, 27 March 2016 (UTC)- Does it pass a) significant and b) well-known? Sure, the article on the award itself prominently says in passive voice (quite against UNDUE) that it has been deemed the Academy Award for X-rated media, but the organization that issues the awards is not the AMPAS or SAG-AFTRA for pornography, and I only find moderate coverage of the award itself (past the level of notability, but not "significant or well-known"). Esquivalience t 02:58, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
- Yes, XRCO is a well-known/significant award. WP:PORNBIO itself explicitly states that an XRCO Hall of Fame induction is enough to keep an article. Rebecca1990 (talk) 22:40, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
- Does it pass a) significant and b) well-known? Sure, the article on the award itself prominently says in passive voice (quite against UNDUE) that it has been deemed the Academy Award for X-rated media, but the organization that issues the awards is not the AMPAS or SAG-AFTRA for pornography, and I only find moderate coverage of the award itself (past the level of notability, but not "significant or well-known"). Esquivalience t 02:58, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
- Keep Clearly passes WP:PORNBIO#1 ("Has won a well-known and significant industry award"). PORNBIO only excludes scene-related and ensemble categories. Superslut is not scene-related/ensemble. You can mock the category's name all you want, but that isn't a reasonable argument to exclude it from PORNBIO. Porn performers are known for many different things. The willingness of some to perform extreme sex acts is one of them. Performing extreme sex acts in PORN films is a perfectly legitimate reason to give someone a PORN award. That's the whole purpose of porn award shows, to reward outstanding porn performances. And how is this a "BLP violation". If Jollee had any qualms about being called a "superslut" she wouldn't have performed extreme sex acts on film for all to see, won XRCO's Superslut award TWICE, and proudly pose for photos with her trophy. Rebecca1990 (talk) 22:01, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
-
- Rebecca, please stop misrepresenting the terms of PORNBIO. PORNBIO does not say that only scene-related awards are deemed to fail PORNBIO, and that all other awards qualify. Other awards (relating to niche categories, body parts, for example) have been found by consensus to fail the well-known/significant standard. You may not like the consensus, but denying it exists is tendentious and disruptive. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by administrators since 2006. (talk) 16:42, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
-
- I'm not misrepresenting PORNBIO. Consensus in AfDs has repeatedly shown that all non-scene/ensemble categories from well-known/significant ceremonies meet PORNBIO. You've keep claiming that niche and body part categories have consensus to exclude from PORNBIO, but have never provided evidence of it. In fact if it were true, it would say so in PORNBIO. It's preposterous that you would even suggest we exclude niche and body part categories. There is no logical reason to do so. The niche awards go hand-in-hand with PORNBIO#2 ("Has made unique contributions to a specific pornographic genre") and since one of the things porn stars are best known for is their body parts, it makes sense to have body part awards. Don't get me wrong, I do think Best Actress awards are evidence of notability and think they should continue to be accepted by PORNBIO, but I consider body part awards to be even bigger evidence of notability than Best Actress. There are simply more people viewing pornography for the boobs and butts than they are for the acting/plots. Porn stars known for having large breasts or a big butt are better known for having that than the ones known for their acting skills are known for their acting skills. Rebecca1990 (talk) 21:01, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
- For all your huffing and puffing about The Big Bad Wolfowitz, you keep evading the point that PORNBIO quite plainly does not say that only scene-related award categories fail the well-known and significant standard. As Morbidthoughts told you on the PORNBIO talkpage, "The debates or contention in AFDs/DRVs like Deauxma and Elexis Monroe have been whether their nominations are significant enough to satisfy PORNBIO simply because they are performer awards. No, they are not and consensus had made clear when we last edited PORNBIO that the category is important in determining significance.[7] The AFDs and DRVs have made clear that the MILF of the Year nominations are not significant enough not that PORNBIO is flawed. Given that in this very AFD you are also arguing that "she does pass PORNBIO, which is enough, by consensus, for articles to be kept" -- which contradicts the express language in WP:Notability (people), of which PORNBIO is a component that "meeting one or more [of the components] does not guarantee that a subject should be included", it's clear that the position you argue regarding notability is contradicted by longstanding consensus. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by administrators since 2006. (talk) 22:04, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
- That quote is from a discussion on what to exclude from PORNBIO and the consensus of it was to only exclude nominations, not any type of award category. Consensus is the outcome of a discussion, not a user's opinion in it. Not only that, you're also providing a quote on a completely different award that is irrelevant in this AfD. The quote also happens to be from a user who has voted to keep this article below, so you are totally misinterpreting it to refer to Jollee's awards when it clearly doesn't. Rebecca1990 (talk) 23:59, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
- For all your huffing and puffing about The Big Bad Wolfowitz, you keep evading the point that PORNBIO quite plainly does not say that only scene-related award categories fail the well-known and significant standard. As Morbidthoughts told you on the PORNBIO talkpage, "The debates or contention in AFDs/DRVs like Deauxma and Elexis Monroe have been whether their nominations are significant enough to satisfy PORNBIO simply because they are performer awards. No, they are not and consensus had made clear when we last edited PORNBIO that the category is important in determining significance.[7] The AFDs and DRVs have made clear that the MILF of the Year nominations are not significant enough not that PORNBIO is flawed. Given that in this very AFD you are also arguing that "she does pass PORNBIO, which is enough, by consensus, for articles to be kept" -- which contradicts the express language in WP:Notability (people), of which PORNBIO is a component that "meeting one or more [of the components] does not guarantee that a subject should be included", it's clear that the position you argue regarding notability is contradicted by longstanding consensus. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by administrators since 2006. (talk) 22:04, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
- I'm not misrepresenting PORNBIO. Consensus in AfDs has repeatedly shown that all non-scene/ensemble categories from well-known/significant ceremonies meet PORNBIO. You've keep claiming that niche and body part categories have consensus to exclude from PORNBIO, but have never provided evidence of it. In fact if it were true, it would say so in PORNBIO. It's preposterous that you would even suggest we exclude niche and body part categories. There is no logical reason to do so. The niche awards go hand-in-hand with PORNBIO#2 ("Has made unique contributions to a specific pornographic genre") and since one of the things porn stars are best known for is their body parts, it makes sense to have body part awards. Don't get me wrong, I do think Best Actress awards are evidence of notability and think they should continue to be accepted by PORNBIO, but I consider body part awards to be even bigger evidence of notability than Best Actress. There are simply more people viewing pornography for the boobs and butts than they are for the acting/plots. Porn stars known for having large breasts or a big butt are better known for having that than the ones known for their acting skills are known for their acting skills. Rebecca1990 (talk) 21:01, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
- Delete fails the requirement of WP:GNG of having received significant coverage in independent reliable sources, not having substantial coverage in mainstream media, the award is not in a major category but one of the endless spurious categories that seem to exist only for publicity purposes and inventing some sort of fake notability for projects such as wikipedia. Atlantic306 (talk) 22:39, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
-
- XRCO's Superslut category does not "exist only for publicity purposes". If that were the case, its recipients would only be performers with publicists. It is very unlikely for Jollee to have had a publicist during her career, otherwise an AVN search for "Ariana Jollee" under "Company News" (aka "Press Release") would yield results for PR about her. There is only one result for Jollee in the search, and it's by a company promoting a film she happens to be in the cast of, not by a publicist promoting her. That PR was also released many years after she won the awards, so her wins were in no way influenced by any publicity at all. The entire XRCO Awards aren't influenced by publicity. If they were, performers like Aurora Snow, who has stated on numerous occasions (interviews, Daily Beast articles, college speeches, etc.) that she initially entered the adult film industry only to pay for school and planned to have a short-term/low-profile career she would forget about after quitting, wouldn't have won so many XRCO Awards early in her career. Rebecca1990 (talk) 01:51, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
- Delete Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 23:01, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
-
- Why? Rebecca1990 (talk) 01:51, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
-
- "Superslut? Really?" is a perfect example of what I was referring to when I said "mock the category's name all you want, but that isn't a reasonable argument to exclude it from PORNBIO" above. Rebecca1990 (talk) 01:51, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
- Keep - I believe she passes PORNBIO not just because of her awards but because of criteria 2 for having made unique contributions to a genre. Her 65 guy creampie scene is notorious, having been written about by Robert Jensen. He devotes 12 pages to analyzing her and this scene.[14] Another author devotes 4 pages to this.[15][16]. Along with the AVN citations in the article, she passes the GNG. Morbidthoughts (talk) 03:01, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
- Delete totally fails the guidelines for notability of pornographic actors.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:57, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
-
- The notability guideline for pornographic actors is "Has won a well-known and significant industry award. Awards in scene-related and ensemble categories are excluded from consideration." XRCO is a well-known and significant industry award and Superslut is not a scene-related or ensemble category. PORNBIO only requires one win and Jollee has two. Rebecca1990 (talk) 17:39, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
- Keep While one might find the name of the awards she won distasteful (and I somewhat agree), it is an individual body of work award and has been given out for long enough to be considered well-known. She has received a fair amount of coverage in and out of porn that she would pass the GNG as well in my opinion. Wikiuser20102011 (talk) 19:35, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
- Comment This article's history shows there are at least two other users on WP who believe Jollee passes our notability guidelines based on her awards (Cavarrone & Subtropical-man). Rebecca1990 (talk) 22:55, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
- Boy, that sure looks like an attempt to commit a WP:CANVASS violation, since editors "must not be selected on the basis of their opinions". And there are quite a few editors who have no sympathy for your position, but I don't go around trying to call their attention to deletion discussions or cast pseudo!votes in their name. Even for porn promoters, this is a new level of shenanigans. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by administrators since 2006. (talk) 00:03, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
- 1 editor who I admit raises concerns, the other being nonsensical and invalid ..... Nice try tho!. –Davey2010Talk 00:43, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
- Wikipedia:Canvassing means NOTIFYING users of a discussion, which I did not do. Rebecca1990 (talk) 02:22, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
- Keep - meet of WP:PORNBIO. Subtropical-man talk
(en-2) 09:25, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
- Delete Fails WP:GNG which states that for an article to exist, the subject must've had coverage from independant reliable sources. — Omni Flames (talk contribs) 05:52, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
Relisting comment: I previously closed this as "delete", but after discussion on my talk page I have come to the view that if one counts only the "delete" and "keep" opinions that actually discuss the sources rather than merely assert notability or non-notability, we have near parity. Previous contributors are invited to discuss why precisely the notability guidelines are or aren't met. Sandstein 09:49, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:49, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
Doubleclouder
- Doubleclouder ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: "Doubleclouder" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · highbeam · JSTOR)
Minor character in the Transformers universe. No evidence of real-world notability. Josh Milburn (talk) 09:41, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 09:52, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
- Delete As per nom. Isn't notable. ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 13:06, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
- Keep or Merge to List_of_Transformers:_Super-God_Masterforce_characters#Godmasters_2 Mathewignash (talk) 14:40, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
Houzan Mahmoud
- Houzan Mahmoud ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: "Houzan Mahmoud" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · highbeam · JSTOR)
This article doesn't meet WP:NOTCSD. This article doesn't have enough sources to prove that the person is notable. Also, there is no enough information about the person Ferakp (talk) 09:41, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 09:57, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
- I'll say this much: WP:NOTCSD doesn't mean what you think it does and "there is no enough information about the person" is an absurd rationale, in this case. "Doesn't have enough sources to prove that the person is notable" doesn't say that they don't exist, and indeed, the news links do reveal more sources available -- whether they are in-depth enough is another issue. WP:AFDISNOTCLEANUP. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 10:10, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iraq-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 10:11, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
- I should also add that this appears to be related to the editor's POV warring at Talk:Kurdish_women#Blackwashing_articles. The concern as far as I can tell appears to be the no article can exist which in the nominator's view "blackwashes" Kurds and he seems especially sensitive to removing any reference that there has ever been such a thing as honour killing of women by Kurds. That's my interpretation of it anyway. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 11:41, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 11:42, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 11:42, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 11:42, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
- Keep Is notable, and has coverage from reliable sources. ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 13:09, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
- Agreed Shawn, he has not been following NPOV. ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 13:20, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
Mohamed Omar Dubad
- Mohamed Omar Dubad ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: "Mohamed Omar Dubad" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · highbeam · JSTOR)
Somali politician and diplomat, previously deprodded by DGG (talk · contribs). This article is unverifiable, failing WP:V. The one cited source is a dead link. Google finds something on a blog ([17]) that reads like an obituary written by his family, but that's not a reliable source. Moreover, his notability is not clear. He was supposedly a member of parliament, which would make him notable, but even if that could be verified, Somalia is an anarchic, failed state fought over by many groups and regimes, and so it's not clear whether he was member of a parliament in any meaningful sense rather than just a pro forma member of some administration in exile. Add to that the generally promotional / obituary-like tone of the article, and I think it's clear that we should delete it until some good sources become available. Sandstein 09:40, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Joseph2302 (talk) 13:06, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Joseph2302 (talk) 13:06, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Somalia-related deletion discussions. Joseph2302 (talk) 13:06, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
- Speedy keep Being an MP is always notable, and it is absurd to say that a national chargé d'affaires in the UN is unverifiable. The chaotic politics of Somalia is irrelevant. WP covers the world as it is. This should not be deleted with a check for sources in the country's own language, however difficult this may be to accomplish. And in fact, it is extremely easy, even in English: a search in Google under the individuals name gives a live version of the dead link in the article at [18]. Total time spent: less than a minute. DGG ( talk ) 18:52, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
Double Clutch (Transformers)
- Double Clutch (Transformers) ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: "Double Clutch (Transformers)" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · highbeam · JSTOR)
Minor character from the Transformers universe. No evidence of real-world notability. Josh Milburn (talk) 09:37, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 09:51, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
- Keep or Merge to List_of_Autobots#Go-Bots. Mathewignash (talk) 14:39, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
Dion (Transformers)
- Dion (Transformers) ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: "Dion (Transformers)" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · highbeam · JSTOR)
Non-notable character from the Transformers universe. A number of primary sources are cited, but I'm seeing no real-world notability. The article is mostly made up of in-universe information. Josh Milburn (talk) 09:36, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:10, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
Crosswise
- Crosswise ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: "Crosswise" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · highbeam · JSTOR)
Non-notable character from the Transformers universe. No evidence of real-world notability. Josh Milburn (talk) 09:34, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
- Keep or Merge to List_of_Transformers:_Robots_in_Disguise_(2001_TV_series)_characters#Spy_Changers. Mathewignash (talk) 14:37, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
- I would also note that the author of these deletion nominations is using them excessively, since most end in mergers. Perhaps he should simply suggest mergers and avoid the unnecessary nomination? Mathewignash (talk) 14:37, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
- I'm not going to propose merges, because literally nothing will happen. This is the only means that has proven close to effective. These terrible articles have existed here for years, and nothing is getting done about them, despite the fact that people have been telling you for years that something needs to be done. (Also, I think a "merge" is a generous description of the actual result of these discussions.) That said, if you're happy to work with me in seeing these articles merged (and it's not just yet another attempt to see these articles hanging around indefinitely by default...), I'm happy to point to the articles that need to go. I'm not sure you'll like what I say, though, which will bring us back to where we are today. Josh Milburn (talk) 16:54, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
City Commander
- City Commander ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: "City Commander" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · highbeam · JSTOR)
Non-notable character from the Transformers universe. Well, no, not quite- it's "a third party Transformer", but "[a]n unlicensed reproduction of the toy has been released". Fancruft. Josh Milburn (talk) 09:32, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
- Keep , calling it "fancruft" is not an argument. It has numerous legitimate sources and is notable in it's field.Mathewignash (talk) 14:18, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
- "Fancruft" is an accurate description of this. It is of interest to a small number of Transformers enthusiasts. If that's all you mean by it being notable in "it's" field, then I agree. The article currently cites a number of Transformers fansites, DeviantArt, some toy shops and some forums. As soon as you show me these "numerous legitimate sources", I'll withdraw the nomination. Josh Milburn (talk) 17:01, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
Erina language
- Erina language ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: "Erina language" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · highbeam · JSTOR)
- Erina var ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
The language didn't exist - I didn't find anything in search about it, as well as links in article are all dead Arthistorian1977 (talk) 08:58, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Musa Talk 09:32, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 09:53, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
- Keep- this is old languageKratie222 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 09:57, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
- Delete In addition to the reasons given in the nomination, my suspicion that this is a hoax is reinforced by the determined way that the two creators delete talk page posts of other editors and remove CSD and AFD tags with misleading edit summaries. —teb728 t c 10:14, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
- Delete. The article links to non-existent ISO and glottolog codes. Most of the plausibly-looking content of the article (together with the now broken refs to works by Degener and Rajapurohit, which don't mention Erina at all) appears to have been lifted from Shina language. Add to it the wacky claims about the language's antiquity or membership of the Slavonic group and it's clear that the article as it stands now is a hoax. However, glottolog does list the similarly looking Arniya as an alternative name of the Khowar language; this might indicate it's a regional variant, so I'd imagine there might exist sources about that, for whoever wants to start a proper article about it in the future. Uanfala (talk) 10:32, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
- Note: There is an another article with different name (Erina var) also exists. GSS (talk) 10:35, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
- It's a redirect to this one. Arthistorian1977 (talk) 10:40, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
Keep- this is language in pakistan Daud khan 2 (talk) 11:06, 10 April 2016 (UTC)- Keep - strongly keep this language has no connection with language like arniya or khowar it is different so this article must not be deleteDaud khan 2 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 11:12, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
- Delete There is an article, Shina, which is also a language in Baltistan which sound similar. However, the Library of Congress didn't list the language code, at [[20]], nor did the language code turn up at the much more extensive github raw list, which encompasses even dead languages, here: [[21]]. Non of the language codes show up. Google books has no mention of the language, for languages spoken in Baltistan, although it's list of books it's copied and stolen is minute. scope_creep 12:44, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
-
- I'd caution against using, in future discussions like this, either the ISO 639-2 codes (from the LoC link) or the ISO 639-3 ones (from your github link) as they don't aim at being extensive (not all varieties are covered) and they are maintained by Ethnologue, which has been notoriously slow in catching up with current research. The only database that I know of that aims to be extensive is Glottolog and it's already linked from the language infoboxes. But other than that, I'd agree: the ISO codes provided in this article are clearly made up. Uanfala (talk) 13:01, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
- Delete: as nominated: as hoax. Fylbecatulous talk 15:47, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
- Delete. All the linked sources appear to be either broken or irrelevant. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 16:01, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
List of Alien characters
- List of Alien characters ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: "List of Alien characters" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · highbeam · JSTOR)
Article is redundant. It has been in existence for 10 years, has 2 references after being tagged for 8 years and suffering from in-universe problems tagged 6 years ago. It offers no information that is not or could not be covered in the relevant articles. If necessary the cast list table can be merged into the central Alien series article, but the rest of the article is in-universe plot and all of it is unsourced. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 08:48, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Musa Talk 09:32, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Musa Talk 09:33, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
Tena Palmer
- Tena Palmer ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: "Tena Palmer" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · highbeam · JSTOR)
PROD removed because of one source added but it's not actually detailed and, not simply that, but I still questionable the article overall. I still confirm my PROD here. SwisterTwister talk 06:41, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:46, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:46, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
- Delete I am not able to find sources (other than articles having only a trivial mention of the subject). Fails WP:GNG and WP:BAND. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 11:21, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
- Delete As non-notable. ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 13:23, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
Stage Accompany
- Stage Accompany ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: "Stage Accompany" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · highbeam · JSTOR)
PROD removed with the explanation of three links being added to the talk page but I'm simply not thoroughly convinced by that and my searches simply found a few links at Books. I still confirm my PROD here. SwisterTwister talk 06:46, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:46, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:46, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:46, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:46, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
- Delete: nothing more than a few passing mentions in GBooks, confirming that they are an audio equipment company, but that is all. Nothing on GNews. Even a Dutch news archive search resulted in 54 (self-published) adverts and only 3 passing mentions in real articles. - HyperGaruda (talk) 07:35, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
Pam Seatle
- Pam Seatle ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: "Pam Seatle" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · highbeam · JSTOR)
PROD removed because of the first nomination (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hugh Burrill where it was included) which is clearly not applicable to today's Wikipedia and I still confirm my original PROD [22] here]. I can certainly imagine that the only still active AfDer DGG would've changed his perspective of these articles so I'm certainly welcoming his analysis. SwisterTwister talk 06:47, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:47, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:47, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:47, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Boxing at the 2015 European Games (non-admin closure). clpo13(talk) 15:25, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
Boxing at the 2015 European Games – Men's 64 kg
- Boxing at the 2015 European Games – Men's 64 kg ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: "Boxing at the 2015 European Games – Men's 64 kg" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · highbeam · JSTOR)
No additional content that can be found on the main page. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 19:20, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
- Redirect to Boxing at the 2015 European Games. Content could be expanded one day, like some of the other events. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 19:33, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
- Delete None of the previous European Games have an expansion for boxing results which I think is proper. Wikipedia is not supposed to be result listing so although a case can be made for higher level competitions I don't think the European Games for Boxing is. It looks like all these sub-articles were created with the intention of expansion which never happened. I see that there were several other AfDs which should have been grouped and several sub-articles that were expanded that were not sent to AfD - I think the latter should be sent to AfD eventually but I want to see how these play out first.Peter Rehse (talk) 09:42, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 10:12, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
- "None of the previous European Games have an expansion for boxing results" - that's because there are none, as this is the first European Games! other results have been completed, these ones haven't. For now. There's also lots of incoming links to these individual tournaments for nations/competitors and they all have the possibility of being expanded. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 19:40, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
- Point taken (I was confused by the European Boxing Championships). I still stand by my comment that competition trees for every weight class for every competition is not necessary. For what I think is a comparable example Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2014 Asian Wrestling Championships – Men's freestyle 57 kg.Peter Rehse (talk) 19:53, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
- "None of the previous European Games have an expansion for boxing results" - that's because there are none, as this is the first European Games! other results have been completed, these ones haven't. For now. There's also lots of incoming links to these individual tournaments for nations/competitors and they all have the possibility of being expanded. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 19:40, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
- Keep, otherwise redirect: I agree with Lugnuts. Notable event. Many secondary sources (see here. Most of the elite events at the European Games have these sub pages, see Category:Sports at the 2015 European Games. Also many incoming links. Only if someone can show that a page of a red link is earlier created than when it is a redirect, deleting could make sense. Sander.v.Ginkel (Talk) 10:43, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 12:20, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 03:01, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:27, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Azerbaijan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:27, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
- Redirect as not independently notable. SwisterTwister talk 04:35, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
- Comment Please note that most of this series was closed already as Redirect - I think the closing admin missed two. (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Boxing at the 2015 European Games – Women's 60 kg.Peter Rehse (talk) 12:14, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
-
- And has now been relisted! So we'll have another 7 days of nothing, meaning that one month since the listing started, no-one applied common-sense and was just bold enough to redirect it in the first place. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 08:38, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Omni Flames (talk contribs) 06:44, 10 April 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.
Angela Ryder
- Angela Ryder ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: "Angela Ryder" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · highbeam · JSTOR)
I couldn't establish that she meets WP:BIO or WP:GNG. Boleyn (talk) 20:14, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:00, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:00, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
- Delete - Subject is only mentioned in passing in reliable sources. Page also reads like a puff piece. Meatsgains (talk) 03:39, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
- Keep — Needs to be edited to be more encyclopaedic, certainly, but subject is certainly notable within her field. —Sam Wilson 10:15, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
- Delete - Sources neither establish notability against as per the deletion nom, nor are are reliable. I could not find alternate sources to establish notability. Aeonx (talk) 21:33, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
- Keep — I have added more info on Angela. She is a notable woman in the Noongar community of Western Australia and was inducted into the WA Women's Hall of Fame in 2011 in the first 100 most notable women of Western Australia — Mary10:15, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
Mary Blight NYS, which part of WP:BIO or WP:GNG do you think it meets? Best wishes, Boleyn (talk) 06:42, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
- Delete as the article is still questionable at best, delete until better solid details and sources are available. SwisterTwister talk 22:09, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 07:45, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
- Keep The article obviously needs some work, but the person is definitely notable. We need articles like this to make sure we are not reinforcing Wikipedia's systemic bias.VanEman (talk) 16:21, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
- VanEman, how is it clearly notable? How does it meet WP:BIO or WP:GNG? Best wishes, Boleyn (talk) 06:42, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
- Keep, I'm seeing nice source coverage at Find sources: "Angela Ryder" Australia – news · newspapers · books · scholar · highbeam · JSTOR and Find sources: "Angela Ryder" Australia – news · newspapers · books · scholar · highbeam · JSTOR. — Cirt (talk) 20:35, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Omni Flames (talk contribs) 06:43, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
Hangmen Motorcycle Club
- Hangmen Motorcycle Club ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: "Hangmen Motorcycle Club" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · highbeam · JSTOR)
Don't see GNG here, much less the required and more restrictive ORG. Normally when you see a book reference you figure pretty much all good. Only problem is when you put the word "hangmen" in the handy little search box on the google book page referenced, you get no hits. A Google news search yielded nothing either. John from Idegon (talk) 06:38, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
- Delete This outlaw motorcycle club exists but seems always to have been pretty small and it seemingly peaked decades ago. The bigger clubs are highly notable but my searches yielded only passing mentions of this club. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 07:17, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
- Keep I just added a cite to Bill Hayes' One Percenter Encyclopedia which is used as a legit cite for WP article on many outlaw motorcycle clubs. There's a chapter on this particular club in the One Percenter Encyclopedia. It's also included in Hell on Wheels by same author. As John from Idegon said, a good book reference usually means the article is on solid footing. We have additional passing references or better here in a book published by Springer, here in one by Simon & Schuster. This took just a few minutes of research, there's surely more in a deeper search at HighBeam and the like. - Brianhe (talk) 09:05, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 09:55, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 09:55, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 09:55, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
Haulmont
- Haulmont ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: "Haulmont" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · highbeam · JSTOR)
Non-notable company not referenced at length in independent, third party sources, so it fails the general notability guideline. -- Patar knight - chat/contributions 06:02, 10 April 2016 (UTC) I am also nominating the following related pages because it's a product made by the company which similarly fails the WP:GNG---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 06:06, 10 April 2016 (UTC):
- CUBA Platform ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Vipinhari || talk 06:48, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Vipinhari || talk 06:48, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
The Dawn and Drew Show
- The Dawn and Drew Show ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: "The Dawn and Drew Show" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · highbeam · JSTOR)
Non-notable podcast. NPR is a listing, and who knows what's mentioned in Time. Google reveals no RSes. Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:00, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
- Delete: Failure to meet WP:WEB. --Erick Shepherd (talk) 10:20, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:05, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:06, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
- Speedy Keep and Close: This has been a Strong Keep twice now, with only one delete !vote in the previous two AfDs. I see no reason for a third AfD. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 01:13, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
- Delete as there's been enough time to allow another AfD and this is common at AfD, but I will also have to say Delete for this as this would need better improvements and my searches haven't found anything convincingly better. SwisterTwister talk 04:15, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
*Delete - In all fairness to Walter Görlitz A) The previous AFDs wasn't made by WG, and B) The first and second AFDs were in 2005 and 2007 respectively and since then AFD here has become alot more stricter etc so those shouldn't be taken so seriously as such, Anyway I can't find any evidence of notability so will have to say Delete. –Davey2010Talk 21:01, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
- I think perhaps it does meet WP:CORPDEPTH. The depth of coverage is not impressive, from what I can see, but I was impressed by the Columbia Journalism Review calling it one of the "more established podcasts", being cited by the NYT arts critic Virginia Heffernan so prominently, with the BBC citing the show as a key example on the business side of podcasting, etc. Again, not in-depth but widely cited. Keep, for me. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:09, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vipinhari || talk 05:14, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
- Keep This article needs serious improvements, such as the lead section, and a decent references section, but despite what the nominator claims, Google does reveal reliable sources, which he or she missed. For example, Advertising Age has a lengthy article dedicated entirely to the show here. Also, a book entitled Podcasting Bible, whose authors seem to be independent of the show, covers the topic significantly on more than one page (scroll from here). There's even a For Dummies book whose foreword was written by the show hosts, here. Other books mention the show to some degree or another when searching for it using Google Books. Shawn in Montreal made some very good points as well. I think there's enough now to reach a keep consensus. Dontreader (talk) 08:48, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
Speedy Delete As non-notable podcast. ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 18:44, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
Nordan Shat
- Nordan Shat ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: "Nordan Shat" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · highbeam · JSTOR)
- (Find sources: "FaZe Rain" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · highbeam · JSTOR)
Biography of a YouTuber. Fails WP:ANYBIO for lack of significant coverage in reliable sources. - MrX 13:49, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
- Keep I don't think it fails WP:ANYBIO, he has made a major contribution to the Call of Duty sniping community. However, article does lack lots of information. Pastorma (talk) 14:54, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
-
- Indeed, the nomination is badly argued because WP:ANYBIO is a set of two additional criteria complementing WP:GNG, which is the guideline related to significant coverage in reliable sources (and which Shat unquestionably fails, from what I can see). Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:26, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
- Keep The article should be kept because it has relevant information both about Shat himself, and the clan he is part of. As mentioned above, the article could be lacking some information, to some extent. But if we look at it from that perspective, many pages like this such as: CaptainSparklez should also be reviewed. Nordan is the largest figure in the Call of Duty sniping community and has grown his two channels combined larger than the clan he is part of.WP:ANYBIO Manvswow (talk) 15:11, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
- — Manvswow (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·C) 23:07, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·C) 23:07, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:02, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:03, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
- Bizarre user 'hat note' reads: "This is a article on a FaZe Clan member, to view the team itself please visit the article FaZe Clan." See WP:NOTWEBHOST. Shat is utterly non-notable in terms of any independent WP:RS about him individually. Delete and redirect to FaZe Clan. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:06, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
- Redirect or merge with FaZe Clan. There might be enough reliable sources to include him in that article, but I don't see enough to warrant an individual page. ZettaComposer (talk) 17:35, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
- Delete perhaps for now so it will not be restarted anytime soon and Redirect, simply no convincing signs yet. SwisterTwister talk 04:06, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vipinhari || talk 04:56, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
- Keep Subscribers are enough to show notability. I don't think it needs to be deleted.--Musa Talk 09:40, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
- Redirect/merge with FaZe Clan. Rather clearly fails WP:GNG as pointed out by Shawn in Montreal. Subscriber count alone is not enough to show notability, secondary sources independent of the subject commenting on his subscriber count could be. Cannolis (talk) 15:14, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
Janet Turpin Myers
- Janet Turpin Myers ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: "Janet Turpin Myers" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · highbeam · JSTOR)
WP:BLP of a writer with no strong claim to passing WP:AUTHOR. The strongest claim of notability here is that she was a shortlisted nominee for her local arts council's local literary awards in 2014 -- however, a literary award has to be national (on the order of the Governor General's Awards or the Giller or the Pulitzer), not local, for a nomination to constitute an AUTHOR pass in and of itself. She might still qualify for an article if she could be sourced over WP:GNG, but virtually zero of the sources here represent any sort of media coverage -- every single reference here is to a primary source or to a commercial sales page on an online bookstore, with the exception of one single solitary citation to one review in a college literary zine (and even that citation fails to provide the title of the review, or the specific issue in which it was published.) So WP:GNG hasn't been passed here either. As always, Wikipedia is not a free public relations platform on which any writer is automatically entitled to an article just because she exists -- reliable source coverage, supporting a claim of notability that satisfies WP:AUTHOR, must be present for them to earn one. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 17:18, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
- Keep: There's sufficient notability given her multiple published works and she's still writing. Not written in an advertisement style. VanEman (talk) 17:34, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
-
- Notability or lack thereof is a factor of how much reliable source media coverage the topic has or hasn't received. No number of books is enough in and of itself to give their writer an exemption from having to be the subject of media coverage. Bearcat (talk) 03:33, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·C) 22:47, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Quebec-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·C) 22:47, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
- Keep: As the original contributor, I disagree and feel this author is notable enough. I will go through the page and cite more media sources. Additionally, I feel that the author's inclusion in a number of established literary festivals and literary journals should speak to her notability. I originally created the page in response to the author's inclusion in WikiProject_Women_writers/Missing_articles. RhettFester (talk) 22:11, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
-
- Comment for RhettFester - There are some problems with the sources that are here: many are not reliable sources (blogs, member profiles, etc.). Also, you have created references for her own works. References should be limited to sources about her. Her own works are given as a bibliography, but they are not cited. For the poems, you can use a form like "in: (name of journal), v.n, (date), (page)". Photographs and sound files of her reading are not about her, so those do not support notability. It is easier to see the reliable sources if non-reliable sources are removed from the article. LaMona (talk) 22:28, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
- Comment for LaMona - Understood, thank you. I appreciate your guidance. I will try to improve the references. RhettFester (talk) 01:55, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:43, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
- Delete as searches noticeably found nothing better. SwisterTwister talk 03:59, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vipinhari || talk 04:55, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
- Delete A minor author who does not meet our notability guideline WP:AUTHOR. Participation in common literary festivals and publication in common literary journals does not confer notability. The notion that currently published writers are notable just by being published is surprising. Writers get published. Many truly notable writers are no longer active, since they are dead. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a directory of all currently active writers. Being active does not make a writer notable. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 07:36, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
Waldo Cabrera
- Waldo Cabrera ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: "Waldo Cabrera" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · highbeam · JSTOR)
Biography fails WP:BLP. Not a single independent source. A Google search turns up little to be able to help, and if I get rid of every unsourced statement there would be almost nothing left. Despite the bold claims in the article, it appears that this person is completely non-notable. Bradv 04:15, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. — Omni Flames (talk contribs) 06:49, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. — Omni Flames (talk contribs) 06:49, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
- Delete as a badly sourced article regarding an unremarkable person. — Omni Flames (talk contribs) 06:50, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
- Delete A nice person, I am sure, but not notable by any reasonable measure. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 07:46, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
- Delete Clearly non-notable, google search turns up blank. ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 18:46, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
Roger W. Stoller
- Roger W. Stoller ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: "Roger W. Stoller" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · highbeam · JSTOR)
Someone put their CV on Wikipedia again. Bradv 04:06, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
Koi and the Kola Nuts
- Koi and the Kola Nuts ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: "Koi and the Kola Nuts" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · highbeam · JSTOR)
Not entirely sure what this is. Contested prod. Bradv 04:02, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Vipinhari || talk 07:00, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 10:15, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 10:15, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
- keep, this folktale meets WP:GNG as it has been related in a number of books including Tales from the Story Hat and Koi and the Kola Nuts: A Tale from Liberia by Verna Aardema, and Koi and the Kola Nuts by Brian Gleeson. WorldCat shows library holdings of over 400[23], over 500[24], and about 200[25] respectively. There are reviews from kirkus reviews, [26] - "Laced with the liberal humor that is Aardema’s hallmark, Koi’s story and his sturdy spirit will draw readers in, as will the many uses of the kola nut and the lesson of doing good for others. In Cepeda’s vibrant illustrations, the Liberian landscape glistens and its people dance across the page, while the last scene—of Koi as a chief—is a portrait of ebullience rewarded.", [27] - "The formula is tried and true; this (unsourced) African version is well paced, eventful, and spiced with colorful details, excellent for sharing aloud. Ruffins's subtly expressive art is rendered in a flat, childlike style with pleasingly gentle colors and faces and figures that recall African art.", and [28] - "Engrossing, often humorous, and refreshingly uncluttered, these stories should appeal to children of reading and pre-reading age."; Booklist - "Aardema's honed narrative and Cepeda's vigorous illustrations make this an attractive version." and Library Journal - "Her revision is accompanied by Cepeda's ebullient oil paintings; his vivid colors, often presented in unexpected combinations and applied thickly, add texture to the already dynamic compositions.", [29] Coolabahapple (talk) 14:55, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
Fauxtography
- Fauxtography ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: "Fauxtography" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · highbeam · JSTOR)
Written as a dictionary entry (Previous successful deletion) Music1201 (talk) 06:08, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
- Keep - There's a large archive at Snopes, titled by this term, and for the same reason. The term has been used for years now, and has found it's way into the Urban Dictionary, even though that doesn't exactly qualify it. Plenty of fauxtagraphy gets spread around the internet (especially on Facebook and Twitter, where the dumbest and most gullible people are often found), and it would seem to me that it deserves the name it's been given. Also, it does seem to provide notable information - it's just not fully developed yet, considering it was only created today.
KBnaotwtleldee
06:19, 27 March 2016 (UTC) - Comment - Reading the current page, it seems that Photoshopped images constitutes Fauxtography where in other circles Fauxtography is used to point out fake photographers, usually as a result of them getting a Nikon or Canon camera kit from Costco for Christmas and after some crappy photos think they are they next Ansel Adams or Steve McCurry. Most notable via their use of Photoshop and the inclusion of their copyright/logo plastered on the image itself, the larger the logo the shittier the photo. See http://youarenotaphotographer.com. Heyyouoverthere (talk) 08:09, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 12:48, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 12:48, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 01:12, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mz7 (talk) 03:59, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
David Olivera
- David Olivera ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: "David Olivera" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · highbeam · JSTOR)
Non-notable photographer. Greek Legend (talk) 08:51, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:28, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:28, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:28, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
- Keep as distinguished record on documentaries including winning a government award, although RS are needed. Atlantic306 (talk) 22:29, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
- Keep Looking at the google search, I see clear pass of WP:CREATIVE. Just need to add references (which I am trying to do) and improve the CV like style, but definitely worth keeping. Arthistorian1977 (talk) 07:41, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
- Delete as searches found nothing particularly better and, although the article has several exhibitions listed, this is still questionable. Draft instead for now unless better improvements can be made soon, SwisterTwister talk 05:53, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 00:59, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
*Keep Should stay since they have contributed to many images accross the board. KingOfKingsTheAssassin (talk) 21:14, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
Striking meatpuppet !vote JMHamo (talk) 22:11, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mz7 (talk) 03:57, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
Qaraimits
- Qaraimits ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: "Qaraimits" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · highbeam · JSTOR)
There has been a discussion on the article talk page about deleting this article, and it needs to be held here. I have moved the discussion here. Toddy1 (talk) 08:03, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
The meaning of this word in Russian -means like Karaim . While Karaim/Karaite is spelled with "K" the same speling of Karaimit may be better used here. But why we need to invent new English word ? The google search shows that there is no such word in English. The more common name of this Sect is Subbotniks.But it may create some disambig because this name used for all three sects of Ethnic Russians considering Old Testament.So this article need to be renamed or changed (due it small size) to sub-article of Subbotniks were all 3 sects need to be mentioned Неполканов (talk) 20:22, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
- Please could you make a proposal at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. That way, there can be a proper and fair discussion.
- My preference would be to merge it into the article on the Subbotniks. We need to use words to describe these people that are used in reliable English-language sources.-- Toddy1 (talk) 21:01, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
- I also support the deletion of this article and the moving of any RS information that is relevant to the English WP to the Subbotniks article. warshy (¥¥) 22:38, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
The fact that Караимиты has never been translated into English before is no basis to delete or rename the article. But you are free to make your proposals as long as they are in line with wiki policies go ahead. Proposals by Meat-Puppet teams are usually rejected but let's see if you can manage to dupe anyone.YuHuw (talk) 04:59, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
- I'm not really seeing an argument here which is relevant to an AfD - as far as I know, arguments about the way foreign words are transliterated into English are not really valid in this kind of discussion. I can't tell if Qaraimits and Subbotniks are the same. So I'd vote keep on the basis that no valid argument is being offered, possibly also suggesting that a bold merge might be most appropriate if all participants agree that these two pages are describing the same thing. JMWt (talk) 08:23, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
Keep They are not the same thing. Qaraimits are gentiles who live according to the rules for gentiles written in the Torah without reference to the Talmud (if they did that they would be called Noachides). For this reason they are half way between Gentiles and Qaraims being neither one nor the other. Subbotniks on the other hand are nothing but a Russian type of Sabbatarian Christian. At most one could argue that Qaraimits are half way between Subbotniks and Qaraims but only because they had Subbotnik origins, otherwise they would just be half way between Gentiles and Qaraims. But to say that Qaraimits are Subbotniks because of their origin, sigh, one might as well argue that Subbotniks are Russian Orthodox because of their origin. No. YuHuw (talk) 10:58, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
Delete There are many sects of "Judaizers" around the world, as are the Subbotniks in Russia. All these little distinctions about which type of Jewish traditions each small sect prefers do not justify the creation on the English WP of a stub to accommodate the distinctions based on the preferences of particular WP Users, like the one that created this page. Anybody following the activities of this User will see that this is just a small platform he is creating so that he can start all articles in the English WP that refer Eastern European Karaites. And, in those articles, he will then start arguing that Eastern European Karaites are of gentile, not Karaite origin, as he is doing above. Precisely as his former "incarnation" here on the English WP, Kaz/Budo, did until he was banned. Now, after a couple of years without being able to disturb the history of small Russian sects on the English WP, he has devised a new strategy for editing this area of Wikipedia, which is enlarging the circle of terms surrounding the narrow area where his Caucasian-Muslim little sect exists, until he gets to the Easter European Karaites articles, which are his real only intended target on the English WP. warshy (¥¥) 12:18, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
The disruptive editor again mess everything,Noachides fulfill the 7 precepts of Judaism permitted for gentiles,while жидовствующие do not care what permitted and strive to fulfill all the rules and precepts of the Old Testament. There are 3 different sects of them. Only Molokans between them recognize the gospel.The name that is comon for Karaites between them is Subbotniks. Karaimits is less common name from missioner publications, I brought the RS above but was ignored again and again,The other common name for all kind of жидовствующие is also Subbotnisks,creating some mess because it is also the name for Karaites between them . The only way ro resolve the mess is to merge this article with Subbotnik Jews article.
Summary:
Merge into Subbotniks article ; Неполканов (talk) 17:41, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
- No it is you who does not understand Judaism. They are not fulfilling all the laws of the Old Testament because they reject circumcision. That means they are fulfiling all the rules for non-Jews not for Jews. The same as Noachides are for Rabbinical Judaism. Qaraimits are just Karaite Judaism's equivalent to Orthodox Judaism's Noachides. Meanwhile Subbotniks (Russian Sabbatarians) are Christians (even if some might be Unitarian Christians), Qaraimits are not. You clearly have no understanding of the issue. Meanwhile could I draw User:Liz's perspective (since you already asked him to drop it [30] on the ongoing ad-hominem against me, please, even after my vindication [31]? Неполканов must be considered to be either a clumsy meat-puppet or a sockpuppet of a clumsy puppet-master, as justified by examining the third occurrence of Неполканов (use the find function) on this page. It all brings into serious and justified question whether there is any sincere motivation behind this request for deletion by those three extremely close friends. YuHuw (talk) 19:46, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
Keep but it could be better to understand for the reader in case we use K instead Q (or unlike), and emerge the whole Karaim/Qaraim community together with Crimean_Karaites, in order to present Qaraimism better. Manaviko (talk) 16:32, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
- If you are suggesting we merge Crimean Karaites with Qaraimits together under an article entitled Qaraimism, it might seem like a good idea on the surface level, but might lead to endless edit conflicts too and that would probably cause blood to be spilled (humor) because Qaraimits have a positive view on Jesus while Karaite Jews do not. Karaite Jews would be very angry about trying to bring Qaraimits and Karaims and Qaraimism and Karaite Judaism all together under one roof. Like trying to mix Cypriot Turks and Cypriot Greeks together as simply Cypriots. YuHuw (talk) 19:06, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:53, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:53, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:53, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
- Merge into Subbotniks article . WP:NEO says that "Articles on neologisms that have little or no usage in reliable sources are commonly deleted... Care should be taken when translating text into English that a term common in the host language does not create a neologism in English." That applies to this article. The word "Qaraimits" has no usage in the English language outside of Wikipedia and sites that get their content from Wikipedia. The justification used for creating it was that there is a word "Караимиты" in Russian (see Справочник по ересям, сектам и расколам by С. В. Булгаков). "Караимиты" would be written in Latin script as "Karaimits" not "Qaraimits". But reliable sources in the English language do not call them that. The Subbotniks, by Velvl Chernin, p8 calls them "Karaite Subbotniks". There is a chapter in Holy Dissent (edited by Glenn Dynner), by Nicholas Breyfogle, about the Subbotniks - this says that the religious beliefs of the Subbotniks varied widely (p359), and that many embraced Judaism in its entirety, and that there was a split between Talmudists and Karaites (p373). The chapter has no special name for Subbotniks who followed Karaite Judaism. It does mention many of the names that Tsarist officials used for Subbotniks - neither "Karaimits" nor "Qaraimits" are mentioned. All Subbotniks should be covered by one article, because much of the information in reliable sources applies to all. Since the subject is covered in English language scholarly sources, we should stick to English-language names existing in reliable, published sources.-- Toddy1 (talk) 20:32, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
- Merge as suggested because this may be best connected to that article. SwisterTwister talk 03:50, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 03:48, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
- Comment -- I get the feeling that this is a religious denomination, which we would normally keep. It may be that it needs renaming. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:58, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
European Law Group
- European Law Group ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: "European Law Group" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · highbeam · JSTOR)
Fails WP:NCORP. Highly promotional in tone; no references, two external links to related sources. No independent in-depth coverage found with internet search. Near orphan (only linked article also proposed for deletion). Mb66w (talk) 03:48, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
- Delete. It almost feels like an advert rewritten to not sound like an advert. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 04:01, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
- delete Not notable enough (search it yourself for proof) Daniel kenneth (talk · · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · SUL · CA · checkuser (log)) 18:25, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
Paper Garden Records
- Paper Garden Records ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: "Paper Garden Records" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · highbeam · JSTOR)
Article topic lacks significant coverage from reliable, independent sources. (?) It had nothing but passing mentions in my music reliable sources custom Google search. I see no worthwhile redirect targets. czar 23:07, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. czar 23:07, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
- Delete Zero references or sources provided. The handful of notable associated acts that are linked to the page seem to have gained their notability regardless of an association with Paper Garden Records. ShelbyMarion (talk) 13:42, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:12, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
- Just a note in light of the article's recent cleanup that primary and unreliable sources aren't going to help at AfD, so it might be better to discuss the potential of the sources here before spending the time integrating them into the article. czar 06:12, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America1000 15:43, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America1000 15:43, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
- Keep Upon my recent research in the last day, I have found that the label has a current and growing integral position in the independent music scene. The diverse label signs American artists, such as New York band ARMS, and foreign artists, such as Danish band Alcoholic Faith Mission from Copenhagen. The label's growing popularity is underscored by its recent signing to Sub Pop Licensing, opening its music to be licensed in countless famed films and television shows. Or its recent signing of the illustrious British folk singer David Thomas Broughton. Or its weekly and annual concerts and events, such as its annual distinguished residency at SXSW. I, a music fan and frequent and impartial Wikipedia editor, hope to establish the label's notable place in independent music not only in New York but across the country and around the globe in indie music. Thanks! MetropolisHearts (talk) 05:37, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
-
- As preempted above, Wikipedia doesn't establish notability for the topic—that's the job of reliable, secondary sources. The new sources are either primary (not independent, such as a press release), unreliable (blogs without fact-checking reputations), or passing mentions (not about the label, but mentioning the label incidentally). As it stands, there isn't enough sourcing for an article. czar 05:56, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
- I will have to respectfully disagree on a comparative basis across Wikipedia, regarding notability. MetropolisHearts (talk) 06:04, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
- Each article is addressed on its own merits—the adage here is "other stuff exists". If you have other things to nominate for deletion, go for it, but we don't keep articles just because we haven't addressed others. czar 16:05, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
- Your selective interest in content quality is inane. If you wanted to actually show interest then why not check out Category:Record label stubs? MetropolisHearts (talk) 17:41, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
- No need for the tone. Record label stubs are no more special than any other collection of stubs—we do one article at a time, each on its own merits. You're welcome to work on those stubs if you feel so inclined. czar 18:33, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
- Your selective interest in content quality is inane. If you wanted to actually show interest then why not check out Category:Record label stubs? MetropolisHearts (talk) 17:41, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
- Each article is addressed on its own merits—the adage here is "other stuff exists". If you have other things to nominate for deletion, go for it, but we don't keep articles just because we haven't addressed others. czar 16:05, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
- I will have to respectfully disagree on a comparative basis across Wikipedia, regarding notability. MetropolisHearts (talk) 06:04, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
- As preempted above, Wikipedia doesn't establish notability for the topic—that's the job of reliable, secondary sources. The new sources are either primary (not independent, such as a press release), unreliable (blogs without fact-checking reputations), or passing mentions (not about the label, but mentioning the label incidentally). As it stands, there isn't enough sourcing for an article. czar 05:56, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
- Move to Draft at best as the currently listed sources are noticeable but this article is still questionable for any better obvious notability and improvements. No serious needs for complete deletion, simply move to Draft and away from mainspace temporarily, SwisterTwister talk 05:35, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Tennessee-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:31, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:31, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 06:44, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 03:47, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
Connor Goggin
- Connor Goggin ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: "Connor Goggin" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · highbeam · JSTOR)
fails WP:NHOCKEY Joeykai (talk) 03:46, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
- Keep per WP:NHOCKEY criterion#4 as he appears to have being selected for an all star team Seasider91 (talk) 18:40, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
Andy Taranto
- Andy Taranto ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: "Andy Taranto" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · highbeam · JSTOR)
fails WP:NHOCKEY Joeykai (talk) 03:44, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 11:06, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 11:06, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
- Keep per WP:NHOCKEY criterion#4 as he appears to have being selected for an all star team Seasider91 (talk) 18:45, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
Tommy Mele
- Tommy Mele ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: "Tommy Mele" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · highbeam · JSTOR)
fails WP:NHOCKEY Joeykai (talk) 03:43, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
Shavit Bar-On Gal-On Tzin Yagur
- Shavit Bar-On Gal-On Tzin Yagur ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: "Shavit Bar-On Gal-On Tzin Yagur" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · highbeam · JSTOR)
Fails WP:NCORP. Promotional article has no references, just a list of external references that fail as independent, in-depth coverage. Article was tagged with notability and unref in 2010 and tags were removed by IP editor a few months later without improvement. Mb66w (talk) 03:38, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
Justin Davis (ice hockey)
- Justin Davis (ice hockey) ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: "Justin Davis (ice hockey)" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · highbeam · JSTOR)
fails WP:NHOCKEY Joeykai (talk) 03:34, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
Garet Hunt
- Garet Hunt ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: "Garet Hunt" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · highbeam · JSTOR)
fails WP:NHOCKEY Joeykai (talk) 03:30, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
Darren Lynch
- Darren Lynch ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: "Darren Lynch" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · highbeam · JSTOR)
fails WP:NHOCKEY Joeykai (talk) 03:29, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
Bryan Bridges
- Bryan Bridges ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: "Bryan Bridges" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · highbeam · JSTOR)
fails WP:NHOCKEY Joeykai (talk) 03:28, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
J. D. Watt
- J. D. Watt ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: "J. D. Watt" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · highbeam · JSTOR)
fails WP:NHOCKEY Joeykai (talk) 03:26, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
Adam Courchaine (ice hockey, born 1989)
- Adam Courchaine (ice hockey, born 1989) ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: "Adam Courchaine (ice hockey, born 1989)" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · highbeam · JSTOR)
fails WP:NHOCKEY Joeykai (talk) 03:21, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
- Delete: (sighs) Yet another "what was he thinking?" creation of a NN substub hockey article, and I'm almost at the point of writing WP:ITSFROMDOLOVIS into WP:COMMONOUTCOMES. Somewhat brazenly, he set forth that the "honour" qualifying this mid-minors goalie with no distinction for an article was being on a team that won its league championship. Fails NHOCKEY, no evidence that the subject meets the GNG. Ravenswing 07:49, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 11:11, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 11:11, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
Dan Gendur
- Dan Gendur ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: "Dan Gendur" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · highbeam · JSTOR)
fails WP:NHOCKEY Joeykai (talk) 03:13, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
Dennis Yan
- Dennis Yan ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: "Dennis Yan" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · highbeam · JSTOR)
fails WP:NHOCKEY Joeykai (talk) 03:08, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 11:11, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 11:11, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
Blake Speers
- Blake Speers ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: "Blake Speers" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · highbeam · JSTOR)
fails WP:NHOCKEY Joeykai (talk) 03:06, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
Vili Saarijärvi
- Vili Saarijärvi ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: "Vili Saarijärvi" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · highbeam · JSTOR)
fails WP:NHOCKEY Joeykai (talk) 03:04, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 11:12, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 11:12, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
Daniel Vladař
- Daniel Vladař ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: "Daniel Vladař" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · highbeam · JSTOR)
fails WP:NHOCKEY Joeykai (talk) 03:00, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 11:12, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 11:12, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
- Delete: (sighs) Another NN substub hockey article, and I'm almost at the point of writing WP:DOLOVISCREATEDIT into WP:COMMONOUTCOMES. Somewhat brazenly, he set forth that the "honours" qualifying this mid-minors goalie with no distinction for an article was participating in the Hlinka tournament and in junior amateur championships (neither for the first time or the fiftieth time), despite all-but-unanimous and ongoing consensus that such explicitly didn't meet the requirements of NHOCKEY. Fails NHOCKEY, no evidence that the subject meets the GNG.
Patrick Sanvido
- Patrick Sanvido ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: "Patrick Sanvido" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · highbeam · JSTOR)
fails WP:NHOCKEY Joeykai (talk) 02:56, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
Connor Chatham
- Connor Chatham ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: "Connor Chatham" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · highbeam · JSTOR)
fails WP:NHOCKEY Joeykai (talk) 02:54, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 11:10, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 11:10, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
Anthony Cirelli
- Anthony Cirelli ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: "Anthony Cirelli" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · highbeam · JSTOR)
fails WP:NHOCKEY Joeykai (talk) 02:53, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
Trevor Murphy
- Trevor Murphy ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: "Trevor Murphy" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · highbeam · JSTOR)
fails WP:NHOCKEY Joeykai (talk) 02:49, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
Sindre Goksøyr
- Sindre Goksøyr ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: "Sindre Goksøyr" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · highbeam · JSTOR)
BLP article about a Norwegian cartoonist, with article not having any ref's since June 2013. Unable to prove notability. I would suggest he fails to assert WP:BIO. There was a Authority control tag but it wouldn't resolve. Article has been bigger, smaller conducted as part of an edit war in 2013, which has ceased. There is an Norwegian article, but asserts dubious notability. scope_creep 02:31, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Vipinhari || talk 17:10, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. Vipinhari || talk 17:10, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
Samantha Massell
- Samantha Massell ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: "Samantha Massell" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · highbeam · JSTOR)
Self-created article which doesn't appear to meet WP:ENT or WP:GNG, possibly a case of WP:TOOSOON Melcous (talk) 02:10, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:28, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:28, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
- Delete as still questionable for WP:ENTERTAINER at best, still nothing convincing. SwisterTwister talk 06:38, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
- Delete Not notable enough. Daniel kenneth (talk · · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · SUL · CA · checkuser (log)) 18:20, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
- Delete As made by subject of the article, also WP:TOOSOON . ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 18:51, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
Neva Leoni
- Neva Leoni ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: "Neva Leoni" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · highbeam · JSTOR)
Minor actress, with exceedingly bad article, which has not been updated in near 6 months. Fails to assert WP:NACTOR scope_creep 01:06, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Vipinhari || talk 17:09, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. Vipinhari || talk 17:09, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
- Delete as simply nothing for Wp:ENTERTAINER. SwisterTwister talk 17:22, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
Sara Ali Khan
- Sara Ali Khan ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: "Sara Ali Khan" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · highbeam · JSTOR)
Non-notable child of famous individuals. Two of the three references are about her parents & don't mention her, the one link that mentions her says there is a rumor that she will be appearing in an upcoming film, no confirmation of her appearance or even of the film itself. Posting here as speedy was questioned by another editor. JamesG5 (talk) 15:23, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Vipinhari || talk 17:08, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
Files
Files for discussion
April 10
File:Pentax 18-55mm in lightbox.jpg
- File:Pentax 18-55mm in lightbox.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Photoguy439 ( | contribs | uploads | upload log).
Unused, blurry, low resolution, no encyclopedic value FASTILY 03:16, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
File:Sire.png
- File:Sire.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Dtowng ( | contribs | uploads | upload log).
Is this logo copyrightable? It looks like a yin-yang symbol without opposite dots within. If not, shall we restore previous versions of the file and then transfer any of them into Commons? George Ho (talk) 03:52, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
File:Lucky Star Single Cover.jpg
- File:Lucky Star Single Cover.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Ipod de Blink ( | contribs | uploads | upload log).
The single "Lucky Star" by Madonna was one of her big hits in history. A reader might understand the song more by looking at a cover or a side label. Because the side label of the U.S. vinyl pressing is uploaded as the infobox image, I wonder whether the front cover of one of overseas releases is necessary. There is already a free image of Madonna in the article. George Ho (talk) 04:03, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
File:Cursive IPA sample (1912) (2).png
- File:Cursive IPA sample (1912) (2).png (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Kwamikagami ( | contribs | uploads | upload log).
Unused locally, superior version available: File:Cursive IPA sample (1912).png FASTILY 04:26, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
File:DJ-Elephante-headshot.jpg
- File:DJ-Elephante-headshot.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Jackeke ( | contribs | uploads | upload log).
Unused, scaled-down crop of File:DJ-Elephante.jpg FASTILY 04:34, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
File:North Geelong Warriors Hall of Fame.jpg
- File:North Geelong Warriors Hall of Fame.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Brigate Rossonere ( | contribs | uploads | upload log).
Probably a derivative of non-free content (commemorative plaque) FASTILY 05:38, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
File:Luka Glavas and kids.jpg
- File:Luka Glavas and kids.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Brigate Rossonere ( | contribs | uploads | upload log).
Copyright holder is listed in EXIF as "National Premier Leagues IGA NSW Mens 1 All Rights Reserved 2014 (Photos by loop)". No reason given to suggest that uploader is copyright holder FASTILY 05:39, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
File:Paperback Writer by The Beatles UK vinyl.jpg
- File:Paperback Writer by The Beatles UK vinyl.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by George Ho ( | contribs | uploads | upload log).
Is this image free to transfer? It is a UK work; threshold of originality there is very low. I wonder whether facts in any form count in the UK for copyright. George Ho (talk) 06:52, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
File:Sweet Love by Anita Baker US vinyl.jpg
- File:Sweet Love by Anita Baker US vinyl.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by George Ho ( | contribs | uploads | upload log).
Is this image transferable to Commons? The logo of the record label might not be copyrightable despite red markings on it. Speaking of red, there is a red shade on the bottom half of the side label. George Ho (talk) 07:34, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
File:Liam McLaughlan.jpg
- File:Liam McLaughlan.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Zcbeaton ( | contribs | uploads | upload log).
Contains a derivative of non-free content (the screen in the background) FASTILY 07:46, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
File:SEECP members.png
- File:SEECP members.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Alinor ( | contribs | uploads | upload log).
Unused locally, superior version available at File:Southeast European Cooperation Process Map.svg FASTILY 08:20, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
File:SteveNeil 85weirdest.jpg
- File:SteveNeil 85weirdest.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Stu Segal ( | contribs | uploads | upload log).
Orphaned file, unclear if uploader is copyright holder. Kelly hi! 09:32, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
File:Trolley01.JPG
- File:Trolley01.JPG (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Igniwalam ( | contribs | uploads | upload log).
Orphaned, likely no encyclopedic use. Kelly hi! 09:40, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
File:Uop.jpg
- File:Uop.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Ethicalhacker ( | contribs | uploads | upload log).
Unused, low resolution. Missing source/license evidence. Kelly hi! 09:41, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
File:Masoud Alimohammadi.jpg
- File:Masoud Alimohammadi.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by BehnamFarid ( | contribs | uploads | upload log).
Fails WP:NFCC#8 in Assassination of Iranian nuclear scientists. Additionally, the FURs are incomplete. Stefan2 (talk) 10:03, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
-
Done Addressed by Tucoxn. Mhhossein (talk) 10:51, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
- WP:NFCC#8 states: "Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the article topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding." How does the presence of this image significantly increase readers' understanding of Assassination of Iranian nuclear scientists. Your previous comment, adding the image back into the article says, "the issue was fixed". No changes have been made to the article reflecting NFCC#8 as of UTC 10:11, 10 April 2016 (see the article's edit history). Could you please provide details on what changes were made that merit marking this
{{done}}
? Cheers! - tucoxn\talk 11:15, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
- WP:NFCC#8 states: "Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the article topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding." How does the presence of this image significantly increase readers' understanding of Assassination of Iranian nuclear scientists. Your previous comment, adding the image back into the article says, "the issue was fixed". No changes have been made to the article reflecting NFCC#8 as of UTC 10:11, 10 April 2016 (see the article's edit history). Could you please provide details on what changes were made that merit marking this
File:Whiskey Ring 03.jpg
- File:Whiskey Ring 03.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Cmguy777 ( | contribs | uploads | upload log).
Orphaned map. No source given for base map. Kelly hi! 10:08, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
- Delete No evidence provided that the source map is freely licensed. --Stefan2 (talk) 17:13, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
File:Whiskey Ring.JPG
- File:Whiskey Ring.JPG (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Cmguy777 ( | contribs | uploads | upload log).
Orphaned map. No source given for base map. Kelly hi! 10:09, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
- Delete No evidence provided that the source map is freely licensed. --Stefan2 (talk) 17:13, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
File:Xiuhmolpilli.1.jpg
- File:Xiuhmolpilli.1.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Grae Bear ( | contribs | uploads | upload log).
Unclear if uploader is creator. Used only in userspace of long-absent editor. Kelly hi! 10:17, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
File:Fred Meyer Jewelers.jpg
- File:Fred Meyer Jewelers.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Caldorwards4 ( | contribs | uploads | upload log).
Unused outdated logo for Fred Meyer Jewelers, low-resolution, missing source information. FASTILY 10:19, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
File:600px-Arab League members colored by joining date with Israel colored in blue.png
- File:600px-Arab League members colored by joining date with Israel colored in blue.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Mbz1 ( | contribs | uploads | upload log).
Unused map. Kelly hi! 10:47, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
File:Abre la Muralla.jpg
- File:Abre la Muralla.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Silkscreens ( | contribs | uploads | upload log).
Used only in userspace of long-gone editor. No encyclopedic use. Kelly hi! 10:53, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
File:AdhiKumbheshwararTemple trimmed.jpg
- File:AdhiKumbheshwararTemple trimmed.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Ravichandar84 ( | contribs | uploads | upload log).
Unused derivative work. Kelly hi! 10:57, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
File:Akram ut tarajim 12 53.jpg
- File:Akram ut tarajim 12 53.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Rsami ( | contribs | uploads | upload log).
Unused text image. Kelly hi! 11:11, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
File:Allstonians Haunt.jpg
- File:Allstonians Haunt.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Cabreet ( | contribs | uploads | upload log).
Unused band photo. Kelly hi! 11:17, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
File:AlmaMaterMKHS.jpg
- File:AlmaMaterMKHS.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Whiteboyhalf ( | contribs | uploads | upload log).
Unused image of text. Kelly hi! 11:17, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
File:AlphaOmega2.jpg
- File:AlphaOmega2.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Break Creation ( | contribs | uploads | upload log).
Unclear if uploader is copyright holder. Only used on userpage of editor gone for over 10 years. Kelly hi! 11:55, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
File:Strictly Judges from series7.jpg
- File:Strictly Judges from series7.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by LittleGee ( | contribs | uploads | upload log).
Image is a screenshot for the judges of Strictly Come Dancing. The image does not significantly increase the reader's understanding of the show and fails NFCC#8. Additionally, 3 of the four judges' articles have free images illustrating them. Whpq (talk) 13:53, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
Categories
April 10
NEW NOMINATIONS
Category:Turkish terrorism
-
- Propose deleting Category:Turkish terrorism - ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Propose deleting Category:Turkish terrorism - ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Nominator's rationale: Created by an editor with a clear pro-Kurdish nationalist bias, this new category groups his new article Kuşkonar massacre about a Turkish massacre of Kurds with a pre-existing article 2003 Istanbul bombings, which was an al-Qaida attack within Turkey where at least one of the perpetrators was a Turk. The Kuşkonar massacre seemed to already have been adequately categorized as a Turkish massacre and persecution of Kurds. Because pro-Kurdish editors have failed after repeated attempts to blank, empty and delete Category:Kurdish terrorism, we get this, now, as a sort of tit-for-tat, I suppose. I personally wish we could topic ban the lot of them, both sides. Anyway, this seems to be a case of WP:SYNTH, conflating different acts as "Turkish terrorism." Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:33, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
- FYI, the nominator has since added a reference (broken) of an article stating that a Great Eastern Islamic Raiders' Front had initially claimed responsibility. This has apparently been done to bolster the argument that this is a case of indigenous "Turkish terrorism." Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:49, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
- It looks like you support "another" side by calling me as "pro-Kurdish nationalist bias". This is clearly attack against me. A militant Turkish Islamic group, the Great Eastern Islamic Raiders' Front took responsibility, I added source and statement to the original page. They have white washed the article. It was Turkish Islamic group who carried out the attack.[1] Also, the perpetrators were the Turks. I have no idea why this category should be deleted, since Kurdish terrorism category wasn't also deleted (I was asked to give my opinion about it).
- You are trying to remove Turkish terrorism category, but support keeping Kurdish terrorism category.
- The source says that Turkish islamic group took the responsibility and perpetrators were the Turks. Isn't this Turkish terrorism? Just check Kurdish terrorism articles, totally similar events. If you remove this category, then you should remove Kurdish terrorism category also if their events are similar.
- You are calling me pro-Kurdish nationalist bias. This is attack against me.
- You reversed my changes and kept statements which were clearly against WP:ORIGINAL and WP:FAKE. Keeping falsified statements in articles is not allowed. Your hippie-dippie justification is clearly showing how biased you are. Ferakp (talk) 15:01, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
- It's called WP:Neutrality: look it up. Even with your additions, the 2003 Istanbul bombings currently still assigns blame to Turks and foreign nationals trained by Al-Qaida. I don't particularly care one way or the other. This seemed to me to be a care of POV pushing and SYNTH, but if the category stays after full discussion by unaffiliated editors, fine. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:13, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
- What makes you think that this category should not stay but the category Kurdish terrorism should stay? Do you have any appropriate reason for that?Ferakp (talk) 15:37, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
- Because we're not here to help you fight your dreary proxy war on Wikipedia. WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a winning argument. The Turkish terrorism category will have to be kept on its own merits -- and it might -- not because the other side has one. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:46, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
- What makes you think that this category should not stay but the category Kurdish terrorism should stay? Do you have any appropriate reason for that?Ferakp (talk) 15:37, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
- It's called WP:Neutrality: look it up. Even with your additions, the 2003 Istanbul bombings currently still assigns blame to Turks and foreign nationals trained by Al-Qaida. I don't particularly care one way or the other. This seemed to me to be a care of POV pushing and SYNTH, but if the category stays after full discussion by unaffiliated editors, fine. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:13, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
- It looks like you support "another" side by calling me as "pro-Kurdish nationalist bias". This is clearly attack against me. A militant Turkish Islamic group, the Great Eastern Islamic Raiders' Front took responsibility, I added source and statement to the original page. They have white washed the article. It was Turkish Islamic group who carried out the attack.[1] Also, the perpetrators were the Turks. I have no idea why this category should be deleted, since Kurdish terrorism category wasn't also deleted (I was asked to give my opinion about it).
- FYI, the nominator has since added a reference (broken) of an article stating that a Great Eastern Islamic Raiders' Front had initially claimed responsibility. This has apparently been done to bolster the argument that this is a case of indigenous "Turkish terrorism." Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:49, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
- Comment -- Would Category:Terrorism in Turkey provide a NPOV target? This may be criticised as excluding what Turkey has done in counter-insurgency operations beyond its borders, but the Turks would not doubt say that they are to suppress insurgency, not to engender terror. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:48, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
-
- Yes, of course the pre-existing Category:Terrorism in Turkey is clearly less POV. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:51, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
- The Kurdish terrorism category wasn't deleted and thus I don't see any appropriate reason why this should be deleted. How is that possible that Kurdish terrorism category is allowed but Turkish terrorism category not. How are you going to explain this? There is no explanation for such thing. Kurdish terrorism category is full of events which are not considered as terrorist attacks. I added only two events and both are related to the Turkish terrorism (sources confirm them), just like others have added similar events to the Kurdish terrorism category. If you want to delete the category because you believe that those events are not related to Turkish terrorism, that's still not a good reason to delete the whole category, since I can add dozens of "Turkish terrorism" related events. This is the point where I don't understand you. You let Turkish editors to add random events from the Kurdish-Turkish conflict to the Kurdish terrorism category, you keep Kurdish terrorism category but you want to delete Turkish terrorism category, you reversed my changes and kept statements which were clearly against WP:ORIGINAL&WP:VERIFY and now you call me a editor with a clear pro-Kurdish nationalist bias. Look, I am not against this, you can call me as a monkey if you want, I don't care. However, if Wikipedia allows the Kurdish terrorism category but not the Turkish terrorism category, then I will immediately leave Wikipedia. At least, I know I am in totally wrong place. Ferakp (talk) 16:11, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
-
- No, we don't "let Turkish editors to add random events." I can assure you we've been just as vigilant when it comes to Turkish POV pushing. I played a large role in getting anti-Kurdish/pro-Turk POV editor User:Hassan Rebell blocked, for his campaign of harassment against User:Vekoler. happen to be strongly pro-Kurdish in my political views, but that's not the issue here. Wikipedia does a very poor job of representing controversial issues and it must be strongly policed, or it very quickly becomes an even bigger mess. Now, you want to use this Cfd as the test case whether you stay or not? Fine. Regardless of the outcome, based on what I've seen from you, I think you are "totally in the wrong place," fwiw. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:18, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
-
- The Kurdish terrorism category wasn't deleted and thus I don't see any appropriate reason why this should be deleted. How is that possible that Kurdish terrorism category is allowed but Turkish terrorism category not. How are you going to explain this? There is no explanation for such thing. Kurdish terrorism category is full of events which are not considered as terrorist attacks. I added only two events and both are related to the Turkish terrorism (sources confirm them), just like others have added similar events to the Kurdish terrorism category. If you want to delete the category because you believe that those events are not related to Turkish terrorism, that's still not a good reason to delete the whole category, since I can add dozens of "Turkish terrorism" related events. This is the point where I don't understand you. You let Turkish editors to add random events from the Kurdish-Turkish conflict to the Kurdish terrorism category, you keep Kurdish terrorism category but you want to delete Turkish terrorism category, you reversed my changes and kept statements which were clearly against WP:ORIGINAL&WP:VERIFY and now you call me a editor with a clear pro-Kurdish nationalist bias. Look, I am not against this, you can call me as a monkey if you want, I don't care. However, if Wikipedia allows the Kurdish terrorism category but not the Turkish terrorism category, then I will immediately leave Wikipedia. At least, I know I am in totally wrong place. Ferakp (talk) 16:11, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
- Yes, of course the pre-existing Category:Terrorism in Turkey is clearly less POV. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:51, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
Category:Video games based on iCarly
-
- Propose merging Category:Video games based on iCarly to Category:ICarly and Category:Video games based on television series
- Nominator's rationale: WP:SMALLCAT. Category has 2 items with no potential growth. Propose upmerge to parent categories: Category:ICarly and Category:Video games based on television series. The1337gamer (talk) 10:01, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
Category:Seven signs in John's Gospel
-
- Propose deleting Category:Seven signs in John's Gospel - ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Propose deleting Category:Seven signs in John's Gospel - ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Nominator's rationale: ~Classic WP:SMALLCAT Le Deluge (talk) 04:24, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
- Weak delete, while this category may easily grow to 8 articles (four more signs), it is questionable if this characteristic is defining enough. By the way, the seven signs have already been listified in the main article. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:06, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
- Delete but per WP:SUBJECTIVECAT. The signs are clearly a defining theological element of the Gospel of John but there's not agreement on how many there are and which passages qualify. That ambiguity is better handled in the article space, and Seven signs in the Gospel of John does a good job. RevelationDirect (talk) 10:41, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
Category:Trial of Oscar Pistorius
-
- Propose Deleting Category:Trial of Oscar Pistorius
- Nominator's rationale: Per WP:PERFCAT and WP:OCASSOC
- We see a lot of non-defining performance categories for show biz people but this category groups judges -1, 2- and lawyers -3, 4- by one particular case they worked on. (The category also contains the murder victim -5- showing the loosely defined nature of how people are associated with this trial.) - RevelationDirect (talk) 01:09, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
- Note: Notified HelenOnline as the category creator and this discussion has been included in WikiProject Law. – RevelationDirect (talk) 01:09, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
Category:African Airlines Association
-
- Propose Deleting Category:African Airlines Association
- Nominator's rationale: WP:OVERLAPCAT and WP:NONDEFINING
- Every single article in this category is already in the Category:Airlines of Africa tree so this basically serves as a duplicate category for airlines that happen to pay dues. The African Airlines Association doesn't appear to be an especially active trade association anyway based on a sample of their annual meeting so this isn't defining. The contents of the category are already listified here. - RevelationDirect (talk) 01:04, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
- Note: The creator, User:Russavia, is blocked but I added this discussion has been included in WikiProject Africa. – RevelationDirect (talk) 01:04, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
- Background We recently deleted Category:Cargo Airline Association here. - RevelationDirect (talk) 01:04, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
- DElete -- We have deleted categories for universities by membership of organisations. WE should apply that precedent to airline associations. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:51, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
Redirects
April 10
Portal:Nautical/April/10/Selected article
- Portal:Nautical/April/10/Selected article → TEV Wahine (links · history · stats) [ Closure: //delete ]
Violation of WP:NFCC#9: this redirect is used for the purpose of including a non-free image on Portal:Nautical. Stefan2 (talk) 10:49, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
- Keep Once again, the easy fix for this is to put
<noinclude>...</noinclude>
tags around the non-free image in the article, so that the offending image does not display in the portal. -- John of Reading (talk) 13:53, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
File:PPA logo.png
- File:PPA logo.png → File:Poker Players Alliance (logo).png (links · history · stats) [ Closure: //delete ]
Unused, overly generic/ambiguous redirect to a file FASTILY 10:22, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
- Keep The file was under this name for several years. There is no reason to insert red links in the article history. --Stefan2 (talk) 10:49, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
Pashtun (version 2)
- Pashtun (version 2) → Pashtun (links · history · stats) [ Closure: //delete ]
- TRW/version 2 → TRW (links · history · stats) [ Closure: //delete ]
- Fanon/version 2 → Fanon (links · history · stats) [ Closure: //delete ]
- Quietism/version 2 → Quietism (links · history · stats) [ Closure: //delete ]
- Anura/version 2 → Anura (links · history · stats) [ Closure: //delete ]
- John Blain/version 2 → John Blain (links · history · stats) [ Closure: //delete ]
- Sims/version 2 → Sims (links · history · stats) [ Closure: //delete ]
- CQC/version 2 → CQC (links · history · stats) [ Closure: //delete ]
- Orange Walk/version 2 → Orange Walk (links · history · stats) [ Closure: //delete ]
- Krøller eller ej/version 2 → Krøller eller ej (links · history · stats) [ Closure: //delete ]
There are a ton of these "version 2" redirects. I don't think they serve any useful purpose and certainly aren't' likely search terms, and therefore should be deleted. However, some have rather lengthy histories and we may need to merge the histories of these to their current targets. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 22:55, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
- Keep all and ensure all have the proper merge tags. History merges probably aren't worth the effort. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 01:44, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
- Comment WP:MAD / WP:CWW -- has any of the content here been merged elsewhere? -- 70.51.46.39 (talk) 03:44, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
-
- Move Krøller eller ej/version 2 to Krøller eller ej (song) without leaving a redirect behind; so we can get rid of the "version 2" name -- 70.51.46.39 (talk) 03:46, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
-
-
- I don't understand what advantage it has to move the redirect, nor why you single out this one in particular. Si Trew (talk) 04:12, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
- Moving the redirect will result in a pagename that is useful instead of useless. Thus eliminating a useless pagename. If it was merged means keeping the edit history per WP:CWW, so displacing the page instead of deleting it is to be done. As for why I chose this page, it was the easiest one to find a solution for, since each would have a different solution, so there is no single place to rename these things to. -- 70.51.46.39 (talk) 03:19, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
-
- All of the pages listed above are disambig pages, except Krøller eller ej. With some of these pages, in Wikipedia:Requested moves/Technical requests I or someone was called on to move page X to name Y, but there was already matter at Y (often merely redirects, or a much shorter article (or a disambig page) on the same subject with no purpose in text-merging and often cluttered with old redirects). In such a case I moved that existing old Y aside to another name such as Y/version 2, as in my experience it is not safe to let a long parallel history sit deleted under a visible article with a long history. I have found that Quietism and Fanon and Anura and Pashtun could be history-merged with their /Version 2 pages, and I have history-merged them; the rest are WP:Parallel histories. Some of these pairs of pages seem to have arisen by two people independently starting disambig pages for the same word or name. @Notecardforfree: Anthony Appleyard (talk) 05:43, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
- {{intitle|version 2}} shows these "version 2" pages also:
- Dreamwave Productions/version 2
- Galičnik (version 2)
- Golden share/version 2
- Finland–Latvia relations/version 2
- Finland-Latvia relations/version 2
- Germany–Serbia relations/version 2
- Ikbal Ali Shah/version 2
- Iraq–Serbia relations/version 2
- Iraq-Serbia relations/version 2
- Millennium of Love/version 2
- San Benedetto in Perillis (version 2)
- Serbia–Syria relations/version 2
- Serbia-Syria relations/version 2
- Suchitepéquez (version 2)
- System resource (version 2)
- Template talk:Bundesliga seasons/version 2
- Template talk:Pedro Almodóvar/version 2
- Template talk:Populated places in New Castle County, Delaware/Version 2
- Template talk:The King of Queens/version 2
- I have deleted all of these except Template talk:Populated places in New Castle County, Delaware/Version 2 and Template talk:The King of Queens/version 2 because their histories proved to contain only redirects and (except for the Template ... pages) a speedy-delete tag. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 06:13, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
-
-
-
- @Anthony Appleyard: {{In title}} only works to find pages that aren't redirects. Most "version #" pages are {{R with history}}/{{R from merge}} redirects, and thus will not show upon that search. (In fact, all of the pages you listed that were in the "Article" namespace that have now been deleted were pages that I recently tagged for speedy deletion after moving their edit histories elsewhere. Thus, that was the reason you found them with "In title"; they were no longer redirects since the WP:CSD template converted them into soft redirects.) The only way I know to find these pages is to do a regular search for "version 2" to find the redirects.Steel1943 (talk) 17:50, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
- @Steel1943: That "regular search" finds far too much by-catch, in this case 297,560 results; an example is Version 2 Version: A Dub Transmission. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 18:41, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
-
- @Anthony Appleyard: Agreed, a lot of the results are not the "version 2" redirects, but to my knowledge, I don't think there is another method in which to make these pages appear in a standard Wikipedia search through its internal software. I have seen editors compile lists of pages where a certain string of text is located anywhere in the page name, but I'm not sure how they did it; it probably required the use of some sort of external tool. Steel1943 (talk) 18:50, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
-
- @Steel1943: The Wikipedia software maintainers should add to search-in-pagename an option to search in redirect page names. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 18:53, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
-
-
- I have just found Template:The King of Queens/version 2. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 06:16, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
-
- @Anthony Appleyard: Thank you for the the thorough explanation about the history of these redirects and for your hard work tracking down the rest and merging histories. I can imagine that this took a fair amount of time to do, and I very much appreciate your efforts. How do you recommend we proceed with the pages that have parallel histories? I hadn't seen WP:Parallel histories until you linked it above, but that seems to suggest that we should leave the parallel histories at their current titles (i.e. at "Article X/version 2"), and I just want to make sure that is the correct method of preserving a parallel history. Best, -- Notecardforfree (talk) 18:12, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
- @Notecardforfree: If page Y was started by copying-and-pasting X, and they can't be history-merged, put an edit history note at the start of page Talk:Y . Anthony Appleyard (talk) 20:33, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
- Another solution, available on the German Wikipedia but not on the English Wikipedia, is described at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Cloning an article. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 20:33, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
-
- @Anthony Appleyard: thank you for your advice and guidance with this matter. The cloning idea sounds intriguing, and certainly could help resolve these issues in the future. I wonder if there are other procedural safeguards that we could implement during the article creation process to prevent the creation of duplicate articles? Perhaps there is a way to inform authors about similarly-titled existing articles? On the other hand, if these are all the "version 2s" that exist in the world, it may not be that common of a phenomenon. Best, -- Notecardforfree (talk) 21:01, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
- Delete any that does not have history that would need to be attributed. If there is history, history merge it if possible. If not, keep as the simplest option. -- Tavix (talk) 03:19, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
- @Notecardforfree, Tavix, and SimonTrew: Please see a related discussion at Wikipedia talk:Administrators' guide/Fixing cut-and-paste moves#Discussion regarding titling standards for moving parallel histories. The edit history has to be moved somewhere, but probably to a likely redirect term. For disambiguation pages, this is more difficult since community-accepted names for disambiguation pages are limited to only the ambiguous title and the ambiguous title plus "(disambiguation)". Steel1943 (talk) 15:19, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
-
- Also, I have "resolved" Template talk:Populated places in New Castle County, Delaware/Version 2 and Template talk:The King of Queens/version 2. The will probably be deleted uncontroversially soon. Steel1943 (talk) 15:29, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Omni Flames (talk contribs) 06:33, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
Templates
April 10
Template:ColtsFirstPick
- Template:ColtsFirstPick ( · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)
I wonder if these and all the NFL first-round picks by team templates are excessive. There are also templates for first-round picks by draft year and separate templates for, in this case, all of the Colts picks by draft year so the same person comes up in three different templates. Categories would be different but it seems excessive that Don McCauley is in Template:1971 NFL Draft (1971 first round), Template:Colts1971DraftPicks (being on the far left, intuitively is the first pick which is generally first round) and in this template. Not every team has a template for each year of picks so I'm just starting with this one template and trying to see if there's a consensus on whether all three are appropriate. Ricky81682 (talk) 02:39, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
- Comment Honestly a template for each draft year for a team seems the most obnoxious. Looking at it as a reader I can't imagine very many people would even care about which Colts were drafted in 1971, let alone use the template. Lizard (talk) 07:22, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
- Keep I find these to be useful. Template:Colts1971DraftPicks and similar ones I don't have a strong opinion on and I don't really use, but the first round ones by team should stay.--Yankees10 23:39, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
- Keep per Yankees10. WikiOriginal-9 (talk) 17:26, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
- Delete. I can't think of a situation in which someone would want to navigate to another first round draft pick only because they were a first round draft pick, and even if some obscure situations exist, they're not frequent enough to justify the navbox cruft. ~ RobTalk 01:07, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
- Delete per WP:CRUFT. No good reason to have this cluttering things up. --Gimubrc (talk) 20:33, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
- Comment This TFD nomination is flawed. There needed to be a discussion at WP:NFL first about whether these templates should exist or not. Not enough users from the project are voting and i'm guessing some don't even realize this is here. Randomly nominating just the Colts one makes no sense. If this is deleted it will be the only team of 32 not to have this type of template.--Yankees10 20:47, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Izkala (talk) 17:39, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
Template:Delete page
- Template:Delete page ( · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)
- Template:La ( · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)
Propose merging Template:Delete page with Template:La.
For background, see WP:HD#Templated links with specified deletion rationale. Basically, I asked if there were a way to have {{la}} supply a deletion rationale, e.g. by adding a parameter that would be automatically filled into the rationale box when you clicked the "delete" link. As it's not possible, Edgars2007 created this new template, explained how to use it, and concluded with But it may be better to include in the main {{la}} template, an opinion with which I agree. I'm just seeking further opinions as to whether this would be a good idea, as well as technical assistance in carrying that out. Nyttend (talk) 14:30, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
- Comment. I have no objection on the merits, but Template La is transcluded pretty much everywhere - 278,112 pages as of just now. It's an easy to remember template with only two characters, and one of the most useful in the entire project. I'd be triple cautious about mucking about with it. Might be better to use a deletion-specific version, such as {{la-d}} or some such. {{lad}} doesn't work, because then you get (Judaeo-Spanish) instead. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 17:24, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
-
- Oppose, as per my comments below, as premature and overbroad. We can add the parameter to deletion-specific templates without changing La or impacting its core function. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 14:21, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
- Comment: I'm having trouble seeing what Delete page even does differently. I would also recommend resolving this TFD as quickly as possible since the deletion template is breaking transclusions all over the project. Axem Titanium (talk) 17:38, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
- Comment Maintain Template La due to its inherent usefulness on notice boards and name the new version with the deletion rationale something different such as {{la-d}}. - LuckyLouie (talk) 18:35, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
- Comment (as "original proposer") Yes, we can close this merge proposal. --Edgars2007 (talk/contribs) 19:14, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
- This idea is not to get rid of {{la}} by renaming it or merging it anywhere: the idea is to merge in the feature of {{delete page}}, whereby providing text in a parameter causes that text to be prefilled in the deletion rationale box when you click "delete". Nyttend (talk) 19:40, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
-
- This template is usually called from another template - {{afd2}}, as an example. Why ask for a parameter? Could we not add a switch or something that adds the full pagename if the template is on a page beginning with Wikipedia:Articles for deletion? The template could then add the parameter. In fact, hold on, {{afd1}} does precisely this - if you delete an article using the toplink, and that article has a properly formatted AFD tag, then the link for the deletion debate is filled into the deletion rationale box. This is exactly what we're trying to do, yes? Except the idea was to do it for redirects? UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 20:06, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
- I'm not familiar with switches, so I can't offer an opinion. I'm using it at User:Anomie/Neelix list/frogs, where it's definitely helpful for each line to have a link that takes me directly to a complete deletion page; no other template of which I'm aware has this capability. Nyttend (talk) 20:21, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
- OK, then use {{lan}}. It will automatically fill in "G6 - Neelix" as the deletion rationale, rather than wait for a parameter. So you use it as {{lan|Example}} and it will do the rest. I think this will accomplish what you need for this situation, and it will table changes to {{la}} for another day. (And, if lan works, it might serve as proof of concept for those future changes.) UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 22:09, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
- But what if I want to use this template in a different situation in the future? Won't I have to edit the template? I want a template with which I can replace [[article]] with {{template|article|rationale}} and have the rationale automatically supplied when I click the delete link; find-and-replace is significant here, since I need to be able to make all the changes with a few button clicks in Notepad. As written, {{delete page}} does all this, so if retaining the template instead of merging it is the best way to fulfill my needs, I'm fine with that; I just don't want to get stuck with a template that only works in one situation or a template that doesn't fulfill my needs at all. Nyttend (talk) 05:25, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
- Pretty much. For this list, this specific Neelix-related set of deletions, this template will work. In the future, we can have a longer discussion about amending La or having a deletion-specific template that accepts a parameter (or just make Lan do that). But I think changing a template used on 280k pages is premature, given the number of different circumstances in which La is used. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 13:11, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
- This is meant to be that discussion. Once again, what's wrong with adding a feature to this template, right now? Nobody's given a single example of how adding such a feature would impair anything. Nyttend (talk) 13:38, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
- I think we've hit on a few, but I will sum them up. This is a widely-used template, and the proposed feature would be useful in only a small percentage of uses of that template - not enough, I think, to justify adding a parameter and complicating what is supposed to be a very very simple template. Because the La template is called from other templates in most cases (as with Afd, for example), you'd have to use the deletion template and then go back in and edit the La template to add your parameter - which defeats the whole point of adding the function in the first place. It'd be simpler in those circumstances just to type in the rationale in the box. So not only is it more work, but you've knocked another set of pages out of the percentage for which this would be useful. I'm happy to try it out on a small subset of articles - the Neelix redirects are a prime candidate, and the hard-coded rationale fits well there. But I think amending La is too big a change to a widely used template for not nearly enough gain. This is using a hammer where a scalpel would do. It's a good idea, and I think we can implement it in time. But I'm not ready to support a change of this scope. Not this quickly, not to this template. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 14:17, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
- This is meant to be that discussion. Once again, what's wrong with adding a feature to this template, right now? Nobody's given a single example of how adding such a feature would impair anything. Nyttend (talk) 13:38, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
- Pretty much. For this list, this specific Neelix-related set of deletions, this template will work. In the future, we can have a longer discussion about amending La or having a deletion-specific template that accepts a parameter (or just make Lan do that). But I think changing a template used on 280k pages is premature, given the number of different circumstances in which La is used. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 13:11, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
- But what if I want to use this template in a different situation in the future? Won't I have to edit the template? I want a template with which I can replace [[article]] with {{template|article|rationale}} and have the rationale automatically supplied when I click the delete link; find-and-replace is significant here, since I need to be able to make all the changes with a few button clicks in Notepad. As written, {{delete page}} does all this, so if retaining the template instead of merging it is the best way to fulfill my needs, I'm fine with that; I just don't want to get stuck with a template that only works in one situation or a template that doesn't fulfill my needs at all. Nyttend (talk) 05:25, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
- OK, then use {{lan}}. It will automatically fill in "G6 - Neelix" as the deletion rationale, rather than wait for a parameter. So you use it as {{lan|Example}} and it will do the rest. I think this will accomplish what you need for this situation, and it will table changes to {{la}} for another day. (And, if lan works, it might serve as proof of concept for those future changes.) UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 22:09, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
- I'm not familiar with switches, so I can't offer an opinion. I'm using it at User:Anomie/Neelix list/frogs, where it's definitely helpful for each line to have a link that takes me directly to a complete deletion page; no other template of which I'm aware has this capability. Nyttend (talk) 20:21, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
- This template is usually called from another template - {{afd2}}, as an example. Why ask for a parameter? Could we not add a switch or something that adds the full pagename if the template is on a page beginning with Wikipedia:Articles for deletion? The template could then add the parameter. In fact, hold on, {{afd1}} does precisely this - if you delete an article using the toplink, and that article has a properly formatted AFD tag, then the link for the deletion debate is filled into the deletion rationale box. This is exactly what we're trying to do, yes? Except the idea was to do it for redirects? UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 20:06, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
- Comment if this is merged it should not merge into "Delete page"; however, we have many variations on the lx and xl template sets, so perhaps all of the 'lx' templates should be able to be used this way? -- 70.51.200.135 (talk) 01:43, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
-
- Couldn't we just add a
|rationale=
parameter to {{la}} and all related templates? That's all I'm attempting to request in this merger nomination. Nyttend (talk) 05:27, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
-
- If that's all you're asking, why not have an RFC on the Talk page instead of disrupting hundreds of thousands of transclusions? You seem to have identified a unique need and are proposing a small addition (just one extra parameter) to a protected template. This is not a TFD merge discussion, except for the fact that you've made it so. Axem Titanium (talk) 15:06, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
-
- "This is not..." Did you notice who created the discussion, and what was originally proposed? Meanwhile, I'm thoroughly unfamiliar with this kind of process; my template work consists almost entirely of navbox work, and I'm quite the newcomer otherwise to template work, so stop biting me. Nyttend (talk) 17:43, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
- Couldn't we just add a
- Support merging and deleting Template:Delete page. Anarchyte (work | talk) 10:16, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
Relisting comment: The discussion so far has had a bit of confusion as to what's being proposed. To help reach consensus, let's restrict things to the actual proposal here. The question is whether to add the functionality to specify a deletion rationale into {{la}}.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ RobTalk 19:44, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
- Comment can the adding a "[delete]" link and parameter "|deletelink=yes" also be added to the other page link templates? (ie. {{lt}} , {{lc}} , etc) -- 70.51.46.39 (talk) 03:06, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ RobTalk 00:45, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
Template:Honda international timeline
- Template:Honda international timeline ( · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)
- Template:Modern Honda vehicles ( · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)
Propose merging Template:Honda international timeline with Template:Modern Honda vehicles.
Redundant template, the latter has covered more models. John123521 (Talk-Contib.) RA 13:31, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ RobTalk 19:31, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ RobTalk 00:45, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
Template:Current events/revisedlayout
- Template:Current events/revisedlayout ( · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)
Like Portal:Current events/Calendar box (which is currently at MfD), this template is also unused. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 15:48, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
- Comment it looks like a skeleton? (ie. substed template) -- 70.51.46.39 (talk) 06:20, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ RobTalk 19:02, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ RobTalk 00:45, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
Template:Scleroprotein disease
- Template:Scleroprotein disease ( · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)
I propose that this template is deleted because it adds to 'navbox clutter' on pages and does not help readers navigate between pages.
I propose that this template is instead converted to a table placed on the page Collagen disease, and links provided (if necessary) in the 'see also' sections. I just do not think this template helps readers, and hence am proposing this. I look forward to the opinions of other editors Tom (LT) (talk) 15:49, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
Relisting comment: This template wasn't marked as under discussion for deletion, so I've relisted and placed the appropriate notifications.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ RobTalk 13:54, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
- Keep – Navbox clutter generally refers to situations large number of navboxes are placed on the same page (for an extreme example, see Michael Jordon#External links which transcludes 48 navboxes). In looking through the target articles in the {{Scleroprotein disease}} navbox, most articles have two navboxes which IMHO is not excessive. The larger a navbox becomes, the harder it becomes to use for navigation. This particular navbox, particularly the vertical height is becoming large, but IMHO, still manageable. Perhaps the layout could be improved to make more efficient use of space. Boghog (talk) 14:30, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ RobTalk 00:41, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
Template:ESIScore
- Template:ESIScore ( · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)
This ESI score is based on original research and does not belong in Wikipedia. If it were based on actually peer-reviewed work, we could include it, but it is solely based on self-published material. jps (talk) 23:36, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
- Keep Lol WHAT? ESI is original research? Why don't we delete Earth Similarity Index as well then? Davidbuddy9 Talk 03:03, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
Confirmed sockpuppet of Davidbuddy9. Mike V • Talk 18:54, 7 April 2016 (UTC) |
---|
|
- Comment if this is kept, can someone add documentation to this? -- 70.51.46.39 (talk) 04:43, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
-
Done Davidbuddy9 Talk 02:08, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
CheckUser note: Discussion reopened due to vote fraud. Mike V • Talk 18:54, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
- Delete. ESI appears to have negligible use or acceptance beyond the individual or group that published it. Most, possibly all, articles using this template are about to be deleted. The creator of the template has been spamming and coat racking ESI across a multitude of articles, and using abusive sock multi-voting to keep & promote it. If we discard the abusive sockmaster vote above, this is currently unanimous for delete. Chuckle. Alsee (talk) 10:45, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
Relisting comment: Relisted to allow more time post-SPI.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ RobTalk 00:37, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
Template:HabPlanetScore
- Template:HabPlanetScore ( · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)
This particular template is based on original research. No peer-reviewed "habitability scores" are published for planets by Kepler, NASA, etc. jps (talk) 21:04, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
- Keep Same reason as TfD above. Davidbuddy9 Talk 03:25, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
Confirmed sockpuppet of Davidbuddy9. Mike V • Talk 18:54, 7 April 2016 (UTC) |
---|
|
-
- The ESI is an artificial construct and is not in WP:MAINSTREAM academic use. jps (talk) 13:00, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
- Delete every article using this has majority delete votes on it (once the sock multivoting is discarded). It's being used to present speculative / fringe data in an Original Research manner. Wildly speculative "habitability" of exoplanets is being promoted in a grossly unencyclopedic manner. Alsee (talk) 11:08, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
Relisting comment: Relisted to allow more time post-SPI.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ RobTalk 00:37, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
Miscellany
Deletion review
10 April 2016
|