Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2016 April 29

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 28 April	30 April >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. MelanieN (talk) 00:54, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jimmy Wachter

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

Minimally sourced WP:BLP of an entertainer, notable only for winning a local theatre award in his own hometown and for a one-off guest appearance in a sitcom. This is not enough to constitute a WP:CREATIVE pass, and there's not enough sourcing here to get over WP:GNG in lieu. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 22:55, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This person is an extremely local entertainer, who may not even be truly notable in his home market.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:08, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Do not feel that this entertainer is even close to making the grade. Paste _{Let’s have a chat.} 07:51, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as nothing at all to suggest better independent notability. SwisterTwister talk 05:07, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. czar 15:08, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Shard (band)

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

Completely unsourced article about a band with no claim of notability per WP:NMUSIC for anything more than existing. They've only released one single so far, have yet to release their debut album, and this is a WP:COI if you compare the creator's user name to the names of the band members. As always, Wikipedia is not a free publicity platform on which new bands get to have articles just because they exist -- reliable source coverage, supporting a claim of notability that satisfies NMUSIC, must be present for them to earn one. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 22:17, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 22:29, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:MUSIC. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 12:09, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No claim/indication of notability. --Michig (talk) 06:34, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MelanieN (talk) 00:56, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Tabith Mohammed Awal

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

Not notable, failed mayoral candidate. Vinegarymass911 (talk) 21:41, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I've found a source, but it's not enough:

http://bdnews24.com/politics/2015/04/06/mintoos-son-mayor-runner-tabith-awal-faces-loan-default-charges-by-sonali-bank

His father seems to be far more notable. ThePlatypusofDoom (Talk) 22:06, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete He lost a mayoral election. He may well become notable in the future, but is not at this time.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:59, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. Worldbruce (talk) 04:04, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Worldbruce (talk) 04:08, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as overall article still suggests questionability for WP:POLITICIAN. SwisterTwister talk 05:15, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per John Pack Lambert. ~ Moheen ^(talk) 19:02, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy deleted per G4 I note that the editor suspiciously was able to recreate the exact wording minus the reference from a five year old deletion which is suspicious to say the least. Ricky81682 (talk) 01:46, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Elizabeth Watkins (supercentenarian)

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

Recreation, by topic-banned editor, or article previously deleted via AfD. E Eng 21:15, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Might be able to just speedy it as recreation of material deleted at AfD. Regardless, we certainly don't need an unsourced stub of questionable notability created by someone topic banned from creating said stub. Trivia: This article was created the very same minute as the AE thread was closed with a topic ban. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 21:45, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dang, I forgot there's a speedy cat for this. E Eng 22:31, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy Deleted (G5) by Maile66. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 22:58, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mamie Eva Keith

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

Recreation, by topic-banned editor, of article earlier deleted via AfD. E Eng 21:10, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Should qualify for a speedy deletion since it's a recreation of an article that was deleted a few months ago. CommanderLinx (talk) 01:47, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete Nom says it all. If I wasn't so involved, I'd speedy it myself. Canadian Paul 03:10, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MelanieN (talk) 00:57, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Carlos Eduardo Soares Mota

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

Contested PROD. Concern was Article about a footballer who fails WP:GNG and who has not played in a fully pro league. PROD was contested by the article's creator without providing a reason. Sir Sputnik (talk) 21:03, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 21:04, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 08:19, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails NFOOTY as has not played senior international football nor played in a fully professional league. No indication that subject has garnered significant reliable coverage for any other achievements to satisfy GNG. Fenix down (talk) 07:22, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Hasn't made any appearances yet and thus fails WP:NFOOTY. Inter&anthro (talk) 13:23, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
SNOW Delete as too soon, not independently notable. SwisterTwister talk 05:18, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MelanieN (talk) 00:58, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Kocoa Brown

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

Doesn't meet WP:MUSICBIO or WP:GNG. Boleyn (talk) 20:29, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I can't find any WP:RS either. Reckston (talk) 20:57, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of any notability Velella ^{Velella Talk} 21:04, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as no evidence of notability, not covered by reliable sources. ThePlatypusofDoom (Talk) 22:10, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete agree with all of above. Not notable. ツStacey (talk) 21:16, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
SNOW Delete as nothing all for the needed notability. SwisterTwister talk 05:20, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MelanieN (talk) 00:58, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Kimberley (self-titled album)

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

Incomprehensible - all in Chinese characters Rathfelder (talk) 20:19, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete I'd even call it WP:Patent_nonsense due to the lack of content and context. Reckston (talk) 21:00, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - patently a NN album, and too much work to fix. Bearian (talk) 21:50, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as nothing for the needed notability improvements. SwisterTwister talk 05:20, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MelanieN (talk) 01:00, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Evergreen Packaging

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

Not clear how this passes WP:GNG Theroadislong (talk) 19:58, 29 April 2016 (UTC) Theroadislong (talk) 19:58, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Yep, a couple things like this local business story about tax breaks, but nothing substantial enough to meet WP:GNG. Reckston (talk) 21:03, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:56, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:56, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:56, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as searches found nothing better. SwisterTwister talk 07:28, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - privately held, not traded? Bearian (talk) 21:51, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete also fails the primary test of organizational notability as coverage in secondary sources is brief, passing and insubstantial. Geoff | ^{Who, me?} 21:48, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. I had relisted this, thinking that there was a pending request for help with a delsort listing. I realize now that I was mistaken; the delsort listing had already been made. So, closing this now as delete. -- RoySmith (talk) 23:51, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Abdullah bin Abdul Aziz bin Mohammed al-Mous

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

After adding a speedy deletion tag, and than a proposed deletion tag, they have been removed by an administrator. So, I am proposing this article be deleted through Articles for Deletion. The reason for for nomination for deletion is WP:DEL8. There is only one sentence in this article, stating that the subject is the president of Saudi Electronic University, with only one primary (direct) reference to the university website. This article is currently not suitable for the main-space and the subject has not been established as notable. That is why I am nominating for deletion, unless the article is drastically improved in the coming days. Cheers. CookieMonster755 ^(talk) 18:40, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly I note that the subject passes WP:PROF criterion 6. The difficulty with finding sources in the Latin alphabet is that transcription from Arabic is rather inconsistent, and that all the "bins" may not always be used. Indeed, the article text itself spells the last name differently from the article title, and, for example, this source spells it differently again and omits the "bin Mohammed" (his grandfather's name, I think). In such cases it is surely preferable to ask for assistance from Arabic-readers rather than to concentrate on finding a deletion process to use. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 16:21, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Saudi Arabia-related deletion discussions. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 16:21, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have tried to add this to Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Academics and educators but, for some reason I can't save that page. Could someone else try in case it is semi-protected or some such thing? 86.17.222.157 (talk) 16:32, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I am not opposed to keeping this article, not at all. However, these sources should be added to the article so that the article can be expanded and kept on Wikipedia. Thank you for notifying the WikiProject. CookieMonster755 ^(talk) 21:38, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't read Arabic, so don't have access to any sources in that language. The English-language source that I linked above doesn't confirm any more than the source already in the article, so it is unnecessary to add it to the article. My contention is the subject passes, and has been shown to pass, WP:PROF criterion 6. To get other editors more familiar with that guideline to offer their opinions would need someone to add this discussion to Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Academics and educators, which I have been unable to do as I said, so could you please do that? 86.17.222.157 (talk) 18:21, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:46, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:47, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The BLP is only a technical pass of the WP:Prof#C6 guideline. It is inadequately sourced for Wikipedia. It is also not clear if this recently formed university has a track record that qualifies it as a major institution. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:59, 23 April 2016 (UTC).[reply]
Keep He is the head of a university, thus he passes criteria 6 for academics. We should find sources, not further systemic bias against biographies of people from outside Europe, North America, Australia and New Zealand.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:39, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The "university" is not a major institution as required by WP:Prof#C6. Note that the possibility that sources may exist has never been accepted as evidence that they do exist. The onus is on the article's proponents to demonstrate evidence of notability. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:34, 24 April 2016 (UTC).[reply]

Why the scare quotes? Whether this university is major or not may be up for debate, but there is no doubt that it is a university. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 07:54, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Because it is not clear the the institution is a university at all, let alone a major one. Xxanthippe (talk) 09:19, 24 April 2016 (UTC).[reply]

It's abundantly clear that this is a university. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 09:31, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Clear? please give sources that indicate that the alleged institution has had any impact on the world of academia? Xxanthippe (talk) 09:49, 24 April 2016 (UTC).[reply]

I didn't say that. I said perfectly clearly that it's perfectly clear that it is a university. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 19:48, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It is clear that the entity claims to be a university. Whether it is accepted as being such by others is yet to be demonstrated. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:35, 24 April 2016 (UTC).[reply]

It is certainly accepted as such by the Saudi government. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 07:05, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete perhaps as I would've suggested Keep if the university was convincing enough but this is not insinuating that. Notifying DGG for his analysis. SwisterTwister talk 07:38, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete. The university he is president of is not a major or established university as far as I can tell; there is not even any evidence that it is in actual operation. Other accomplishments have to be evaluated; they are not in the present article, but in the copyvio version which is his CV. The most important of them seems to have been the writing of a number of textbooks, one of which is stated to be very widely used in Saudi Arabia. If it were a college level textbook, I would accept that as an indication of notability , but it is a school textbook for lower levels, which is not usually so strong an evidence. DGG ( talk ) 05:10, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This may not be a major university, but there is no doubt that it is in operation. See, for example, these books. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 07:38, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I think this shows pretty conclusively that it is not a major institution. Xxanthippe (talk) 09:08, 28 April 2016 (UTC).[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- RoySmith (talk) 19:55, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Added this to Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Academics and educators, as requested by an IP many days ago. Relisting to allow people who see it there to have a chance to comment -- RoySmith (talk) 19:56, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- RoySmith (talk) 19:56, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. If reliable sources arise, take it up with the discussants. czar 22:52, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Pablo Zibes

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

Subject fails WP:GNG and WP:ENT. With the exception of one local newspaper, the sources are either Agency releases, or show announcements. Successful in his field, but not encyclopedically notable. Scr★pIron^IV 19:19, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails either WP:MUSICBIO or WP:CREATIVE; no evidence of tours or headlining as a comic, "act", or actor. Bearian (talk) 21:55, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as nothing convincing for WP:GNG or WP:ENTERTAINER. SwisterTwister talk 05:21, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Notability established by sources. "Has had significant roles in multiple notable, television shows, stage performances, or other productions." WP:ENTERTAINER --Otto-muell (talk) 10:03, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Please point to those sources, because they aren't in the article, and aren't showing up on a search. Scr★pIron^IV 13:06, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Bearian. JumpiMaus (talk) 21:43, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Captain Wonder (Cosmicverse World)

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

Pure original research GigglesnortHotel (talk) 19:15, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The article is original research of a character from a not notable comic book. Reliable sources are non-existent. - Pmedema (talk) 19:56, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:47, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:47, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nothing at all for at least the minimally needed notability improvements, current article not at all convincingly acceptable yet. SwisterTwister talk 05:22, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as above. Josh Milburn (talk) 17:36, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MelanieN (talk) 01:03, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ryan Moye

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

Non-notable local TV journalist. Sole provided reference was subject's profile on employer's web site. No better sources found. Looks speediable to me, but an A7 nomination was declined. --Finngall ^talk 18:33, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Seems like a clear A7 speedy delete to me as well. We don't have articles on every single news reporter and I don't think he meets our GNG guidelines. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:51, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete per WP:A7. As the nominator (and as the original speedy nominator), this article seems to fall completely within speedy guidelines. I disagree with the user who declined the speedy, asserting that the article contains a claim of significance. However, the article clearly does not pass Wikipedia:Credible claim of significance, particularly the portion which reads "assuming this were true, would this (or something that 'this' might plausibly imply) cause a person to be notable?" Although the article does claim the subject is the recipient of an award, WP:ANYBIO requires that an award be "well-known and significant." This award is issued by a fairly small organization, Society of Professional Journalists. --Non-Dropframe _talk 19:04, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I see 2 claims of significance; the award, and reporting for the notable TV channel. The organisation that issues the award might be small, but it appears to be notable, and that's what matters. Size and notability do not necessarily correlate with each other. Adam9007 (talk) 19:14, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per A7, not notable, no sources. ThePlatypusofDoom (Talk) 22:12, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and I myself would tag it but it may be removed because of the listed award, still not questionable for any necessary improvements yet. SwisterTwister talk 05:28, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MelanieN (talk) 01:04, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Campaign for Vancouver's Supervised Injection Site

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

This isn't really an encyclopedia article about a topic, but an essay about the campaign to establish a topic -- and that topic already has an existing article at Insite, meaning there's little need to keep this as a separate standalone article. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 18:28, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:SOAP. FWIW, I have awards from two environmental groups, Sierra Club and Hostelling International, in my portfolio. Bearian (talk) 21:53, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as not convincing of the needed improvements, I've been seeing these articles recently and they are simply with no formatting to easily accept. SwisterTwister talk 05:28, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MelanieN (talk) 01:05, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Kikori Whiskey

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

No evidence this product meets the WP:GNG. Antrocent (♫♬) 18:19, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:27, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:27, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The article itself seems deceptive. According to this, it's not even whiskey but shochu. The alcohol might be made in Japan (though from an undisclosed source apparently), but the company--and I presume the mix—is American. The article thus smells of being an advertisement. There are a few reviews on the net in English, but I can't find anything in Japanese. This is not enough to pass WP:GNG. Michitaro (talk) 01:14, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Agree with Michitaro - this isn't whiskey, but aged shochu, as it is made from rice through the use of koji mold (to break down the starches to sugars for fermentation) rather than barley, corn (maize), rye or wheat, which are malted to produce the sugars for fermentation in true whiskeys. Further, there are insufficient mentions in secondary sources to establish notability in general. Geoff | ^{Who, me?} 21:58, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as too soon for any solid applicable notability. SwisterTwister talk 05:32, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MelanieN (talk) 01:06, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Rad (Transformers)

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

This character article currently fails to establish notability. There are applicable character lists where the characters can be briefly summarized without the need for an article. TTN (talk) 18:14, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 18:14, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The article is long, but I do not see any evidence of real-world notability. Josh Milburn (talk) 08:19, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I don't see significant coverage of these characters in reliable sources. I did find this top ten list at heavy.com, but that's about it. Since there are two characters by this name, I'm not sure this can be redirected. Instead, they should be added to the disambiguation. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 09:25, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete at best instead as I would've also suggested redirecting but this is still questionable for its own article obviously. SwisterTwister talk 05:30, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. czar 04:59, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Guhalo Ghost

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

Contested prod by a ip. Anyway, non notable short film with no notability to be found, also a major COI. Wgolf (talk) 17:31, 29 April 2016 (UTC))[reply]

Delete Due to the fact that all of the article is COI and reads like a advertisement, this one's easy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ThePlatypusofDoom (talk • contribs) 2:13, 29 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.

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

The result was delete. MelanieN (talk) 01:07, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Maneesh

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

Seems to fail WP:BAND GigglesnortHotel (talk) 17:00, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think "Hotnewhiphop", whatever that is, is correct--"little-known Toronto producer Maneesh". So maybe he co-produced a few tracks; that does not notability make. Drmies (talk) 17:03, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well, just look at who's writing the article: 416maneesh, COI editors are disturbingly easy to identify. ThePlatypusofDoom (Talk) 22:16, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for sure. No evidence of meeting WP:BAND, clear COI violations, and (since the editor claims to be the artist) this really just seems like self-promotion. RA0808 ^talk _contribs 17:14, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as this still questionable for solid independent notability, not yet acceptable. SwisterTwister talk 05:35, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MelanieN (talk) 01:08, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Raymond Mkhize

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

Non-notable martial artist. My search found no significant independent coverage of him. There is nothing that shows he was notable for his acting roles or martial arts. A passing mention that he trained to jump over a moving car does not meet any notability criteria. Fails WP:GNG, WP:MANOTE, and WP:NACTOR. Mdtemp (talk) 16:52, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 16:58, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Agree with nominator. There are other problems with the article - mainly the POV tone and digression into unrelated areas. Would have taken a bit of cut and slash but not while it is in AfD. No evidence he was a student of Mas Oyama.Peter Rehse (talk) 16:58, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Doesn't meet any notability criteria that I can find. My search found no significant independent coverage and the article has just a few passing mentions so WP:GNG is not met. There's also nothing shows notability as either a martial artist or as an actor. Papaursa (talk) 21:28, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as searches only found one mention at best, nothing convincing. SwisterTwister talk 05:37, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. czar 22:38, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Champion Carnival

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

Annual pro wrestling tournament that has no significant independent coverage or indication of notability so it fails WP:GNG. The article consists only of fight results (WP:NOTSTATSBOOK). Even the promotion's own article doesn't discuss this tournament except for mentioning it exists.Mdtemp (talk) 16:36, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 16:49, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete at best for now as I've found several mentions but nothing outstandingly convincing of necessary improvements. SwisterTwister talk 05:40, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 05:40, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Philafrenzy (talk) 16:16, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Procedural close. Accidental AFD creation. Proper AFD is now at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Princess Tatiana of Greece and Denmark (2nd nomination) (non-admin closure) | Uncle Milty | talk | 16:44, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Princess Tatiana of Greece and Denmark

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

Article does not establish notability of the person, she is the wife of a child of a former monarch and that's about it... Wikipedia isn't a genaological site and directory. Re5x (talk) 13:31, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I believe you'll need to end this AfD and start a new one. This is pointing to the talk page, not the article itself. RickinBaltimore (talk) 13:33, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, sorry :S

NOTE: Please Ignore this request. Thanks! --Re5x (talk) 13:36, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2016 April 29. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 16:31, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Procedural close. Article already deleted at 20:58 on 29 April 2016 by Bbb23 (talk · contribs) (A7: No credible indication of importance (individuals, animals, organizations, web content, events) (non-admin closure) | Uncle Milty | talk | 21:47, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Bocconi Toastmasters Club

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

Unremarkable student club at a university. Google produces 25 hits, all on social media; no independent coverage. Fails WP:GNG and WP:ORG. —Largo Plazo (talk) 14:50, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:ORG, and the deletion tag was removed by obvious sock/meat anyhow. GAB^Hello! 20:06, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per above. Neutrality^talk 20:29, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MelanieN (talk) 01:09, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

3MX

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

Non-notable Linux distribution. The offered references are all forum and vanity posts. The requisite third-party references are not forthcoming. Mikeblas (talk) 14:22, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:00, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Software (Linux distribution) article of unclear notability, lacking independent RS references. Refs provided are forum posts and content by the distro developers. A search turned up no significant WP:RS coverage. Article was created by an SPA as possibly promotional. Dialectric (talk) 16:56, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as the current article is still questionable for solid notability, nothing else convincing. SwisterTwister talk 07:53, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. czar 22:42, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Swingrowers

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

No significant coverage other than mentions of shows. BBC site says their song has been played. Non-notable label has been deleted several times at AFD:

Fails WP:MUSIC and WP:GNG. Related AFD Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Swing Republic Toddst1 (talk) 14:16, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as the entire article is still questionable for the needed notability at this time. SwisterTwister talk 05:46, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 05:46, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 05:46, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As a short stub with questionable sourcing and notability. Omni Flames ^{let's talk about it} 11:23, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Safdar Butt. (non-admin closure) Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:35, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ghulam safdar butt

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

I'm not entirely sure what's going on here. Looks like an article created out of previously deleted content per cleanup tags dated 2010 and 2015, likely for no sources on a BLP.

Per WP:MILPEOPLE, he is notable in principle, having achieved the rank of LTG.

So I leave it to you nice people to sort out. TimothyJosephWood 14:06, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Also see duplicate content at Safdar Butt. Looks like it's sat for >1 month with no citations. TimothyJosephWood 14:07, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Well, this one's COI editing, look at the username of the creator of the article. ThePlatypusofDoom (Talk) 14:13, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

May be a relative. May be just an SPA. Probably not the subject, as 88 year old Pakistanis are not want to start editing Wikipedia on a whim. TimothyJosephWood 14:26, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This should not have gone to Afd, really. All that was required was a redirect to Safdar Butt. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:31, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was draftify. czar 04:57, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Henry W. Steadman

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

Non-notable military person. Steadman's record is laudable, but it does not rise to the level that more than routine or primary (testimonials from close family or team members) coverage is available. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 13:59, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

WikiDan61? Any objection to withdrawing this in favor of moving it to draft space? Without actual knowledge, but on reasonable informed experience of having lived through the Vietnam era, I am betting there are sufficient reliable sources to write an adequate article on paper someplace. This man's stellar record and his role in USMC recruiting should have generated some coverage, and it appears we have a motivated group of SPA's that are interested in working on it. I'll be happy to guide them in the process. John from Idegon (talk) 20:16, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Be bold and just do it. As the article stands it is very likely to be deleted, whereas as a Draft, it will be relatively safe from untoward attention until it is ready. Velella ^{Velella Talk} 12:46, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Velella: Moving an article from article space to draft space during an AFD discussion sort of circumvenes the whole AFD process. The whole point of this discussion is to generate consensus regarding the fate of this article. For myself, I have no objection to moving it to draft space for whatever improvement might be possible. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 16:47, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Draft at best as this is still questionable and my searches have found nothing outstandingly better. SwisterTwister talk 05:50, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Nomination withdrawn.
Still not convinced but am withdrawing for the time being (non-admin closure) Re5x (talk) 08:01, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Princess Tatiana of Greece and Denmark

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

Article does not establish notability of the person, she is the wife of a child of a former monarch and that's about it... Wikipedia isn't a genealogical site or directory. Information about the "widely reported" wedding can already be seen in the husband's article. There doesn't seem to be many sources that describe her individually or as the subject of the piece, independent from the wedding. Also, please check previous deletion request... :) Re5x (talk) 13:43, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep she is not merely the wife of a child of "a former monarch", she is legally a Princess of Denmark and therefore a member of the reigning Danish Royal Family by marriage. In her own right she is also a member of the German nobility, as a descendant of the House of Hesse. She had a successful career in the fashion industry, working for Diane von Furstenberg. There isn't a lot in the article to establish notability, but perhaps it can be reworked. --Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 15:49, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Perhaps you could substantiate her notability and the claims you've provide with reliable sources? :) I just don't see this person covered in the media, ignoring mentions of her passing appearances at events. :) And even if these claims were true, there are many family members who are related to dynasties but who live perfectly normal lives as private persons. Thanks. :) --Re5x (talk) 08:23, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - It is not hard to do a google search and see she is frequently mentioned in the media. A few examples Huffington Post, Huffington Post (again), CBS News, Vogue, Vogue (again), Entorno Inteligente, Hello Magazine, Getty Images, Pop Sugar, Pop Sugar (again), Executive Style, Elle Magazine, Yahoo, E! News, Tatler, Elliman Media, Rant Chic, Real Style Network, Vancouver Sun, Daily Mail, and Observer. She also has her own official website, located here, which covers her philanthropic pursuits. -- Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 21:26, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    - Some of those seem to be more about her 'stylishness', etc. But if you insist... The article as it is now though needs some work. --Re5x (talk) 08:01, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
KeepAs per above - this person's status would normally substantiate their own article, IMHO Deathlibrarian (talk) 07:02, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- That's not the only requirement for a whole article though... What does she do or has she done that makes her relevant? It doesn't have to be big but I think she is more likely a private person that would get a brief mention in genealogical works than someone written about in detail. There are many of these persons that are members of dynasties who live normal lives but they aren't all notable. Thanks :)--Re5x (talk) 08:23, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - she is a princess. enough said. WP:GNG applies.BabbaQ (talk) 14:27, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Who says ALL "princesses" are notable especially one so peripheral (otherwise you'd have an article for every prince or princess in history having an article). Besides she's only a "princess" by marriage (to a child of a former monarch no less...). Look the person up on the Internet and find any information about her... My concerns though have yet to be addressed :( I'd understand if she was close in line to a throne or something but this person does not meet even that... Where do we draw the line? --Re5x (talk) 17:00, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - she is a princess and (more importantly) a media figure. Yes, being related to more famous monarchs doesn't qualify this article as per WP:Notability_(people)#Family, but the title does give her some limited recognition. But the main thing here is her social status and involvement. As recently as October 2015 she was interviewed in this article by The Globe and Mail newspaper. There's an older article (2013) about her work against eating disorders in women from the Daily Mail. Other media sources have been listed on here as well, which I think also serve as enough proof. In conclusion, her role as a social personality makes her notable enough. Naturally, a lot of this involvement of hers should be added into the article. Indy beetle (talk) 22:08, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree, any noteworthy endeavours would make the subject in question more notable if they were properly cited. Also, I'm not saying being a "princess" doesn't bring about attention to the individual, yes, it can draw attention to her and give her a platform in life to be something. But you also have to review some of those "sources" given above as they aren't all necessarily ideal ones to use in a BLP. Top lists, etc. --Re5x (talk) 08:01, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) — Music1201 ^talk 20:36, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Colégio Anglo Drummond

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

This is an irrelevant institution in terms of importance, being only known inside its hometown. Always keep on asking "why?". Maringaense (talk) 10:22, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk) 13:38, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk) 13:39, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The consensus has been that all secondary schools are notable. This has been consistently applied to American and British schools. If we do not apply it worldwide we will just increase systemic uneven coverage.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:02, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per John Pack Lambert and why not? One could ask "why?" about 90% of Wikipedia. Inclusion of this topic makes more sense than many and this article is relatively well written, structured, etc. giso6150 (talk) 14:27, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a secondary school per longstanding precedent and consensus. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:08, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG, and there simply aren't enough reliable sources to base an article on. Cordless Larry (talk) 22:26, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Scratch that - I was using the find sources links at the top of this page, but the article name doesn't match the school's current name. I will search for sources in the morning if I have time. Cordless Larry (talk) 22:29, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion was closed this morning by User:SwisterTwister as "speedy keep as secondary schools are always kept as notable". Whereas:
- The guidelines at WP:SK do not incorporate this as a valid reason for a speedy keep;
- User:SwisterTwister is not an administrator;
- The guideline at WP:DPR#NAC states that a deletion discussion closed by a user who is not an administrator may be reverted and reopened by an administrator giving reasons for doing so; and
- I, an administrator, have formed the opinion that it is right and appropriate in the circumstances to reopen the discussion, now, therefore
This discussion is reopened and relisted, with all !votes cast to state standing, and
In view of this relisting, will be granted a fresh 7-day listing period effective from today. Stifle (talk) 13:19, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as secondary schools are notable. ThePlatypusofDoom Talk 13:55, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- I'd be interested to see evidence of sources that demonstrate that notability in relation to this school, ThePlatypusofDoom, as I'm currently searching for them. Cordless Larry (talk) 14:05, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - Generally, the consensus is that high schools are almost always considered notable, see WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES — crh ₂₃ (Talk) 18:50, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    - Most are indeed kept, Crh23, but if a school is notable then it should be possible to demonstrate that notability (notability being a policy, whereas SCHOOLOUTCOMES is just a summary of common outcomes) - hence the wording of WP:WPSCH/AG#N, which says they are usually kept, as they are almost always found to be notable. Cordless Larry (talk) 21:06, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per the standing consensus that high school articles are usually valid for inclusion, detailed at WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES and WP:WPSCH/AG#N. — crh ₂₃ (Talk) 18:50, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The standard consensus has a purpose, which is to prevent hundreds of thousands of afds of high schools and elementary schools, and simply divide them into two groups, the high schools, where an article will be kept, and the elementary schools, where it normally will not. It's not precisely a consensus to say that one group is notable and the other not, but to say that we are going to treat one group as being notable and the other not, as a matter of convenience. But it is rational on grounds of actual notability also: when we did consider afds on schools, most articles on established high school were able to show it, because of having notable alumni and championship teams, and their major role in their communities. Most elementary schools were not able, having only mere notices. DGG ( talk ) 00:52, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - the entire content of the article at present appears to come from the school's own website (and looks to be a copyright violation). I have looked for independent sources to use instead or to supplement the school's website, but so far have been unable to find enough coverage to base an article on. Cordless Larry (talk) 05:29, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
KeepAs per above Deathlibrarian (talk) 07:02, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. The discussion was tending toward "keep," but it sounds like some improvement of the article will be necessary to firmly establish it here. I suggest allowing some time for improvement before renomination. MelanieN (talk) 01:17, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dounia Boutazout

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

Non-notable, fails WP:GNG, WP:NACTOR and WP:BLP1E JMHamo (talk) 23:52, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:08, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Morocco-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:08, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nothing at all suggesting better applicable notability. SwisterTwister talk 19:11, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep~~Weak delete~~: I must concur with SisterTwister that there appear to be inadequate indicia of notability on this one. If others can produce evidence to the contrary, I will reconsider my position. Montanabw ^(talk) 23:06, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: This looks like a case where there is a serious risk of WP:BIAS. The subject seems to be an Arabic-speaking actress with a level of popularity as a female television comedian which would effectively guarantee the notability of her equivalent in an English-speaking country. The trouble is that most of the sources we need are likely to be in Arabic - the ones visible in English (and many of those in French) on a Google search tend to the "celebrity gets into spat" type (most recently and visibly, only a week or so ago) which don't give much background information about the celebrity and where even a mention of the spat would probably be WP:UNDUE. Though this from The Guardian (search within it for "Comedy gold"), while not very substantial, is directly about her and does give some information (though possibly concentrating a little too exclusively on L'Couple). PWilkinson (talk) 10:45, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I disagree with Montanabw that there isn't enough coverage and I hope she may change her mind. I have found information about Boutazout's divorce: [1], [2], [3], an article about her with an interview and a list of TV series she's been in: [4] and others. She's had roles in at least 6 different TV shows: Clanely TV (2006), Jouha ya Jouha (2010), Okba Lik (2010), Dima Jirane (2011), Yak Hna Jirane (2012) and L'Couple (2013). Her promotion of Activia:[5], A piece on L'Couple: [6], news where she is the victim of an accident in Marrakech: [7], [8], etc. I agree with PWilkinson about making sure we avoid bias in Wiki, so I hope this information helps. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 23:41, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Changed my vote to !Keep per research of Megalibrarygirl. I'd like to see someone who has some Arabic language skills take a look at those sources, but I'm seeing enough for me. Montanabw ^(talk) 23:44, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:12, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MelanieN (talk) 01:18, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Kiran Tabeer

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

Subject does not appear to be the recipient of non-trivial coverage from reliable publications, possibly an example of WP:TOOSOON. Steps were taken WP:BEFORE this nomination to locate said coverage, but were not successful. Please do not hesitate to contact me on my talk page should evidence of such be located during the course of this discussion. Regards, Yamaguchi先生 (talk) 22:14, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and I would've explored PROD as the deletion path because this obviously has no signs of independent notability. SwisterTwister talk 22:55, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 22:55, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 22:55, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:08, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable. ツStacey (talk) 21:15, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MelanieN (talk) 01:18, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

H. N. Mulpury

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

Non notable, article is without any sources. Fails WP:BIO. Further, article is about an employee of Coal India, and is all peacock and has false claims like being involved in founding Mahanadi Coalfields. Mahanadi Coalfiels is a government of India owned company, how can a individual be involved in founding such a company. Could not find any reliable sources of him or the claim made in article. Only mention of his name is in a Corporate Directory of 2001 - [9], where his name is mentioned as Dir-functional Jethwarp (talk) 16:39, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Jethwarp (talk) 16:43, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I can find no evidence of notability after a search through news and web sources. Vanamonde93 (talk) 17:18, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:07, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per above. Neutrality^talk 20:29, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per above. Pol098 (talk) 18:26, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 22:59, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ozark Actors Theatre

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

References as given are either from the organization's "About us" page or are from a Missouri travel guide listing (with no stated author). Theater group lacks coverage in reliable, independent, secondary sources. KDS4444^Talk 09:46, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor ^Talk! 14:32, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 23:10, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 23:10, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete perhaps at best as I'm finding a few links but not yet anything solidly convincing. SwisterTwister talk 23:11, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep there is a huge amount of news coverage from reliable, independent, secondary sources on this professional theater organization. WikiConqueror (talk) 10:01, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:06, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The article now contains sources to show at least a minimal level of notability. A search turned up some additional examples of statewide media coverage (in the St. Louis Post-Dispatch): [10][11][12]. However, the long list of productions is unnecessary and should be removed.--Arxiloxos (talk) 15:15, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep sustained local/regional theatre likely meets WP:CLUB or similar.--☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(ring-ring) 17:36, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 15:58, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Televizor

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

A list of references to places where the musicians found inspiration for their music does not constitute significant coverage in reliable, independent, secondary sources. KDS4444^Talk 09:40, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor ^Talk! 14:36, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor ^Talk! 14:36, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:05, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep. This nomination would have benefited from prior consideration of WP:BEFORE and WP:BIAS. The simplest Google search shows that this band has been featured by top-level sources like NPR, CBC, and The Guardian, which note that this "veteran band" "has been taunting the powers that be for 30 years, and they're still at it, rocking packed houses at clubs in St. Petersburg."[13][14][15] GBooks turns up [16][17][18] and more. --Arxiloxos (talk) 15:55, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- If you incorporate those properly into the article, I'll add a "keep" - David Gerard (talk) 09:33, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - that sources exist is enough for a keep; adding them before the AfD is over isn't a prerequisite to survive it. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 00:35, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per Torchiest comment.Jonpatterns (talk) 09:50, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and obviously: 30+ year old band, ru:Телевизор (группа) can be used for expansion. I have added a {{cite book}}, there are lots of source out there. WP:BEFORE B6 is never optional with foreign language subjects. Sam Sailor ^Talk! 20:41, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. they are listed as one of the Legends of Russian Rock. Their 1987 album is among the best albums in the history of Russian rock [19]. OptimusView (talk) 18:36, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) — Music1201 ^talk 02:06, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Traktor

AfDs for this article:

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

Article which fails to assert WP:GNG and WP:ORG. It is really a terrible article, about DJ software and Native Instruments. Article has OR, Advert, Inline citation and lack of sources tags, since 2011, but nothing has been done to update the article. The author 92.225.80.126 also overwrote the original Traktor article, the production which was responsible for the 'Where's Your Head At' song, which may have been notable. As software goes I don't think it is notable. Also editor [[20]] almost seems to be single use. scope_creep 23:51, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 00:48, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 00:48, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Searches quickly turned up a review on Engadget [21] and a book about the product [22]. We decide notability based on whether sources exist, not whether they've been properly cited in the article. They exist. Msnicki (talk) 01:26, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Traktor (software) without keeping a redirect to unhide the original (2005) deletion, the name is ambiguous, e.g., w:de:Traktor, DAB w:de:Traktor (Begriffsklärung) (various topics incl. sports), etc. Then let's discuss or delete the renamed page. –Be..anyone 💩 04:36, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:33, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I see no grounds for deletion. Notability is easily established; there are several full-length books on the subject, many substantial articles in major music magazines, and the software is used by numerous notable musicians. The article has many incoming Wikipedia links. If the nominator is concerned about quality issues and that nothing has been done to update the article, perhaps they could update the article! Feel free to create a new "Traktor (filmmaking collective)" or similar article too. They also certainly meet notability requirements, and there are still existing incoming links, for example in Chain of Fools (film). You can easily do better starting from scratch than the original stub article, which may be largely a copyright violation taken from the IMDb bio anyway (hard to say which came first). I don't see a need to rename the current article, the existing disambiguation link is sufficient. IamNotU (talk) 01:58, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for now only if it can be improved but if not, and someone would rather take time for that, Draft. SwisterTwister talk 05:02, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Topic notability is not based upon whether or not articles are improved. For more information, see WP:NOEFFORT. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:52, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:53, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: If there's a consensus that the subject is indeed notable, reliable sources are easily found, and the article could be improved by editing - if only someone would make the effort - then it shouldn't be removed from the main article space, no matter how "terrible" it is currently, or how long it's been that way. Except for extreme cases of spam or copyright infringement, if the existing content is hopelessly irredeemable, then at most it should be stubbed. But that's a content discussion for the article's talk page, not AfD. "Needs improvement" isn't grounds for deletion. There's no deadline for improvement, and one shouldn't be artificially imposed through an AfD nomination. -- IamNotU (talk) 18:48, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Fairly notable software for the DJ world, if not THE software for the DJ world. Pretty obvious keep.Deathlibrarian (talk) 07:03, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per DeathLibrarian. This is the leading DJ software, and that's a significant market. Andy Dingley (talk) 17:22, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I agree with @IamNotU, i.e it should be stubbed, and perhaps add an entry made into requested articles, to get it updated. I'm not planning to do any work on it. scope_creep (talk) 11:58, 04 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. czar 22:44, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

List of Global Force Wrestling personnel

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

See the Wikiproject. GFW was a very hyped wrestling promotion. However, one year after the roster was revealed, the promotion is a very small promotion. The source, GFW website is outdated. Many of the wrestlers listed in the website signed with other promotions and leaft GFW (Karl Anderson, Doc Gallows, The Young Bucks, Sanada, Watanabe...) Also, if you take a look at GFW event, a few wrestlers appear in the roster. GWF hasnn't a regular roster, so this article is unnecesary. Also, I propose also Template:Global Force Wrestling personnel HHH Pedrigree (talk) 12:47, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per my comments at the above linked project discussion. GFW is just another tiny Indy promotion, nothing major at all. Also agree with deleting the template, as it is unneeded. oknazevad (talk) 15:04, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep it should be kept along with the template because they are bound for network television or even Netflix they are attempting to find a deal to broadcast GFW things take time deleting everything now would be for nothing when GFW finally hits TV everything will have to be recreated I'll agree the roster page on their website is way out of date but that doesn't mean the promotion won't grow the same way TNA grew it takes time JMichael22 (talk) 15:17, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- As Feedback said, That's Crystal Ball. Since 2014, Jeff Jarrett is looking for a TV deal. Right now, they don't have one nor a regular roster. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 18:06, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete JMichael's argument boils down to crystal-balling and nothing more. If GFW gets a TV deal and they end up having a definitive roster that appears on TV on a regular basis and is notable for its own article, then by all means, we should create the article. Until then, we don't even have the faintest clue what GFW's roster looks like because the promotion doesn't have substantial coverage and our only recourse is an out-dated primary source. This is not merely a question of notability, I'm not convinced a definitive roster even exists. Feedback 15:48, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete lots of WP:SYN and WP:CRYSTAL going on here. Borders on WP:HOAX as it seems a regular GFW roster does not exist.LM2000 (talk) 19:44, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Feedback and LM2000. Plus, the minute secondary sourcing in the article shows lack of notability. starship.paint ~ KO 00:23, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

All GFW has currently are regulars who are apart of their tours/Live events and co-promotion shows like Aldis, Dutt, Von Eerie, Bollywood Boyz, Myers, Kongo Kong, Colt Cabana, Mickie James and Jarrett JMichael22 (talk) 17:31, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as everything seems to suggest this wrestling group is questionable and there's also nothing to suggest a convincing separate article. SwisterTwister talk 05:53, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Philafrenzy (talk) 16:18, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not enough significant coverage for this article to meet GNG. Pretty much every source is a primary one. Omni Flames ^{let's talk about it} 22:38, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. czar 05:02, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Knights of Columbus Tot Lot, Wyandotte Mi

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

Contested Prod. Non-notable local park that was created along with several others as part of a school project. Fails WP:NGEO. IronGargoyle (talk) 19:00, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:41, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No doubt related to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Coachwood Park wyandotte, MI. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:57, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delte Non-notable, and this is basically a business-listing. Fails WP:NGEO and WP:GNG. Joseph2302 (talk) 19:59, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:31, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:46, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and I would've explored mentioning at the community's article but that's not seriously needed, delete at best since there's nothing for obvious improvements. SwisterTwister talk 05:54, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Relisted twice, consensus shifted toward "keep" although a clear consensus has not been established (non-admin closure) — Music1201 ^talk 02:09, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Kateryna Babkina

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

Notability questionable. Laber□^T 16:16, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Musa Talk 17:00, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ukraine -related deletion discussions. Musa Talk 17:00, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Musa Talk 17:01, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 12:53, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:30, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nothing suggesting the applicable notability. SwisterTwister talk 05:07, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Don't these 2,000 news articles suggest the applicable notability? 86.17.222.157 (talk) 07:46, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A valid point. It's important to keep in mind that part of the Wikipedia Notability guideline page states, "notability is based on the existence of suitable sources, not on the state of sourcing in an article", which is located at WP:NEXIST. It's unclear if the !vote above is based upon source searches or only those presented in the article. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:31, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, these are from the ukrainian wikiarticle - [23]. BBC ukraine interview in which babkina is interviewed about her work; [24], BBC ukraine review of her book Sonia - "But, obviously, Katerina Babkina work is an attempt - albeit for the first time and not very clearly perceptible - speak of lost souls modern young soul, the search for something different, better and more meaningful than about here and now, attempts to find destiny and God. Oh, Allah, Allah is with him."(apologies for gtranslate), here are some more reports/interviews/discussions of what Babkina is doing - [25], Ukraine Vogue "Kate Babkyna of the new book 'of painkillers and sleeping pills"; [26], Chytomo - Cultural and publishing project "Interview Kate Babkin: #Bookchallenge_ua on how to make your time more constructive"; [27], an excerpt from "Painkillers and sleeping pills appearing in The Kenyon Review; [28], "Story of a Dress by PODOLYAN: Kateryna Babkina", being a model/exhibit(?) at 2014 Ukraine fashion week; [29], Eastern Partnership Culture Congress, Report on the state of culture and NGO in Ukraine, "Report on the state of culture and NGO in Ukraine is a proper guide through cultural sector and NGO, composed of articles, analyses, brief reports and interviews with renowned experts and practitioners of these sectors. Among the authors we have: .. Kateryna Babkina, ..". the gsearch yields a lot more, including numerous appearances of her as a poet, (so close to meeting 4. of WP:NARTIST?), nearly all in ukrainian so another editor can go thru them Coolabahapple (talk) 16:00, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep passes GNG. Coolabahapple has found ample sources and my own searches confirm that she is in the news. Again, not proficient in the language, though. Also, the article needs a lot of work and seems like bad translation. Also, she has a German wiki page. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 17:13, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:32, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per my comments above. I didn't make a bolded recommendation earlier because I was treating this as a discussion rather than a vote, but it seems that for my comments to be taken into account I need to treat this as a vote. Maybe we should stop pretending that decisions are not made by voting, because the common practice is that these so-called discussions are treated as polls. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 20:50, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

while the 1820 results for gnews looks impressive they are not necessarily relevant to this subject. For example, the 1st hit on page 10 of the gnews results[30] is an article[31] entitled "The Constitutional Court said the Council that he can determine when to change the Constitution" discusses various aspects of the Ukrainian constitution, there is no mention of Babkina. similarly the 2nd hit[32] entitled "The writer, an intellectual Oksana Uzhgorod Lutsyshyna presents his new long-awaited novel "Love Life"", again the article does not mention Babkina, the page does have a link to an article "Mrs. Babkin presented in Uzhgorod new book "Happy naked people"", which incidently was a pr event for one of her books. of course, this does not mean that none of the articles are irrelevant notabilitywise. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:05, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If you look at page 1 rather than page 10 of those results you will find plenty of coverage of Babkina in independent reliable sources. The fact that there are false positives doesn't create any "anti-notability" that cancels out the notability shown by the sources that do have coverage. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 11:45, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There is lots on her but this article needs a complete re-write to get it up to Wiki standards. I will take on this job; I will have it done within the next couple of days (or hours if children give me time!) ツStacey (talk) 17:56, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've kindly delegated this task to User:Worm That Turned - I'm sure it will look brilliant in no time! ツStacey (talk) 12:56, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

And I've done so. Looks a bit better! Worm^TT(talk) 14:51, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it certainly does, Good job, Worm. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 17:39, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) — Music1201 ^talk 02:10, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Zameen Ke Tare

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

Non-notable film WP:NFILM JMHamo (talk) 21:40, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete at best as I have found a few links so far at Books but, unless better archived coverage can be found, there's nothing currently suggesting keeping. SwisterTwister talk 22:57, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 22:57, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 22:57, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

needs more digging:

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

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

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

WP:INDAFD: Zameen Ke Tare Chandulal Shah Master Bhagwan Daisy Irani Honey Irani Krishna Kumari

Keep as an expandable stub. 30 years-before-the-internet online archives of Indian News sources for a 56 rear-old-film do not exist, so the only reasonable place sources will be found will be obituaries of the principles and in the available book sources which establish it as having become part of Indian cinematic history. At he very least, under WP:NF#Other evidence of notability by it "representing a unique accomplishment in cinema, is a milestone in the development of film art, or contributes significantly to the development of a national cinema" or by its "featuring significant involvement (i.e., one of the most important roles in the making of the film) by a notable person and is a major part of his/her career", it can be mentioned and sourced within the articles elsewhere. A separate article is fine if "...it would clutter up the biography page of that person if it was mentioned there." A flat out deletion does not serve our readers. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 11:01, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep like I was saying when I removed the PROD tag, the film seems to be available on DVD today ([33]), which is a clear sign of significance for a 56-year-old film. Thanks and regards, Biwom (talk) 07:40, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —SpacemanSpiff 11:59, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - the film was unsuccessful at the box office, though that in itself may be notable as part of the "downfall" of a famous director. Considering the notability of the film studio, director, actors, and music director, I think it's suitable for inclusion in an encyclopedia. It has at least been mentioned in the Encyclopaedia of Hindi Cinema and Encyclopaedia of Indian Cinema, and is likely to have been reviewed in the press at the time, even if we can't find it with google. Let's give the opportunity for Bollywood film historians to improve it in the future. There's no rush... -- IamNotU (talk) 20:23, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
KeepAs per above Deathlibrarian (talk) 07:05, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. czar 22:47, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Bob Chua

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

Non-notable magician who won a potentially-non-notable award ~~(it's at AFD)~~ and has done little else. I can't find any sources other than the ones used in the article (which really aren't that good). Primefac (talk) 11:49, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:51, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Magic-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:51, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:51, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I did find some sources [34],[35] and the person is well known locally (nationally, considering Singapore), but still doesn't satisfy WP:GNG. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 16:01, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Subject fails WP:GNG and WP:ENT. The sources are primary, and promotional. Scr★pIron^IV 19:23, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as nothing for WP:GNG or WP:ENTERTAINER, award itself is PRODed for deletion and there's nothing to suggest therefore the independent notability for his article. SwisterTwister talk 04:32, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - the award, the Merlin Award is not at AfD (at least I couldn't find it there). It seems to have been prod'd, which was contested with the rationale that there was a long-standing discussion to "consider long-standing merge proposal to International Magicians Society". Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:39, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You are correct. Stricken above. Thanks. Primefac (talk) 14:42, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Maybe later. Philafrenzy (talk) 16:20, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails ENT. The Merlin Award doesn't appear to be notable enough to warrant an article. Omni Flames ^{let's talk about it} 22:28, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Murfreesboro, Tennessee § Shopping. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 23:00, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Stones River Mall

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

fails WP:ORG. Shopping malls are not inherently notable. All the coverage is run of the mill. LibStar (talk) 11:19, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Shopping malls-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:45, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:45, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:45, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Tennessee-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:45, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Selective Merge to Murfreesboro, Tennessee § Shopping. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:47, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge perhaps not because I'm avid about it but it could at least be mentioned there, certainly not convincing for its own article though. SwisterTwister talk 06:00, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as suggested with redirect. VMS Mosaic (talk) 01:37, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Late Night Tales: Belle & Sebastian. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 23:01, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Casaco Marrom

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

No references, no claim of notability, fails WP:NSONG and WP:GNG. Prodded and prod removed. Richhoncho (talk) 09:12, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Late Night Tales: Belle & Sebastian. Not notable enough for an article, but no reason why it shouldn't be mentioned in the article on the album the tracks were taken from. --Michig (talk) 11:36, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:32, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:32, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Late Night Tales: Belle & Sebastian and Belle and Sebastian discography. Redirects are WP:CHEAP. ~Kvng (talk) 17:54, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete actually as there's nothing convincing of the needed independent notability and redirect is not seriously needed as any general information about the album can be found there, nothing to suggest this can be kept and improved. SwisterTwister talk 06:01, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Old Possum's Book of Practical Cats. (non-admin closure) — Music1201 ^talk 02:11, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Bustopher Jones

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

No references, no claim of notability, fails WP:NSONG and WP:GNG. Prodded and prod removed. Multiple issues issued already raised in tag at article since March 2015 Richhoncho (talk) 09:11, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Old Possum's Book of Practical Cats. Nothing sourced to merge, but a redirect seems reasonable. --Michig (talk) 11:38, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:43, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:43, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Animal-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:43, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - There are articles for each of the characters in Old Possum's Book of Practical Cats and Cats (musical): Jennyanydots, Growltiger's Last Stand, Rum Tum Tugger, Old Deuteronomy, Rumpus Cat, Mr. Mistoffelees, Macavity, Gus: The Theatre Cat, Bustopher Jones NS Skimbleshanks. Perhaps these should all be considered for deletion as a group. ~Kvng (talk) 17:48, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Strong evidence of notability in HighBeam search. ~Kvng (talk) 17:48, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect instead as only best connected to that, nothing actually convincing to sufficiently improve. SwisterTwister talk 06:04, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Tommy Angels. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 15:59, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You'll Be My Boy

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

No references, no claim of notability, fails WP:NSONG and WP:GNG. Prodded and prod removed. Richhoncho (talk) 09:08, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Tommy Angels as was suggested when it was deproded. It obviously exists, and as the group's only release, It seems such an obvious outcome I have to wonder why a merge hasn't already been considered. The group may not be notable enough for an article (this had a low Oricon chart placing apparently), but that is outside the scope of this discussion. --Michig (talk) 11:48, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Merge But I think deleting is the best option. I don't know how notable Tommy Angels is, If they released one album they should be deleted too. The Platypus of Doom (talk) 12:01, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:33, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:33, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Tomoko Kawase - Tommy Angels was a project of the very notable Tomoko Kawase, aka Tommy Heavenly, who was the producer and songwriter for this (failed) group. [36] -- IamNotU (talk) 01:38, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Tommy Angels and if that goes down at some point, roll on to Tomoko Kawase. Merges and redirects can be done WP:BOLDly WP:BEFORE invoking WP:PROD or WP:AFD. ~Kvng (talk) 17:37, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Foreign relations of Iceland. (non-admin closure) — Music1201 ^talk 02:13, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ambassador of Iceland to Saudi Arabia

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

fails WP:GNG. all this article does is confirm the fact that the ambassador role once existed. LibStar (talk) 09:03, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:48, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iceland-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:48, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Saudi Arabia-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:48, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Foreign relations of Iceland. Only one man has held the post according to the Icelandic source. While it is notable that the two once exchanged ambassadors, it does not warrant its own article. Cawhee^Talk 04:18, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as best connected to that but also not convincingly notable by itself. SwisterTwister talk 06:07, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 07:30, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dublin Bus Route 41

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

Notability not asserted, fails WP:NOTTRAVEL Nordic Dragon 07:10, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Also nominating following for same reason:

Nordic Dragon 07:14, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Nordic Dragon 07:10, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. Nordic Dragon 07:10, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per being written like a travel guide. NasssaNser Talk 12:09, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete these bus routes aren't notable. st170e^talk 19:14, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Kill them all with fire - Anyone with half a braincell would visit the operators website or would pick up a timetable, Fails BUSCRUFT, NOTTRAVEL and GNG. –Davey2010^Talk 16:00, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable bus routes. How did these articles pass AFC? FiendYT ★ 03:44, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete at best as still questionable for independent notability. SwisterTwister talk 06:14, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. There is consensus that this is a valid, notable topic. (non-admin closure) SSTflyer 09:00, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Agriculture, forestry, and fishing in Japan

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

WP:SYN. not a unique topic for its own article. 68.148.186.93 (talk) 22:57, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

Comment - Completing nomination of behalf of IP editor--above text was copied from article talk page. I'm neutral on the nomination itself. --Finngall ^talk 02:36, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:54, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:54, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:55, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per invalid reasoning. The topic is unique (it's about "agriculture, forestry, and fishing in Japan", three often-related topics). ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 03:44, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The article is based on a single work by the Library of Congress. No other independent works address these 3 sectors of the economy as if they are unique as one entity.68.148.186.93 (talk) 22:35, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - The combination itself could be justified given that the government ministry that supervises these three it itself called the Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries. It is not an unjustified synthesis. Michitaro (talk) 00:55, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Do you have any other sources which would indicate that this article is not only based on just the 3-4 pages of the section in the open source book?68.148.186.93 (talk) 22:37, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - Your question is answered by Michataro's post: the ministry in Japan over these is called the Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries. Therefore, there are at least two sources which use that grouping and ordering in the title. And they are strong sources, too: both governmental agency sources. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 23:48, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    - That could simply be a coincidence. The Japanese government could simply have grouped these industries together to increase efficiencies in their portfolio.
    - Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries (Japan) is not a the sort of independent scholarship we expect to base wiki articles on.68.148.186.93 (talk) 11:52, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      - Um, no. You're just grasping at straws here to try to find a valid reason to delete the article. So far, you have not made a valid claim. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 18:01, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wikis are not considered reliable. You have one ~400 page book which doesn't treat this topic as unique. And no other sources have been produced to do so. WP:N: "if no reliable third-party sources can be found on a topic, then it should not have a separate article."68.148.186.93 (talk) 03:12, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Who is using a wiki as a reference? No one. As for the 400 page book, what are you talking about? Stop dancing around, trying to make an issue where none exists. If two governments refer to the ministry as that, it is not a stretch at all to have an article covering the topic. We don't need more than two sources (though more are always welcome). ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 04:47, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep perhaps or merge somehow as this is certainly not seriously needed for deletion but could still be used somehow and somewhere. SwisterTwister talk 06:58, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 07:30, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sophisticated Patient

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

Prod'ded as a dicdef. Article creator removed prod and copypasted public domain material. Author is apparently trying to Right Great Wrongs. --Finngall ^talk 02:30, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:55, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this abomination of an article. Text (something about prisoners as medical test subjects, which would duplicate Experimentation on prisoners) and title (google results would define this as a medical patient that is more knowledgable about his/her potential treatments, partly due to all the available online information) do not match. Subject as defined by the title would probably never develop beyond a dicdef. Even if the subject would pass WP:NOT, it would still need to be WP:TNTed. - HyperGaruda (talk) 04:50, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This extremely bad article is badly worded, and is not a phrase that the medical community or people in general use. According to the user, this is an ad for www.TruthContest.com, which is probably a conspiracy nut site. ThePlatypusofDoom (Talk) 22:26, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Snow Delete - As per all of the above. This is an incomprehensible mess. GAB^Hello! 22:30, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WP:SNOW time. I am not sure of what the article is supposed to mean, but I am not going to put any effort into investigating this. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 11:00, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as nothing at all suggesting a solid encyclopedia article. SwisterTwister talk 06:58, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. This was relisted, but the discussion has received ample input from users. Per WP:RELIST, "relisting should not be a substitute for a "no consensus" closure. If the closer feels there has been substantive debate, disparate opinions supported by policy have been expressed, and consensus has not been achieved, a no-consensus close may be preferable." North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:58, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sara Ali Khan

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

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)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Vipinhari || talk 17:08, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Source here and here and here and here. Yes she has famous parents but she's getting coverage to meet the WP:GNG.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 19:36, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Three of those 4 repeat the same rumor, with one specifically noting it's unsubstantiated. The fourth is a statement from her family saying the rumor isn't true. Does having someone start a rumor about you that generates a few stories rate? JamesG5 (talk) 19:20, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I do not think it is our job to question the validity of what is reported, but rather to determine if it is reported. Yes it gets a bit soppy in the entertainment sphere, like this and this, but I simply go by what the WP:GNG says which is If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list..--Tomwsulcer (talk) 19:36, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Basically, I agree with Tom. Sometimes wide press coverage of a rumor regarding a borderline-notable is enough to tip the scales. I think there's enough coverage here to satisfy the GNG. It's certainly not Kardashian-awful tabloidery. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by administrators since 2006. (talk) 21:38, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per above comments. — Music1201 ^talk 21:53, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Drafitfy As mentioned in the comments from other users above, the sources primarily talk about a rumor of her being cast in the film. If anyone can direct or add sources confirming whether she had a significant role in it, I think we are good to go. Also, as per WP:GNG, the sources are not verifiable. The first source is Masala.com, which is a fluffy gossip tabloid which nears the discussion to the Kardashian debacle that someone has mentioned here. Best, Nairspecht (talk) 07:35, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think tabloid-y gossip-y newsmagazines are appropriate sources for people in the entertainment business. One can ask oneself: does any of the information in them about the subject appear to be incorrect? I doubt it. Of course the sources are not peer-reviewed academic journals but sources like Masala and the others cover this type of subject, and to varying extents, do a good job with such coverage.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 11:37, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:56, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:04, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Drafitfy - I don't agree that tabloids are sufficient sources on their own. The issue is not if they're correct, it's if the things that they cover are notable and exist in some influential facet outside of the tabloids own little bubble of culture, which I would say they mostly don't. Tpdwkouaa (talk) 23:19, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well what sources would work for you? And are there any Wikipedia rulings relating to "bubble of culture"? Can you point to anything in the tabloid sources that you believe is factually incorrect?--Tomwsulcer (talk) 12:11, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete instead as none of this is actually convincing of the solid independent notability. SwisterTwister talk 04:04, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: An article that almost entirely is a list of her family connections is NOT a good start to any of this. Secondly, most of the articles appear to be her family members talking about her or WP:CRYSTALBALL about a film she is going to appear it.. Keep it, really? Let's wait at least the film comes out. Chrisw80 (talk) 04:25, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Are we keeping it, incubating (draftifying) it, or deleting it? Mr. Guye (talk) 02:02, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mr. Guye (talk) 02:02, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 07:32, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jean Scuderi

AfDs for this article:

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

This article does not have notability, and there are no reliable references or sources. Shwangtianyuan Talk Here 01:19, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:07, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:07, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:07, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:07, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:09, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails every criterion in WP:ARTIST. No reliable sources, no monographs, no exhibitions. Mduvekot (talk) 03:27, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There are reliable and independent references and sources from various notable newspapers (some of them were not released online but in original paper version since the Internet was not as accessible and available 20+ years ago as present), publications of magazines of the third party, and public information which meets WP:SELFPUB. Realelise (talk) 05:57, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- How about the criterion in WP:ARTIST?--Wolfch (talk) 06:28, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't need to fulfill that. If they satisfyWP:BASIC, "people who meet the basic criteria may be considered notable without meeting the additional criteria below". The problem with so many offline sources is that it's very difficult to establish whether their coverage is in-depth or just trivial mentions. No longer a penguin (talk) 10:18, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for pointing this out. Indeed, I agree that the problem with offline sources you mentioned. However, the fact that there're articles of exclusive interviews on paper magazines and newspapers ages ago in references firmly exists, which just have no online version. Is it possible to solve or improve this problem with offline sources which related to copyright? Realelise (talk) 07:06, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete! Massive and minutely detailed article that springs fully-formed from a single-purpose account. Filled with puffery and links to social media sites, an ocean of personal trivia that could only be original research, yet still no clear evidence of significant exhibitions, recognized awards, work in notable collections, and so on. No mention of him anywhere else on Wikipedia. Deleted the advert template. Writing style uncannily similar to that of Scuderi himself, from his website. Need I go on? Clearly a promotional article, written by Scuderi or someone close to him, that fails on WP:NOTPROMOTION, WP:SELFPROMOTE, WP:AUTOBIO, and likely WP:ARTIST. I'm all for lesser-known artists being in Wikipedia if they've earned it, but writing the article yourself is cheating. It's not impossible that he might meet notability criteria, but it's impossible to tell, through the fog of hype. Nothing can be salvaged from this ~~article~~ resumé. -- IamNotU (talk) 01:18, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I'm the creator of this article, who have noticed about Scuderi's artwork and been one of his followers online for a long time. I barely know him in person, but I do know someone close to him that could provide me with clips of old newspapers and some of his background. I agree that knowing the objective fact is crucial. Therefore, I think the word "cheating" you used was inaccurate and inappropriate. Certainly, none of additional criteria in WP:ARTIST got satisfied, I completely agree with this kind of comments. However, the reason I attempted to write this article was because judging by the notability of his online, articles of exclusive interviews on magazines and newspapers, I personally considered that might meet WP:BASIC of Wikipedia. Well, this is my so very first time to step in the editing/writing world of Wikipedia, there're loads of thing I have to learn and to explore. Honestly, I don't think my writing style is "uncannily similar to that of Scuderi himself" (have you visited his website? Mainly are illustrations and photos tho), and I don't know why such emotions or somehow sort of attack in your comment triggered by the article as well. Maybe my way of describing would mislead or misguide viewers to wonder that if this article is promotion or ads. If so, I'd love to know and to learn how to write a proper article and improve it to meet demands of Wikipedia since all I wrote and quoted in the article are based on reliable sources and references. Thanks for your comment. Realelise (talk) 07:06, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I made some assumptions that may well be wrong. If so, I apologize. We are supposed to assume good faith in other editors, but many things about this article seemed to make that difficult... Altogether, the strong feeling is that it has been written by the artist, or someone in his circle of friends. The writing style gives the impression of a French speaker, who knows Chinese. But I believe you now, that you are not Scuderi, so I'm sorry about that comment. Also the fact that a long article suddenly appeared, written by one person, who has never written in Wikipedia before. The main thing is that you appear to have access to very detailed personal information - some facts about his life that are not contained in the given sources; the up-to-date list of exhibitions, performances, and videography, complete with links, that seems like it must come from his own CV; and such a comprehensive list of relatively obscure references, that the artist must have been involved in some way. Clearly you know him personally, and I think you consider him a "friend". WP:SELFPROMOTE says "You should not create or edit articles about yourself, your family, friends or foes. If you have a personal connection to a topic or person, you are advised to refrain from editing those articles directly". You are certainly not required to reveal any personal details about yourself, so if you say it doesn't apply to you, we can only trust your word. But people have unconscious positive biases towards people they have a personal connection with, even if they're not that close. Writing an article about an artist friend can cause embarassment for them if, for example, the article is deleted on the basis that they're not notable enough - there will be a permanent record of that in Wikipedia. That's why there's the quote in WP:AUTOBIO: "Upon some of Cato's friends expressing their surprise, that while many persons without merit or reputation had statues, he had none, he answered, 'I had much rather it should be asked why the people have not erected a statue to Cato, than why they have.'"

About my emotional reaction, I know many people who I think are very notable and deserve a Wikipedia article, and it's frustrating that I'm not allowed to write one, because I'm friends with them. So when I see someone who is not so notable as they are, who has written an article that paints himself in glowing colors, I think, that's really unfair, and dishonest - it's cheating. But in this case, it seems I made a wrong assumption, and I did overreact, so I do apologize for that.

Still, I'm concerned that you may have too close a connection with the artist to be able to write an objective article about him, and the present article makes it sound like he's more notable than he actually is. Even if some obvious things like "he was considered as a famous young artist" were repaired, just the fact that the article exists on Wikipedia gives the impression that the community has accepted that he has met the standards expected, in WP:ARTIST. If he hasn't - and I don't see the evidence for it - then it's unfair to Wikipedia readers, and to the artist, who might be suspected of dishonest practices, even if he has not done them.

I don't want to discourage you from writing on Wikipedia, I think you have some talent for it. Maybe you could start out a little more slowly though! Try editing some existing articles, and then write one about someone you don't know personally. Especially with a biography of a living person, it's a good idea to create an article first in your user space, and ask other editors for feedback in the early stages, before you add it to the main article space. -- IamNotU (talk) 16:57, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for spending time leaving comments and some very useful advice that provided me with different perspectives and insight. Even though it's not a direct personal connection, I might still unconsciously poured some subjective description into the article since I indeed know someone close to the artist, that might be an issue I wasn't aware of. The articles on Wikipedia should certainly be written/modified in an objective way. Also, your previous reaction is now understandable, and I appreciate your apology. Realelise (talk) 04:27, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete without prejudice to recreation when more reliable sources are uncovered. As with most non mainstream artists, it's quite not easy to establish notability, but for now it fails both WP:GNG and WP:CREATIVE. Arthistorian1977 (talk) 08:13, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for comments. According to WP:GNG, I found the sources and references utilized in the article such as articles on newspapers, media and personal in-depth interview on published paper magazines/journals satisfy "significant coverage", which "is more than a trivial mention", but the "reliable sources" that "encompass published works in all forms and media, and in any language." Additionally, it doesn't need to fulfill WP:CREATIVE since "people who meet the basic criteria may be considered notable without meeting the additional criteria below." (WP:BASIC) Realelise (talk) 08:11, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Realelise, it says that they may be considered, not that they should be. And WP:GNG says "significant coverage in reliable sources creates an assumption, not a guarantee, that a subject should be included." If an artist doesn't meet any of the criteria in WP:CREATIVE/WP:ARTIST, then there must be some other compelling reason to go ahead and include them anyway. Otherwise there would be no point in having WP:ARTIST at all, if it can simply be ignored. As I said, readers expect that an artist who has a Wikipedia article about them has a level of notability similar to what is implied by the WP:ARTIST criteria. If not, and there is no other reason to include them, the article should be deleted. Without convincing evidence - and I think there is none to be found - that Scuderi has met some of these criteria, in particular "has been a substantial part of a significant exhibition, has won significant critical attention, or is represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums", I'm sorry to say, you should expect that this article will be deleted. -- IamNotU (talk) 22:06, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete because fails WP:GNG. Essentially is not a notable person. Cannot find any significant coverage of person outside first party sources. Also no French page. EllsworthSchmittendorf (talk) 09:27, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Withdrawn per WP:HEY. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 01:34, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Richard III (2008 film)

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

Doesn't appear to have ever been released. No third party sourcing found. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 00:50, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 01:08, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. It does seem to have shown at the Worldfest in Houston in April of 2007. I find some mentions that it won a couple awards there but not in reliable sources. I'm torn because IMO there are enough known actors to merit an article but the fact that the director and star - Scott M. Anderson - doesn't have an article is not in its favor. Whatever the final decision is will be fine with me. If the outcome is delete it will need to be removed from Template:Shakespeare tetralogy as well. MarnetteD|Talk 01:27, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

in looking beyond the article:

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

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

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

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

Keep per meeting WP:NF through independent coverage. Pitiful that (the unreliable) IMDB is incomplete, but so what. Also pitiful that the article has not been properly sourced, but as sources exist,[37][38][39][40][41][42][43][44][45] this is another "so what?" — Preceding unsigned comment added by MichaelQSchmidt (talk • contribs) 02:33, 29 April 2016 (UTC) Oops. Sorry I failed to sign. Was not intentional. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 20:08, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:01, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep given the serious coverage of the film in 2 scholarly works identified above by MQS [46][47], as well as the indications that it won awards at that festival in 2007 [48] (p.18) [49]. --Arxiloxos (talk) 03:46, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep based on the research done by MQS and Arxiloxos. "A" I am glad that you found some RSs for the awards. MarnetteD|Talk 04:41, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As the research by MQS and Arxiloxos confirms notability. The Platypus of Doom (talk) 11:39, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@MichaelQSchmidt: Thanks for the sources. Now what are you going to do, sit back and hope that they add themselves? Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 20:29, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@TenPoundHammer: Pardon, but that statement seems to indicate that you've never read WP:NRVE or are unaware of WP:NOTCLEANUP or WP:IMPATIENT... and I know that that is untrue. If an acceptable notability is shown, that does not also demand that addressing an article MUST be done now. But as notability is established, how about I promise to add sources in the near day or two if you do not or cannot do so yourself? Thanks and be well.

Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 22:42, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That was a bit flippant, I apologize. I just get frustrated since I see that pattern all the time: a microscopic article with no assertation of notability gets nominated, then gets snow-kept because someone found a bunch of useful sources. But nobody ever gets around to adding them,... and then years and years later, the article is still microscopic because everyone expects everyone else to add them, yet no one can be bothered. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 23:17, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Apology accepted. I get to what I can, when I can, but WP:PATIENCE is a virtue. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 19:05, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as this meets WP:NF through independent coverage. Aoba47 (talk) 18:57, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

the post-production year:(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

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

UPDATE: I just performed some work and, as the film's 2007 world premiere has been verified, the redirect from Richard III (2007 film) needs to be looked at after an anticipated keep. So @TenPoundHammer: Might you agree that this somewhat better now than what you first nominated?? Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 20:47, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Apologies to the RA. czar 22:50, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Sokoloski

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

This is a page for a professor, made by one his resident assistants. The professor is not very notable at all outside of the university. A quick search can prove this. Do not remove this template until conclusion. Jodamaster (talk) 00:16, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 00:23, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

delete - fails WP:BIO. See also this. If true, (if) that is really ugly, paradigmatic abuse of authority in academia. Jytdog (talk) 00:41, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:09, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:10, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:10, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No evidence of passing WP:PROF; there's the Polish knighthood but I'm not convinced that's enough, and there's not much else. On top of that the autobiography-by-proxy thing is a big problem. (By the way, it's research assistant, not resident assistant). —David Eppstein (talk) 03:32, 29 April 2016 (UTC)s[reply]

As the research assistant in question, I absolutely do not disagree with either Jytdog or David Eppstein, now that I know what WP:BIO and WP:PROF are. Conflict of interest aside, the original reason for deletion was lack of relevance/credible sources. Now that I've understood the difference, for the sake of argument, he's discussed here: http://www.ottawa.msz.gov.pl/en/news/on_polish_1980s_immigrants__fate_in_ottawa http://gazette.gc.ca/rp-pr/p1/2015/2015-06-27/html/gh-rg-eng.php http://www.goniec.net/goniec/inne-dzialy/zycie-polonijne/ciekawe-bo-o-nas.html (Though the last one is in Polish) In the unlikely event that I ever need to make a Wikipedia article again, would those be considered examples of credible sources? I'm not arguing against deletion, I just want to know what I'm doing wrong. Aniem045 (talk) 12:33, 29 April 2016 (UTC)Aniem045[reply]

There's a difference between sources that can be considered reliable to support the facts that they are listed as references for, and sources whose existence supports the notability of an article's subject (see also WP:RS and WP:GNG). So the first two (government) sources are very credible for factual material but I think they would not have much weight for notability. The third source, goniec.net, appears to be a news magazine for the Polish-Canadian community? So it carries more weight for notability, but is still somewhat specialized (coverage in a major Canadian newspaper such as the Globe & Mail would be far more convincing) and doesn't have a lot of depth of coverage of Sokoloski, another factor that is important when considering whether a source is helpful for notability. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:23, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. (I'll try to ignore the circumstances surrounding the article's creation, but it is troubling.) I don't see a demonstration of notability. Nothing obvious pops out to satisfy WP:PROF. The Officer's Cross is the 4th class award of the Order of Merit -- not significant enough. I'm also not convinced the Medal of National Education proves notability -- and it's worth noting that the reference given in the article does not mention Sokoloski getting such an award. --Larry/Traveling_Man (talk) 22:12, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as nothing convincing for applicable notability. SwisterTwister talk 07:17, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as per above and can't find anything in Polish wiki. EllsworthSchmittendorf (talk) 09:08, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails GNG as the article is a short stub with a few lines which doesn't make "a credible claim of significance". My searches found nothing better. Omni Flames ^{let's talk about it} 11:03, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Clearly fails WP:GNG, and with a high citation count of 5, doesn't come close to passing WP:SCHOLAR. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:58, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Philafrenzy (talk) 16:21, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete per WP:SNOW. I've created a subsection in the main article and will redirect this there. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 06:56, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Animorphs (film)

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

Mostly speculation and rumours, seems like WP:CRYSTAL and WP:TOOSOON Melcous (talk) 00:02, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:05, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no indication that the movie is happening, only speculation that it could happen and the speculation has not received significant coverage. No longer a penguin (talk) 10:24, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom. WP:CRYSTAL applies here. Some movies that aren't released do get their own article (Avengers:Infinity War) but this isn't confirmed, much less notable speculation. The Platypus of Doom (talk) 11:37, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per consisting mostly "citiations", which are actually rumors and redirects, to prove that it exists, applies WP:CRYSTAL. NasssaNser Talk 13:10, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete for now per failing WP:NFF. While there is probably enough in sources [50][51] to support in articles of Sony and Universal a sourced mention of it "being planned", it is definitely TOO SOON for its own article. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 20:18, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Agreed with the above reasons. Both WP:CRYSTAL and WP:TOOSOON apply here. Aoba47 (talk) 20:32, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete CRYSTAL, TOOSOON and a good helping of WP:FANCRUFT as the article is literally only sourced to both OR and a long-become disinterested fanblogger who just checked WHOIS and made observations about website ownership. Nate • (chatter) 03:18, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: There is some mild coverage of the film rumors, so there might be merit in starting an adaptation section in the book series article that would contain this information. There's already a TV series, so there's already reason to have an adaptation section. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 06:34, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I created the adaptation section, but I couldn't find anything in a RS about the Sony website rumors. They're on various blogs and other SPS, but not in anything Wikipedia would consider reliable. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 06:52, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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