Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2016 February 22

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< 21 February 23 February >

Purge server cache

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

The result was keep (non-admin closure). Considering that most of those arguing to delete the article here are likely to be the same person, the consensus to keep here is clear. Sir Sputnik (talk) 21:52, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

W. N. Herbert[edit]

W. N. Herbert (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Reason Jjlayton (talk) 22:33, 22 February 2016 (UTC) As previous editors have noted, given their requests for deletion, this poet seems patently non-notable, and being Dundee's 'Makar' (a role which demands the title-holder send tweets) does not help signify anything on this already slender page. I have searched extensively online and there are very few articles out there to warrant inclusion on Wikipedia.[reply]

— Jjlayton (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. , the Nom.E.M.Gregory (talk) 01:02, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 00:02, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 00:02, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, per Drchriswilliams and E.M.Gregory. Article gives plenty of indications of notability. (Aside: I'm curious that a new user appears on Wikipedia and the very first thing they do is to nominate this article for deletion....) --Deskford (talk) 01:14, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I can see from the last AfD that significant searches were made to prove notability, but as far as I see there still isn't an article / more than one article that asserts significant proof in a reliable secondary source. Fails WP:N and WP:V. Insufficient references based on reliable, third-party published sources.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.34.35.146 (talk) 13:40, 23 February 2016 (UTC) [reply]
— 217.34.35.146 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • Strong Delete Given that previous edits show a variety of people raising this issue in the past and that it fails WP:N and WP:V, strong delete, let's not be hassled by the issue further as it'll clearly only be raised by other users in future. ClaireJones19883 —Preceding undated comment added 17:59, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

— ClaireJones19883 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:40, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Where is the "last AFD"? I see none on the talk page, none linked here. Who are the editors demanding deletion and where does Nom see their demands? I am completely puzzled. He is a Fellow of the Royal Society, a well-known poet,, and even a very simple news google on his name in produces prima facie support for notability, here: [1], that same google search also showed that he has gotten a lot of attention for his storng, public support for the highly controversial politician Jeremy Corbyn. Can it be that this AFD is a political battle [2] being waged at AFD?E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:19, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep As this is a notable poet, per the multiple mentions by E.M. Gregory and Drchriswilliams. I'm not one to throw around the idea of bad faith, however I find it interesting that a new user's first edit was to create an AfD on this article, especially given the news article listed above. RickinBaltimore (talk) 20:23, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I’m just intrigued that Fellowship status is being used to support this entry. Many types of fellowship exist, and as such they don’t signify notability, otherwise many academics would require Wikipedia pages and this would be a cluttered place indeed. The existing stub is evidently weak and do the mentions kindly posted by the E.M.Gregory prove significant coverage, rather than mere mentions? I will investigate, but journalism supporting Jeremy Corbyn is not evidence for notability either, or every Guardian reporter would warrant a page. As the revision by ‘Randykitty’ on 2nd January proves, this article has been PRODded before, and the editor was advised to ‘take to AfD is necessary’. I think new arrivals on Wiki are encouraged to edit, so Jlayton’s nomination for deletion is only carrying on previous concerns by other users, so I wouldn’t presume bad faith. Saying someone is a ‘well known’ poet when evidence of this is up for dispute could smack of nepotism but I too want to preserve good faith as long as possible. 81.149.126.164 (talk) 14:54, 25 February 2016 (UTC) AdamKlay[reply]
— 81.149.126.164 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. aka AdamKlay.E.M.Gregory (talk) 01:13, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete There are some references to Herbert in the PN Review that might help support the article, but can't find significant enough links. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.144.194.128 (talk) 15:15, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

  • Comment, editors talking about "previous afd" may be meaning this prod, anyway Keep, subject meets WP:ANYBIO and WP:CREATIVE, which is now reflected in the article, thanks to Drchriswilliams. A Gsearch brings up lots of useable references ie. he judges notable poetry prizes - "The UK's most valuable annual poetry prizes are in their 13th year and going strong." - [3], his books appear as recommended reading for university studies, here is a gsearch page that show a number of study programs - [4], here is another book review - "WN Herbert's informative and witty preface rightly urges readers simply to hurl themselves into the poems,.." [5]. Could a helpful Admin please "snowy keep" this one, as this appears to be another waste of time, although article has been improved Coolabahapple (talk) 15:32, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Further comment (based on recent delete comments), no, the previous proder and this nom did not edit the article or discuss notability concerns on the talkpage, nor have they appeared to carry out checks according to "2.If there are verifiability, notability or other sourcing concerns, take reasonable steps to search for reliable sources. (See step D.)" - from B. Carry out these checks of WP:BEFORE. Coolabahapple (talk) 15:48, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Still advising keep as above, but I have just revited this and it is worse than I had assumed. Every delete ivote is by a new, or close-to new editor, with the possible exception of User:ClaireJones19883, who has made a small number of edits (I did not look at the edits, but her User talk:Clairejones19883 and the article Claire Jones was trying to have accepted, Ruth Dugdall, was in fact added to Wikipedia by a different very low-volume editor, then edited by ClaireJones.) Back to this page, it is clear that either someone is using many accounts in an attempt to delete this page, or that this poet has enemies 4 or 5 of whom have come to Wikipedia for the purpose of voting delete on this page. It is also clear that every experienced editor who has offered an opinion has opined keep this WP:SNOWBALL. E.M.Gregory (talk) 01:19, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Apply at WP:REFUND if she should win a seat in the forthcoming Welsh Assembly elections. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 23:21, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Carrie Harper[edit]

Carrie Harper (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No sources to provide any information on the subject, appears to fail WP:N Frinton100 (talk) 22:06, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 00:01, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wales-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 00:01, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete as local politician with no notability at this point, although she is standing for a legislative seat. If she wins, article will have to be recreated.E.M.Gregory (talk) 01:01, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete NN failed candidate. --
  • Delete a search for sources reveals nothing beyond minor coverage of the fact that she was standing for election. Doesn't pass the standards of WP:POLITICIAN / WP:NBIO. BencherliteTalk 23:23, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Non-winning candidates for office do not get Wikipedia articles just for being candidates — if you cannot make and reliably source a credible claim that she was already notable enough for a Wikipedia article for something independent of her candidacy, then she does not become notable enough for a Wikipedia article until she wins the seat. But this claims nothing except candidate, and cites no sources — which means she does not get an inclusion freebie just because candidate. The article is actually missing the fact that in addition to having stood in last year's UK parliament election, she also seems to be a candidate in the forthcoming Welsh Assembly election — which means she still has a chance of getting into Wikipedia if she wins that seat, but still does not get an article just for being a candidate. Delete; no prejudice against recreation on or after May 5 if she wins. Bearcat (talk) 19:04, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
A quick web search seems to indicate that she's not really notable, but Highbeam does have a fair few hits. I can't see much detail about her though.♦ Dr. Blofeld 21:02, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy keep per WP:SK#1. Nomination withdrawn with no outstanding delete votes. (non-admin closure) • Gene93k (talk) 20:14, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sister MAYO[edit]

Sister MAYO (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Hardly any presence on Oricon. Has she charted under any of her names. Otherwise she sings on a few anime songs. Not sure whether that is enough to keep her around. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 21:53, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn by nominator She has a single solo hit that charted, but was also involved in a band/group Project R that has reached top ten. The Japanese wikipedia article for her is decently sourced, so will need someone to bring that content over. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 15:14, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 21:53, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 21:53, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 21:53, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Pinging Prosperosity to check on charting history. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 21:54, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment
  • "The Power of Love" (1997, among Cyber Nation Network) #94
  • "Love Tropicana Final" (2003, solo) #108
  • "Enjin First Lap" (double A-side with Engine Sentai Go-onger) (2008, Project.R(Takayoshi Tanimoto, Sister Mayo, Kenichiro Oishi) wih Enjin Kids) #4
  • "Enjin Second Lap (Turbo Custom)" (2008, Project.R（Hideaki Takatori, Mayumi Gojo, Takayoshi Tanimoto, Sister Mayo, Kenichiro Oishi) with Enjin Kids) #39
  • "Super Sentai Hero Getter" (double A-side with Kaizoku Sentai Gokaiger) (2011, Project.R (Tsuyoshi Matsubara, Hideyuki Takahashi, Yoffy, Imajo, Hideaki Takatori, Sister Mayo, Takayoshi Tanimoto, NoB, Takafumi Iwasaki, Kenichiro Oishi, Hiroaki Kagoshima, 、Mayumi Gojo, Saki Oshitani) #9
  • "Jonetsu (We Are Bothers)" (2012, among Hero Music All Stars) #56
Between her Cyber Nation Network, solo and Project.R work there definitely seems to be an argument for notability (especially the "Enjin First Lap" single), but only really if the article has enough content to warrant it. --Prosperosity (talk) 03:33, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. That might be enough to keep it around. I'll withdraw for now and see if we can get someone to translate and reference that. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 15:14, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
No problem =). If you cant find anything useful from those references feel free to re-nominate. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 15:19, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 23:23, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Seth MacFarlane's fictional universe[edit]

Seth MacFarlane's fictional universe (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I thought it was odd, that the article doesn't mention anything that says how the shows are connected; how they're part of the same fictional universe. As far as I can tell from Google search results, there actually isn't a fictional universe based upon Seth MacFarlane's work. This is either WP:OR or WP:SYNTH. soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 21:46, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Apparently it was originally listed for speedy deletion but the creator of the article asked for 30 days to make the article better. The last edit the creator made to the article was 4 days later and when the month's time was almost up he disappeared from Wikipedia completely. --Mr. Magoo (talk) 21:54, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 00:00, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:DEL6 as original research. I could not find reliable sources that discuss the concept of "Seth MacFarlane's fictional universe." -- Notecardforfree (talk) 00:21, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:33, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:09, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 23:27, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Shingo Kobayashi[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Shingo Kobayashi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No notable lead roles according to MADB. [7] Key animation and photography aren't lead roles. Need sources to prove he is independently notable. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 20:20, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 20:21, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 20:21, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 20:21, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This seems to be a problem for production assistants and other crew members as well. There are plenty of shows where they have worked on but his role in particular isn't listed among the MADB. Also he is not listed in the Japanese Wikipedia anymore, unless someone got his kanji wrong. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 20:25, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I had no better luck finding sources to back this up than I did when I proposed it for deletion in 2010, and no new sources have appeared here in the interim. --joe deckertalk 20:31, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Couldn't find anything but minor listings of these credits. I'm also curious: what has he produced to be a producer? I checked the entire list and it was mostly key animation and photography. The closest thing was the lone visual effects supervision. --Mr. Magoo (talk) 20:39, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as questionable for WP:CREATIVE. SwisterTwister talk 05:57, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Overall consensus is Keep (non-admin closure) –Davey2010Talk 20:09, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delta Waterfowl Foundation[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Delta Waterfowl Foundation (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No real claim to notability and only one primary source.

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:01, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:01, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well I'm seeing a bit of press coverage: eg [8], [9], but I'm not seeing much to suggest it is really notable. JMWt (talk) 20:42, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Biased keep: I've been on Wikipedia a long time, but always steered clear of AfD. Today I decided to look into nominating Indeterminacy in concurrent computation for deletion (the original contributor Carl Hewitt was banned from Wikipedia for life around 2009; as a working computer scientist, I find this article too hairy to salvage, but I've decided I'm not going to pony up for the AfD process having looked at it).
When I came here I was more than mildly shocked to see Delta Waterfowl up for deletion. My wife once worked there (Manitoba) long ago (predator management phase). My impression is that within the wetland conservation community, Delta Waterfowl is far from non-notable. Think of it this way. A not-for-profit can spend its donations on self-promotion (many sources, few accomplishments) or it can go the other direction (fewer sources, more accomplishments). Are we here to punish them for spending less on their publicity engine than they otherwise might have? Disease, meet master.

Delta Waterfowl's research data, in many cases, has been the cornerstone of duck and geese understanding. Such research was the impetus for establishing a spring breeding survey. Most of the basic understanding about prairie breeding ecology and even winter ecology has been a result of Delta Waterfowl research.
...
"When you look at administrative and overhead, Delta Waterfowl is about as skinny as you'll find," says Devney.

Both of those statements accord with my personal perspective, one step removed, for what it's worth. On the flip side, the organization is extremely inbred, with membership consisting almost exclusively of duck hunters. — MaxEnt 20:54, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Footnote: just for the record, the fabulous little marbled polecat article (obscure species, referenced to the hilt) came out of my wife's relationship with a scientist who once worked there, from long ago when I encouraged her to take a stab at this new thing. He was typical of many interns who once went through that program. — MaxEnt 21:12, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:06, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Manitoba-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:06, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:06, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy delete. WP:G7, both major contributors agreed at User_talk:Jonathan_A_Jones#G._Kogelen_Govindasamy czar 12:44, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

G. Kogelen Govindasamy[edit]

G. Kogelen Govindasamy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Subject is not genuinely notable, and original page was created as a vanity page by a close colleague of the subject, User:Aero777. The page was trimmed back to only contain information with some support in relaible sources, but this has not establisehd notability. The subject has now requested deletion through his close colleague: see the discussion at User talk:Jonathan A Jones#G. Kogelen Govindasamy. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 18:41, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Just to re-affirm, Dr. Kogelen hopes that the page G. Kogelen Govindasamy could be deleted as soon as possible, as it is causing significant misunderstanding among his colleagues. I don't believe it is necessary to discuss or contest this deletion over the course of 1 week as per the usual policy, as both main editors involved have agreed to nominate it for deletion. Aero777 (talk) 00:06, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
On another note, I wish to disclose that I am affiliated with the subject, as per Wikipedia:Conflict of interest guidelines. Aero777 (talk) 04:03, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 19:20, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Bdview24.com[edit]

Bdview24.com (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Lacks significant coverage in reliable secondary sources. Adam9007 (talk) 18:23, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Unnotable, couldn't find anything but social media accounts bearing the same name and some statistics about the web page. --Mr. Magoo (talk) 18:43, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:58, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:58, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:58, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete When the page was first created I had tagged it for a CSD under the guises of a non-notable webpage. The claim of a high Alexa rating is dubious (see here:[15]) as in Bangladesh alone it's not even in the top 200. RickinBaltimore (talk) 21:11, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as advertising without any encyclopedic value, based on the website's registrant email of record and the fact that the article's patently false claims are disproven simply by clicking on the sole cited source. Worldbruce (talk) 05:18, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: I have found nothing to support the article's claims or to indicate attained encyclopaedic notability. Fails WP:CORPDEPTH, WP:NWEB, WP:GNG. AllyD (talk) 09:05, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

7 Seconds: A Typical Teenager, Atypical Life[edit]

The result was Speedy Delete, per article author choice. (non-admin closure) --Mr. Magoo (talk) 16:56, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

7 Seconds: A Typical Teenager, Atypical Life (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable book. Part of a little WP:Walled garden created to promote a non-notable author, whose bio article is also at Afd. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:56, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:57, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:57, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Update The article creator has just blanked the page and it has been tagged for speedy deletion. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:50, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Close Yeah I think this can be closed this instant. --Mr. Magoo (talk) 16:51, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 by Titodutta per WP:G7. North America1000 12:42, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Atul Kaushal[edit]

Atul Kaushal (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable BLP without a single reliable source. Added references from hellopoetry.com, blogspot.in, amazon.com and wattpad.com. BLP prodded earlier and deprodded by User:Madhur Sagar Gupta whose only two contributions are 1. this deprodding & 2. reviewing a recent article 7 Seconds: A Typical Teenager, Atypical Life, a novel of Atul Kaushal. Also possible COI editing by User:Aks23121990. 23121990 is Atul Kaushal's date of birth. Vipinhari || talk 15:42, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:53, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:53, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please check the citation number 18. It is a clear proof of his critical acclaim. Don't delete this article by being paranoid. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aks23121990 (talk • contribs) 16:03, 22 February 2016 (UTC) And please check any of the many other citations than being so paranoid or judgemental. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aks23121990 (talk • contribs) 16:17, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

...and I've just issued the above editor his first warning for personal attacks. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:29, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
...and I've just ended up deleting both my articles. This place is very hostile. Aks23121990 (talk) 16:49, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rick, the article creator blanking the page was a speedy deletion request, essentially. I've tagged it accordingly. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:54, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I hadn't realized that was the editor until after the fact. RickinBaltimore (talk) 17:05, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 19:19, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

TechFly[edit]

TechFly (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:ORGSIG and appears to be self-promotional NottNott talk|contrib 15:33, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:31, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:31, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:31, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:31, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:31, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:31, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: No evidence of attained notability. AllyD (talk) 08:38, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I am not seeing any significant coverage in reliable independent sources. None at all, actually, which is surprising considering the weak assertions of notability made in the lead section, barely enough to escape speedy deletion WP:CSD#A7. ~Amatulić (talk) 23:15, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as searches unfortunately founded nothing noticeably better. SwisterTwister talk 07:24, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Sarahj2107 (talk) 10:40, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Kanoah Tests[edit]

Kanoah Tests (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

contested prod. WP:SPA editor recently added this article about a product that does not meet WP:GNG Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:29, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Why is my article proposed for deletion?

It does have reliable sources, actual people talking about Kanoah Tests

Other editors have submitted similar articles and nobody proposed these for deletion

TestLink
TestTrack
HP Quality Center
Rational Quality Manager

I feel like I'm being discriminated — Preceding unsigned comment added by Amaderna (talk • contribs) 16:38, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • I am sorry you're feeling discriminated against. I have no intention of doing so. Those other articles have significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject (see WP:GNG). I could not find that for Kanoah Tests. Those other products are stand-alone, not plug-ins, which may explain why they have significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent. Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:57, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:29, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:29, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:29, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete at best and only draft & userfy if needed as none of this better satisfies the web notability. SwisterTwister talk 07:25, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless better sources are found and included or presented here to establish notability clearly. At presnet the StilSoft source is the only one that looks both reliable and in-depth. The Favio Genovese source is a blog. The QuaTest. source includes the phrase "As beta testers, we are working very closely the Kanoah team." It is not independent. The G2Crowd source looks to be user-generated content and hence not reliable for Wikipedia. The QA Testing Tools source is rather brief, and seems to be based on a press release. The Advandus source includes the text "Advandus is available in an advisory capacity as an official partner of Kanoah for the success of your projects." and so is also not independent. We need independent published reliable sources to establish notability, with some depth of coverage. DES (talk) 02:29, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per the above. WP:USUAL applies, of course - if the system gets more notice in independent, reliable sources (as defined by our policies), then perhaps an article might work. Unfortunately, we're not there yet. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 21:21, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 19:17, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

List of Overwatch characters[edit]

List of Overwatch characters (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG and is WP:GAMETRIVIA. Only source is a primary one, by developer. No word on development or reception of characters. See also this discussion at WP:VG. soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 14:37, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete this is blatantly crystal-balling about the future notability of characters in an unreleased video game. Axem Titanium (talk) 15:41, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 17:21, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 17:21, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Snow keep. The topic unto itself is notable; to the extent that sources may differ on what counts as whitewashing, our article should outline the disagreement, per the WP:BALANCE section of the NPOV policy. Father Goose (talk) 21:43, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

List of films featuring whitewashed roles[edit]

List of films featuring whitewashed roles (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

What is considered whitewashing often varies by source, and therefore this article is not from a NPOV. For example, Argo is listed here, and while it is true that there was controversy over the casting, Mendez, the person Affleck portrayed, has said that he does not identify as Hispanic. JDDJS (talk) 14:03, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 14:13, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 14:13, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep since the notability of the topic is demonstrated by multiple reliable sources shown in the article. In fact, Gods of Egypt opening this weekend has been written about because of its whitewashing. In addition to the sources seen in the "References" section, there are even more listed at Talk:List of films featuring whitewashed roles#References to use. Editor is being highly abrasive in wanting to delete any mention of this topic on Wikipedia because they have a concern about one film being listed. AfD is not cleanup. If the topic is clearly notable, and the actual content can be improved, then deletion is absolutely not warranted. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 14:21, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    As TriiipleThreat articulated below, films that have been debated about back and forth have the different perspectives represented in the article. For example, Ridley Scott justifies the whitewashing of Exodus: Gods and Kings, and his statement is included with the film's entry. The same applies for various other films where such commentary exists (e.g., Hud). Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 14:28, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    I apologize, I thought that the Argo entry mentioned Tony Mendez's statement. I've expanded the entry to include his statement, like other entries have involved parties' statements when they are responses to the criticisms. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 14:35, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    This topic was even covered by John Oliver last night; see Variety. Many of the films (if not all) that appeared in his episode also appear in this list. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 18:34, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: The list is well referenced and exceeds our general notability guidelines. Our only responsibility is that the list is free of original research and written from a neutral point of view, which it appears to be. The example the nominator mentions is verified by multiple citations. Although the subject in this particular example may not consider himself Hispanic, the sources clearly state that the role has been whitewashed. It might be worth noting the subject's opinion but this is an issue that can be resolved by normal editing.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 14:23, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:55, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - clearly a notable topic. Blythwood (talk) 17:30, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep well referenced, clearly passes the GNG, nominator's only argument is that sources don't always agree about the definition of the term which is a terrible argument since sources disagree all the time. Wugapodes (talk) 17:44, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep if reliable sources mention a role as whitewashed, we can include it, regardless of if other sources disagree (we could always mention that they disagree, if relevant.)SatansFeminist (talk) 19:15, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Notable topic, well-sourced article. I see no problem. Dimadick (talk) 21:28, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep per failure to perform WP:BEFORE. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 03:10, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • That's not a speedy keep criterion. WP:BEFORE is not mandatory and is actually largely discredited. Reyk YO! 12:30, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • Reyk, curious to ask, how is WP:BEFORE largely discredited? Editors don't have to check for a topic's notability before putting it up for AfD? Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 14:22, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        • This was discussed here, and the consensus was that WP:BEFORE is not mandatory. It was also widely felt that WP:BEFORE was, and is, too often used as a club to attack nominators. There were also concerns about it being filled with unhelpful and unproductive hurdles. Reyk YO! 14:36, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
          • Thanks for the link! I'm fine with that consensus. I usually bring up WP:BEFORE to ask the nominator to do some brief research before nominating (for their future edits). While it may be too late at a given AfD, hopefully it has meant that the editor will review future discoveries more closely and nominate only the articles that really warrant it. Agree that it should not be a mandatory practice but rather just a best practice for long-term editors. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 14:45, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Article has plenty of sources. If the entries are contentious, they can be discussed on the talk page or at WP:NPOVN. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 03:13, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per all the above. If you have an issue with one entry on the list, it's best to raise your concerns on the article's talkpage, instead of nominating the whole thing for deletion. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 07:48, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep- per all above. Disagreeing about one entry on a list does not mean deleting the whole thing. Reyk YO! 12:30, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am troubled as I am at other articles I see at AFD by the lack of definition. The first sentence of the lede makes a sweeping statement. The second sentence mentions African-Americans. So is the topic American films or films? Does it include the Bollywood films that prefer Kashmiri and Indian Jewish actors because their skin is whiter than the nation as a whole? Chinese, Japanese, Turkish, Spanish, Italian and Latin American film industry preferences for whiter complexioned actors and, more dramatically, whiter complexioned actresses in countries with large ranges of skin-tone?E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:43, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    E.M.Gregory, there used to be a sentence stating that this was common as part of the film industry in the United States. I've recalled it to life. I have not seen any coverage about Bollywood films in searching for coverage about whitewashing. That might need to be a distinct topic regarding skin tone in film, maybe the same umbrella as for advertising in general. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 16:50, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    To follow up, I found this, "In India's movie industry, the world's largest, scripts often follow a strict skin-to-character correlation, with light-skinned actresses in the major roles and dark-skinned actresses relegated to supporting characters." So there is definitely opportunity to write about this topic. However, I don't think it falls under the same umbrella as this whitewashing, which is Western-focused. It could be linked as a tangential topic in the "See also" section. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 16:57, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Erik: They use a different term, which I cannot recall; life would be easier if Brits Aussies, and English-speaking Indians spoke American. It is discussed, there and in several other countries. In some, including India, it also discussed in the context of those horrible, and dangerous, skin treatments young actresses put on their faces to "whiten" the skin. shudder. I do think a definition in the lede specifying that this article describes a practice in the American film industry is necessary.E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:07, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep Whitewashing in Hollywood is absolutely a notable subject. – Muboshgu (talk) 05:46, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: It seems like one of the main issues with the article is really the title - that these are alleged cases of whitewashing. How about just retitling it to something like List of films featuring roles described as whitewashing or something like that? The list itself starts with the claim "Films in the list below have been described as whitewashed" and retitling it would reflect on this rather than making it sound like an absolute. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 06:00, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    It's a worthwhile suggestion. I've replied to you on the talk page. Other editors are welcome to comment as well. Discussion thread is here. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 12:39, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Snow keep Clearly notable and the act described continues even though this is 2016. MarnetteD|Talk 17:31, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Wyckoff School District (non-admin closure). Sir Sputnik (talk) 21:55, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Eisenhower Middle School (Wyckoff)[edit]

Eisenhower Middle School (Wyckoff) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This is an article about a US middle school with no clear claim of notability. Historically, (see WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES) these are almost always redirected to the appropriate school district article, in this case Wyckoff School District. This action was taken boldly, but has been opposed, so it is being brought here for consensus. Jacona (talk) 13:13, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. ~~
Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:07, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Wyckoff School District. The school did win a national award, however there are 7,000 other schools in the U.S. that have won the Blue Ribbon Award for Excellence, so I am not sure if this would satisfy WP:GNG. The only other claim of notability might be the alumni, but again notability is not inherited. RickinBaltimore (talk) 14:35, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Wyckoff School District as per above - I would be bold and close as Merge myself but I know all kinds of shit will happen so figured I'd !vote instead, As noted above non-notable middle schools are merged to the school district which in this case is [Wyckoff School District]]. –Davey2010Talk 20:14, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 anyone wishes to retrieve it following the election, please see WP:REFUND. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 19:13, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Siân Gwenllian[edit]

Siân Gwenllian (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I don't think this person meets WP:POLITICIAN. Simply standing as a Plaid candidate is not sufficient, unless she wins the seat and gets in. Being a councillor is not especially significant as there are so many of them, and the level of news coverage is sufficient for me to think we should err on the side of caution with this one. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 13:02, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 13:44, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wales-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 13:44, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for now. We'll probably have to recreate the article in a few weeks' time, but POLITICIAN is clear that candidacy and local government do not confer notability. Frinton100 (talk) 21:11, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Local government does not confer an automatic WP:NPOL pass on every local councillor who exists, being an as yet unelected candidate for higher office doesn't boost her includability at all, and the only source here is a primary source profile on her own political party's website — and even a politician who has a clean NPOL claim still doesn't get to keep that kind of article based on that kind of sourcing. No prejudice against recreation if she wins the seat in the upcoming election, but nothing here gets her an article today. Bearcat (talk) 21:37, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Ran a Proquest search just to check, a couple of hundred articles about her, sehe is clearly a very competent politician, stepped down from her cabinet her job running the schools, youth services in the 3-county region (pop. ~172,000) to run. As Finton100 says, the article will very likely have to be recreated after the polls close.E.M.Gregory (talk) 00:58, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Given she's contesting prime Plaid Cymru territory, perhaps it would make more sense to draft / userfy the article, until the election's over? I recall a similar thing happening to Mhairi Black; you could almost pinpoint the precise moment at the 2015 General Election where she went from borderline speedy to obvious WP:POLITICIAN. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 14:03, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, that's absolutely an option as well. However, I foresee the definite danger that if we do that, it will be deemed as establishing a precedent that any premature article about an as-yet-unelected candidate for office can always be kept in draftspace pending the results of the election — so then draftspace would turn into exactly the repository of campaign brochures for political candidates that we're trying to prevent mainspace from becoming. So it's worth remembering that we do also have the option of simply restoring the deleted article after election day if she wins, which runs a lot less risk of setting a dangerous precedent. Bearcat (talk) 21:08, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Bearcat here. I was going to make a similar suggestion myself, but then thought of the issue of setting a precedent. I don't think we should go down this road for precisely the reasons Bearcat outlined. Far better to delete for now, and then restore if/when necessary. Frinton100 (talk) 23:10, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you both for falling so neatly into my little trap, which I hope was not quite an abuse because it was also a sincere question. I wanted to hear you say it so that I could add it to WP:POLOUTCOMES, which I have found to be a very useful resource.E.M.Gregory (talk) 02:04, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Bearcat walks away muttering under his breath Bearcat (talk) 03:25, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to the election article. Should she lose, this is what we'd do anyway. Should she win, undoing it will be easy. In the mean time, we avoid the potential of having a keep-as-draft precedent. Either way, her name is a good search target; there wouldn't be anything wrong with creating this title as a redirect to the election if someone hadn't yet created it already. Nyttend (talk) 02:57, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 has been speedy deleted at 21:22, 22 February 2016 by Ponyo (talk · contribs) (G5: Creation by a blocked or banned user in violation of block or ban) (non-admin closure) | Uncle Milty | talk | 21:59, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nextream[edit]

Nextream (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Speedy delete per G5: Article was created by confirmed sock of User:Martimc123. I bring it here because G5 tag was removed by SPA which has not been SPI'd yet. —teb728 t c 11:35, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:20, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:20, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Procedural note Speedy deleted as CSD G5; the article was created by a block evading sock and all major contributions to the article were by sock accounts.--Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 21:25, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 19:03, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Uluğ Kaçaniku[edit]

Uluğ Kaçaniku (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This basketballer does not seem notable after discussions in Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Basketball#Balkan league. He has not played in notable league and from what I can see no international matches played. Almost same reasoning as previously deleted article at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Drilon Hajrizi Qed237 (talk) 11:18, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 13:41, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albania-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 13:41, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:19, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) Yash! 17:26, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Edmond Azemi[edit]

Edmond Azemi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This basketballer, created by sockpuppet, does not seem notable after discussions in Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Basketball#Driloon77 and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Basketball#Balkan league. He has not played in notable league and from what I can see no international matches played. Same reasoning as previously deleted article at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Drilon Hajrizi Qed237 (talk) 11:15, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 13:39, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Kosovo-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 13:39, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:18, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
According to the link provided in my nomination, Balkan League is not enough for notability. Qed237 (talk) 12:46, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) Yash! 17:27, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Samir Shaptahoviç[edit]

Samir Shaptahoviç (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This basketballer, created by sockpuppet, does not seem notable after discussions in Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Basketball#Driloon77 and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Basketball#Balkan league. He has not played in notable league and from what I can see no international matches played for "Kosovo national basketball team". Same reasoning as previously deleted article at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Drilon Hajrizi Qed237 (talk) 11:14, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 13:37, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Kosovo-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 13:37, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:17, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 HyperGaruda. (non-admin closure) Nordic Dragon 12:28, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

AfDs for this article:

Muhammad Abdul Qadeer Siddiqi Qadri[edit]

Muhammad Abdul Qadeer Siddiqi Qadri (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not sourced. unencypedic, notabilty. Krj373*(talk), *(contrib) 10:24, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 10:33, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 10:33, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. joe deckertalk 04:49, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Captain Pawan Kumar[edit]

Captain Pawan Kumar (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:SOLDIER - WP is not a memorial Gbawden (talk) 10:20, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 10:32, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 10:32, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - subject fails WP:GNG due to lack of significant coverage. Current coverage seems to be passing only, as it is mostly limited to local news items that recount the circumstances of his death etc. If the incident he was killed in is notable some of these details could be used to write an article on that though. Anotherclown (talk) 23:57, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Junior officer. No significant gallantry decorations. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:10, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:02, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Sarahj2107 (talk) 10:38, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Proclamation[edit]

The Proclamation (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I can't find any reliable sources to prove the Wp:NOTABILITY. Searching Google for "Проглашенie 1809" returns nothing. Searching for "Proclamation +Serbia +1809" also returns nothing, and it's similar when searching for "Проглашење +1809 " [16]. Vanjagenije (talk) 10:17, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 10:34, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Serbia-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 10:34, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. For my part, I thoroughly searched the Project Rastko website, including the Ćorović's History of the Serbs [17], but found nothing remotely resembling the said document. The article is completely unreferenced, and fails to even explain what the purported Proclamation was about and why it was important. No such user (talk) 11:36, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:14, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nominator and No such user. Not even close to passing WP:GNG. Appears to be entirely original research.--Ddcm8991 (talk) 04:10, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I proded it, was erroneously declined. Does not warrant an article whatsoever.--Zoupan 13:25, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Original research, POV, unsourced, block user, etc. 23 editor (talk) 15:01, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge -- I have no view on whether or not this is original research, in effect invention. The article does have a source. I do not understand Serbo-Croat, but can make out words that look like archives and Zagreb, which makes me think it is not invention. I fully agree that it does not warrant a WP article; and certainly not one with this title, but it could conveniently be quoted at length in the article for which there is a current merge request. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:12, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. joe deckertalk 04:50, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Cool Beans Productions[edit]

Cool Beans Productions (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

fails WP:CORP. could not find any significant coverage. Nothing in gnews . I wonder if someone following me in AfDs will suddenly appear here as well. LibStar (talk) 10:01, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: Highbeam searches identify unrelated "Cool Beans" ventures in various countries, but only a brief Coventry Evening Telegraph mention (2001) for this firm: [18]  – via HighBeam (subscription required) . There is also the complication of a current Cool Beans Productions website, also based in Sheffield [19] but started 8 years after this firm ceased and apparently unrelated. That leaves reliance on the references in the article. The best is probably the Edge magazine feature, which does not appear to be available on their website search, but overall there does not seem to be enough to sustain an article as per WP:CORPDEPTH. AllyD (talk) 16:32, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:13, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Webcomics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:13, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:13, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:13, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:13, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:13, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Discussion about the merits of individual entries on the dab are best left to its talk page. (non-admin closure) ansh666 10:15, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hornsea (disambiguation)[edit]

Hornsea (disambiguation) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Disambiguation page for articles whose names are not ambiguous. I don't believe the plain word "Hornsea" is used to refer to e.g. the Hornsea Wind Farm. Per MOS:DABNOENTRY. The creator of the page previously contested a proposed deletion. -- intgr [talk] 09:22, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 13:33, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Mild Keep: The pottery is definitely known as "Hornsea" -example http://chinasearch.co.uk/buy/hornsea/cornrose/ - though could perhaps be done by a hatnote. The others are partial titles, but of the sort which commonly are allowed onto dab pages. Given that there are two "Hornsea Station"s, it's useful to have this dab page which distinguishes them. The wind farm ... no, can't really justify. There seems to exist a Hornsea Town FC, but the only mention in Wikipedia is its reserves team playing in East Riding County League. PamD 09:24, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Found the FC, playing in Humber Premier League, and added to dab page. PamD 09:27, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
And if you look at Hornsea Wind Farm the refs all refer to it as "Hornsea", "Hornsea 1", "Hornsea Project" etc, so I think it has a valid place in the dab page. PamD 09:30, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hornsea is massively collectable, in a 60s-retro-chic sort of way; everyone's parents had it. Just look on ebay. (Perhaps has to be ebay.co.uk rather than ebay.com) PamD 09:44, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I'm wondering if intgr is familiar with the way dab pages are being used, as all or most items on that page could be (colloquially) called Hornsea. Besides, the dab page isn't even the primary topic. --Midas02 (talk) 06:23, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, I'm familiar with disambiguation pages, including the reasons why, for example, the Sydney (disambiguation) page doesn't include a link to Sydney Opera House. -- intgr [talk] 00:56, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Well, that's not the same. The opera house would be a clear partial match, the items on that page aren't. The railway stations are typically included on dab pages (he took the train at Hornsea), the football club as well (they played Hornsea). Leaves the pottery, which I wouldn't include, but PamD refuted that, and the wind farm, which is borderline, but given the shortness of this page, I would err towards leaving it. --Midas02 (talk) 02:23, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) Yash! 17:21, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Finery (company)[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Finery (company) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Currently a non-notable fashion label with very limited retail presence. Wikipedia is not a business directory. Shritwod (talk) 08:45, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 13:32, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 13:32, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I'll confess that I didn't see the first AfD, but the reference list is thin in my opinion. It largely looks like PR filler picked up by these publications, there seems to be little of susbtance with this company. Shritwod (talk) 17:01, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Subjects are not judged on their notability by the reference list of a given article. If you do not know that then you should not be nominating articles for AfD. Softlavender (talk) 00:34, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, but you still haven't come up with a reason why this should merit an entry in Wikipedia. It has no online stores, turnover is just £5m and all the press seems to be very little more than PR fluff, as is this article. Obviously you think this startup is important, and maybe it will be. But having a good PR department is not a good reason to have an article about your company. Shritwod (talk) 19:11, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
As was amply demonstrated in the first AfD, it easily meets WP:GNG and WP:CORPDEPTH. Softlavender (talk) 04:36, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:11, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:11, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Karen Dacre (10 November 2015). "Don your Finery: we meet the high-street heroines who called time on fast fashion". Evening Standard. Retrieved 17 January 2016.
  • "Finery London, An Affordable, Zara-Like Store, Is Definitely Going To Be A Staple In My Wardrobe". Bustle. Retrieved 17 January 2016. {{cite web}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)
  • Aude Lagorce (3 February 2015). "New British Label Finery London Makes Affordable Look Good". The Wall Street Journal. Retrieved 17 January 2016.
  • "Finery: The label for women who have grown out of topshop and asos". The Australian. Retrieved 17 January 2016. (subscription required)
  • "Finery London created by former Topshop and ASOS designers lands in Australia". Daily Mail. 30 March 2015. Retrieved 17 January 2016.
  • "Shopping Fix: Our Edit Of The Best Pieces From Finery London". Grazia Daily. Retrieved 17 January 2016.
  • "Finery London Launches This Week & Grazia Readers Get A Discount, Hurrah!". Grazia Daily. Retrieved 17 January 2016.
  • Leaper, Caroline. "Finery London". Marie Claire. Retrieved 17 January 2016.
– North America1000 12:53, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Withdraw - my interpretation of what is notable coverage is clearly at odds with the other editors here. I personally don't think that recycled PR guff makes a reliable news story, but I feel the weight of opinion is against me. Since I think this is likely to go "Keep" despite my arguments, I hereby withdraw the AfD. Shritwod (talk) 17:00, 24 February 2016 (UTC) Actually, it turns out I am not alone so I go back to Delete.[reply]
I have removed bold from the word "delete" in the comment above by the nominator, because this could be misunderstood as a new !vote. The nomination itself is the !vote. North America1000 07:45, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. These are all news reports about the company. Learn what a primary source is, and try treating news reports as secondary sources in academic writing, before you vote to keep an article based on newspaper articles like these. Nyttend (talk) 03:02, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • It just looks like filler based on press releases to me, and therefore not independent of the source. Shritwod (talk) 07:09, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Press releases are labeled "press release" wherever they occur in news media. Bylined articles are written by the author indicated. Significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject is significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject. Softlavender (talk) 04:36, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - for same reason as I argued in the last AfD. The page lacks references but the "Further readings" and "External links" covering the subject could be worked into the article. Meatsgains (talk) 03:55, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Sarahj2107 (talk) 10:36, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Maranuli[edit]

Maranuli (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I couldn't establish that it meets WP:ORG or WP:GNG. Using AfD rather than prod as worried I'm missing something in other languages. Boleyn (talk) 07:12, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please hold for a while. I have asked some native speakers of Georgian to take a look at this article. --Fadesga (talk) 11:22, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wine-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 13:31, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Georgia (country)-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 13:31, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:09, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:09, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:09, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete at best for now and then draft & userfy for further analysis if needed because my searches noticeably found nothing better. SwisterTwister talk 07:28, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I was unable to find the key ingredient for keeping an article: significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. Not even one source. Perhaps there are some in a foreign language? The sources given in the article are either primary sources or directory entries. ~Amatulić (talk) 00:02, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 18:50, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Soyo Oka[edit]

Soyo Oka (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article topic lacks significant coverage from reliable, independent sources. (?) No in-depth coverage on the individual in a video game reliable sources custom Google search. I don't see a particularly relevant redirect option. czar 06:24, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. czar 06:24, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. North America1000 06:52, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. North America1000 06:52, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. North America1000 06:53, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd say delete or redirect to Super Mario Kart, the game she's most associated with. The only real reference we have on her is the one I linked in the talk page a while back. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 10:46, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete at best because, unless there's enough convincing to move to Super Mario Kart as mentioned above, there's nothing to suggest a solidly independently notable article. SwisterTwister talk 05:47, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. She isn't notable enough to warrant a page on Wikipedia, though she's still more notable than some other VGM composers with articles here. DrDevilFX (talk) 17:48, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete--Ymblanter (talk) 07:51, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

UKW – UK Wrestling Experience[edit]

UKW – UK Wrestling Experience (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Doesn't meet WP:GNG. Nikki♥311 04:48, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. Nikki♥311 04:49, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Has been tagged for failing to meet GNG since 2011 and there hasn't been much improvement since.LM2000 (talk) 05:19, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. North America1000 06:56, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. North America1000 06:56, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:59, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:59, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. WP:DINC (non-admin closure) sst✈ 05:08, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Council of International Students Australia[edit]

Council of International Students Australia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Mostly a directory, this article lacks the sourcing to suggest this organization is notable, and such organizations are certainly not automatically notable. Drmies (talk) 21:43, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. This is the national representative body for international students in Australia, and a major policy organisation in issues relating to higher education. This set of nominations are utterly bizarre: Drmies is running around nominating organisations with long histories and detailed book and newspaper coverage going back decades; it takes only the tiniest of knowledge of the subject to know that the collapse of this organisation's direct predecessor made very memorable national news, and in this case I found about ten major newspaper articles specifically about it in the first three pages of Google. I know he's a prominent editor, but this is the sort of set of nominations that deserves a block for disruption. (For context, this editor nominated the Monash University student union, an organisation with a UC Berkeley-like history that is ridiculously well reported on in all manner of sources, for speedy deletion, which shows the level of diligence that went on beforehand.) The Drover's Wife (talk) 22:14, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • This editor is trying to make this personal? I see no actual arguments here for keeping it, like links to discussion of the subject in reliable sources. If the editor wishes to argue that this nomination is somehow in bad faith, and that somehow I need to be blocked for nominating this horribly poorly referenced articles that consists mostly of chatter and directory information, I'll wait for the ANI nomination. Drmies (talk) 01:33, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - You said "...organisations with long histories and detailed book and newspaper coverage going back decades; it takes only the tiniest of knowledge of the subject to know that the collapse of this organisation's direct predecessor made very memorable national news..."
This organization was formed in 2010 according to the article. That's not a long history. What happened to this organization's predecessor lends no automatic notability to the subject of this article, as notability is not inherited. However, you apparently have found a few good references, so perhaps those could be added to the article, as it has none right now that show evidence of notability. --| Uncle Milty | talk | 13:37, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Yngvadottir (talk) 03:46, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Yngvadottir (talk) 03:46, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. North America1000 06:11, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: The article certainly needs a cleanup to remove the directory aspects of the article, but as The Drover's Wife has indicated above, there are certainly sources available to confirm the entity's notability. AtHomeIn神戸 (talk) 00:51, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 14:35, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 04:43, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Appears notable, and has encyclopedic value. Unclear why nominator wishes to delete. Aeonx (talk) 20:44, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete, uncontested. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 18:47, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jamie Estelle[edit]

Jamie Estelle (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:CREATIVE. There is a lack of significant third party coverage about this woman. She is a jewelry designer who had pieces used on TV shows. The sourcing is horrible, mostly YouTube, Facebook and Etsy. Once those are gone, there is little left. A minor piece from a local radio station is probably the closest thing to actual coverage by a reliable source. She may be notable later, but not yet. Appears to be more of a promotion than an encyclopedia article. Article was PROD'd, but the author (who has no edits anywhere else), removed the PROD without comment.Niteshift36 (talk) 21:36, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:57, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:57, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 04:38, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:02, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:02, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Lack of sourcing, the best/only noteworthy hit I have found is a piece on The Examiner, but the entire website has been (dubiously, IMO) blacklisted as a source. Mabalu (talk) 03:57, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. North America1000 08:47, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Carlo Maley[edit]

Carlo Maley (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Notability not demonstrated. Two references, one dead, the other to a site that barely mentions him (brief info at http://cancer.ucsf.edu/people/profiles/maley_carlo.3321, nothing at http://cancer.ucsf.edu/about/leadership) Dweller (talk) 14:56, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 04:22, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There's a good run down here: https://sols.asu.edu/people/carlo-c-maley I am not sure if he is notable but his work is interesting and, as far as I can tell, original. The article is probably promotional but maybe he has something to shout about. Philafrenzy (talk) 00:56, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Unquestionable keep, meets WP:PROF as an expert in his field on two grounds: first, on the basis of the citation record: his most cited papers have 876, 848, 413, 235, 188, 183 citations. Even in biomedicine where citation s are high, 2 papers with over 100 citations each has always been enough here to show status as an expert, and this is many times that. His expert status is also shown by being the director of a major laboratory at one of the most important medical schools in the world. citations. the article is incompetent, and was clearly written in ignorance of our practices and our standarda, but it should have been fixed, not nominated for deletion. The GNG is irrelevant if it meets WP:PROF. DGG ( talk ) 22:49, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as all of this seems convincing enough. SwisterTwister talk 00:42, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 00:43, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 00:43, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 00:43, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • DGG, if you can add something to the article, I'd be happy to withdraw the nom and call for this to be speedy kept. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 14:28, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:56, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. The article's subject is found to lack notability. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 19:43, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

List of fictional universes in games[edit]

List of fictional universes in games (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Seems to fail WP:LISTN as the set of items "fictional universes in games" does not, as a wide topic of interest, have reliable sources. The list will never be complete (or thorough!) without inclusion of every universe; even taking into account that we should probably only include notable universes, this list is also seems to violate WP:NOT in its trivial intersection of fictional universes in games. Izno (talk) 14:34, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Izno (talk) 14:35, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Izno (talk) 14:35, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:09, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with List of fictional towns in video games to create List of fictional locations in video games. See the AfD for the list of towns for my justification/sources. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 17:41, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Izno. A list article of "universes" is not needed, it works better as a category. For instance, listed here are fictional worlds like Warcraft#Azeroth, the city Rapture (BioShock) and campaign settings like Hârn. A lot of these are redirects to the games they belong to, like Dragonstar, Shadow World and Gensokyo. This list is near-inexhaustive; besides the fact that fictional universes like Middle-earth and the Star Wars universe also appear in games, we could also wonder if games like Mass Effect (supposedly in "our" Galaxy) are "fictional". I've nominated Hero Universe for deletion as well. --Soetermans. T / C 15:05, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Soetermans: Per WP:NOTDUP categories and lists aren't in competition, but more importantly nobody says it has to be exhaustible or that it has to be limited to "universes". There are an awful lot of sources about game universes, game cities, game locations, etc. as a general concept such that the list subject is, in general, notable. List-level inclusion criteria can prevent it from becoming a free-for-all where people add every arbitrary level of every Mario Brothers game. There are lots of notable game worlds which are notable as a universe/location beyond the game itself. That it doesn't make sense to cover them in a stand-alone article doesn't mean they're not notable (e.g. Liberty City outside of GTA: Liberty City -- it doesn't make sense to cover them separately, but there are tons of sources about the city Liberty City as it exists in the game. It would be easy to state as a requirement that anything included in list of fictional locations in video games must be accompanied by sources to demonstrate notability of the location. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 15:22, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • (I'm just going to copy and paste my other comment) It would be inexhaustive. To give you an example: The Elder Scrolls are set on the planet Nirn (IGN, GamesRadar, PC Gamer). The games take place on the continent Tamriel (Engadget, Time), which consists of 9 provinces. Morrowind was set in Morrowind, (Rock, Paper, Shotgun, Eurogamer) Oblivion is set in Cyrodiil (Game Informer, Game Zone). It didn't took me long to look up these fictional locations, and I'm not even at the town, cities or encampments. And this is just one video game series. --Soetermans. T / C 15:30, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        • I'll just reply there and hope people follow the link. No sense in having parallel conversations. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 16:04, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, or merge with the other list, per Rhododendrites. James500 (talk) 23:26, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as discussed at WT:VG. As expected, another list with a vague scope collects a ton of cruft. If we had a defined set of "fictional universes" or even "fictional locations" in video games, there wouldn't be much of an issue, but right now there are so few independently notable that the ones that are are best tracked by a category. The proposed list here would collect every location that has ever been covered by a source, even if it isn't independently notable. Soetermans's second reply above nails the scope issues. czar 02:28, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 04:21, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:00, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment- I'm going to point out WP:NOTDIR item 6, which I had not know about prior to nomination (even though I referenced WP:NOT). --Izno (talk) 18:04, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • As the other AfD closed as "delete", "merge" makes less sense than an outright "delete" for this AfD. czar 04:39, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per WP:INDISCRIMINATE, same as the other AfD. Onel5969 TT me 13:41, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 18:41, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Massriot[edit]

Massriot (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

A rather promotional article, not citing any sources, and not in English. The subject may be suitable for a suitable article, but this is not that article. (Note: The creator of the article removed deletion proposal (PROD), without giving any reason for doing so.) The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 13:55, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 14:37, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Slovakia-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 14:37, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as none of this is comprehensible and imaginable for better notability, I would've likely PRODed unless this can actually be improved. SwisterTwister talk 21:10, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 04:16, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The article creator just copypasted the original article and then ended his Wikipedia career there. I don't think it'll be translated in years if it's kept. Then add on top of that all of the other mentioned problems. --Mr. Magoo (talk) 17:36, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • In addition it seems like our Slovakian friends may have deleted their version of the Massriot article because it only appears as a red link. --Mr. Magoo (talk) 17:39, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. joe deckertalk 04:58, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

AxCMS.net[edit]

AxCMS.net (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

A new user User:Adriana0567 has asked for this page to be deleted at WP:Help Desk#‎Delete Page Request. Having looked at it, there doesn't seem to be a depth of coverage to pass WP:GNG and WP:NSOFTWARE. Joseph2302 (talk) 12:19, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Harsh (talk) 19:17, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Harsh (talk) 19:17, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:19, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 04:12, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as searches found nothing better than a few passing mentions. SwisterTwister talk 03:02, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. North America1000 11:46, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Global Digital Mathematics Library[edit]

Global Digital Mathematics Library (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I believe that this is a case of WP:TOOSOON. From what I can tell from http://www.mathunion.org/ceic/wdml/ the library is a goal but doesn't yet exist. A working group has been established but until they produce or launch something tangible its TOOSOON Gbawden (talk) 09:26, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 12:24, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
This indeed a work in progress, albeit a very important one. A three-day meeting, attended by what was characterized in the announcement as "a small and select group of experts" (about 40), was held last week at the Fields Institute in Toronto with the goal of making progress towards such a library.
The main question was how mathematical knowledge should be represented in such a library. The main obstacle is that there are already a number of well-tested languages that are arguably suitable for this purpose, but it is not obvious how to fit them all to a common semantic framework.
The importance of this goal, and the significant amount of effort being made towards it, should hopefully counterbalance the absence to date of a single central library. It's an extremely interesting problem, otherwise Ingrid Daubechies (who is not herself a semantics person) would not be paying it this much attention. Vaughan Pratt (talk) 20:54, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for now and review in a couple of months time. This could easily be very notable. WP:RAPID If no change (significant improvement) in a couple of months then speedy delete then. Aoziwe (talk) 12:00, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 11:15, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keeping in mainspace for a while for some development and then allowing speedy deletion without AFD-type full discussion sounds bad... Or it sounds like a good plan if you want to cause future anger, frustration, conflict, etc. :( --doncram 22:40, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Okay. Still getting back used to wiki protocols after a seven year absence. My main point was that I think it should be given a second chance for a while. Aoziwe (talk) 13:00, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect, or delete. Can redirect to a mention in another article on the general problem, probably Digital curation. I will add mention there. In this article there is no real content, ie there is nothing to merge. The topic of digital curation, or wikipedia's article, seems largely oriented to the problem of librarians staying employed, but also allows for specialist groups of non-librarians to make material useful, which is apparently the goal for this potential project. Focus on the challenge and potential. If a paragraph or stub article is focused on the nonexistent "library" then it is like a movie that is in early development, might not happen, and is TOOSOON for a Wikipedia article. Also, Wikipedia is not a place to post announcements or to provide links to members of a committee, task forces, or club. A person's name should be included in an encyclopedia article only if they are extraordinarily involved in a way that is clearly explained, in general. --doncram 22:40, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 04:05, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep while the article needs to be improved. Especially what happend since CICM2014 needs to be described. For example the DRMF Project http://drmf.wmflabs.org/wiki/Main_Page and the role of Wikidata, are in that GDML are not discussed. --Physikerwelt (talk) 13:04, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I see this article as being about an important open problem at the boundary of mathematics and knowledge engineering. The problem is currently best identified under the name of its desired solution, namely a global digital mathematics library. The workshop held February 3-5 this year at the Fields Institute, now mentioned in the article, gave a good idea of how difficult it will be for stakeholders such as Wolfram Research, Maplesoft, Mathworks, etc. to agree on a common semantic framework for such a library. What justifies having a Wikipedia article about what might seem at first sight like just another digital library is the importance of having a globally accepted semantic representation language for mathematical knowledge. This makes it a bit like one of the Clay Prize problems but with the answer being a language instead of yes or no. Vaughan Pratt (talk) 19:19, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, noting that the addition of references and categories to the article has weakened the nominator's argument. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 18:33, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

LRRC24[edit]

LRRC24 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Without references and categories, not meet the CSD criteria, so nominate for discussing. 333-blue 07:21, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 12:22, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep: it seems that human genes and proteins, even those poorly characterized, have automatic notability; I don't see how this one is any different. הסרפד (call me Hasirpad) 16:17, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or at best Draft and userfy if not yet immediately improvable as this is certainly an encyclopedia-material article. SwisterTwister talk 04:55, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 11:14, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 04:04, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Since no one had added the NCBI, I added it along with a genecards.org reference which had some human language in it. --Mr. Magoo (talk) 21:07, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The author of the article updated the article quite a bit and added an image. --Mr. Magoo (talk) 15:50, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 21:18, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

David Durham (fugitive)[edit]

David Durham (fugitive) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Believe this is a case of WP:BLP1E Gbawden (talk) 06:52, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 12:21, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete. Willing to reconsider if User:Llywrch, or some other editor, can find coverage of him that is 2 out of 3: ongoing, intensive or geographically broad.E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:28, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 11:12, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Mmm. Well, I found this recent article: [20]. There might be others. JMWt (talk) 14:04, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • News coverage in 2011 went on for a few weeks, my Proquest news search on "David Durham" + police + Oregon turned up 25 articles, all from Oregon papers. They include reports of a false lead and the fact that they found his dog. Also articles about the wounded officer returning to duty, all from the winter/spring of 2011. There was an article on the one year anniversary of the incident.[21] Repeated the search on google news and got a few more hits, many false, many duplicates, [22]. also this one sorted by date [23]. I'm just not seeing that much coverage.E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:35, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 04:04, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oregon-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:52, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:52, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - per WP:GNG. per sources mentioned above and in the article.BabbaQ (talk) 18:27, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Sarahj2107 (talk) 10:33, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Vietnamese Student Association[edit]

Vietnamese Student Association (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

There is a false impression given that somehow there is a "generic" VSA; saying that "each VSA operates independently" is thus misleading. Much of this article is directory information, and much of the rest is some unencyclopedic talk of flags and politics. As a topic it's not notable because it's not a topic, and it (therefore) does not pass the GNG. Drmies (talk) 04:13, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 05:00, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 05:00, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Vietnam-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 05:00, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and draft and userfy at best later if needed as this article is still currently questionable to where it would be best restarted altogether. SwisterTwister talk 05:01, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 11:11, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Or "speedy keep". This is a serious and good article based appropriately at the common name for these. It is clear about what it is, not misleading, and it includes a list of formal VSAs that are associations of having many chapters each. It is good to have a combo article providing context, history, and reducing need for separate short articles. There do exist associations that are formally related. And if all VSAs really were completely independent (I think not true) it would be worthwhile for an article to state that, about how they differ from student associations like honor societies and Greek partying and living clubs and ethnic/racial affiliated societes that have some loose national government.
Politically it would be not smart for Wikipedia to delete this, wiping out coverage of Vietnamese students, their organizations, their struggles (see mention of controversy at Cal State Fullerton for example). This could be like wiping out coverage of black student groups and civil rights struggles. When Wikipedia has vast coverage of Greek societies. See Category:Lists of chapters of United States student societies by college and browse up and down in category tree. The nommed article has content; compare to List of fraternities and sororities at George Mason University which has nothing but links to national Greek societies, many being arguably frivolous relative to issues of Vietnamese-Americans. Maybe this is an East coast vs West coast thing? Huge concentration of Vietnamese and Vietnamese-Americans in Southern California. I could imagine seeing media coverage of Wikipedia blowing this, akin to how media blew up issue of American novelists not including women ones. :(. My view is practical not "P.C.". Don't blow it.
And was the article read? It is not bad. The Nom has an opinion about editing in the lede, and maybe a good one, but that is an issue for talk page not AFD. --doncram 01:36, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 14:36, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. Cordless Larry (talk) 07:27, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 03:58, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 01:10, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jane McIvor[edit]

Jane McIvor (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I don't believe a District judge is de facto notable Uhooep (talk) 09:58, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 14:20, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 14:20, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 14:20, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - could not find any significant coverage from third party sources to pass WP:GNG. Also the cases mentioned do not meet threshold for general notability to be included on Wikipedia. KagunduWanna Chat? 07:34, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 03:56, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete merely a district judge. And presiding over a case over a notable person doesn't make you notable. LibStar (talk) 14:27, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete based on review of current references; need more in-depth references. I can change my mind if better references are found.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 14:33, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Scientology beliefs and practices. Content has been merged to Scientology beliefs and practices and it is necessary to retain and redirect this page to maintain attribution to those users involved in creating the content and to comply with Wikipedia's licensing. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 19:34, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Scientology and science[edit]

Scientology and science (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No doubt Scientology and science are associated, but this is an essay, and the scope of the article is unclear. I, JethroBT drop me a line 03:35, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete (see below): This is just an essay or personal reflection on Scientology. There are some sources, but the article is using them to build towards a synthetic point. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 04:01, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Frustratingly enough, because content has been merged from this article to another, the outcome may need to be merge and redirect in order to preserve attribution. I would also support removing and revdeling the content from the other article so this page can be properly deleted, which I think would have been the right outcome in the first place. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 11:34, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment not sure at all that scientology and science are linked at all! This seems to be one of a whole series of articles "Scientology and ..." . Aoziwe (talk) 13:53, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as much as it pains me to say, but a NPOV requires me to do so, even if the article itself might not present NPOV, and it does need to be de-essayed, etc. However they do quote and reference SA and SA's Michael Shermer, a well recognised skeptic, so perhaps it is NPOV after all. Aoziwe (talk) 13:53, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge Another option is to merge the text with https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientology_beliefs_and_practices#Science . The article, merged with that section, would enhance it and lend itself to greater neutrality.Greentrailblazer (talk) 17:58, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Thank you for your input and consideration.Greentrailblazer (talk) 18:02, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:58, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:58, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Now that the text has been moved over to Scientology beliefs and practices, I think we can go ahead and delete this. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 17:56, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
See, the problem is that if text was incorporated into another article, this AfD may have to be closed as merge in order to preserve attribution. I guess it's something for the closing admin to look at and sort out, though. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 19:27, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Mendaliv: That's a good point. I'll go ahead and change my official position back to merge pursuant to the protocol for preserving attribution. Thanks for the heads up! Best, -- Notecardforfree (talk) 19:29, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 03:50, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Fails WP:FRINGE. I imagine an article on this topic could be created, but this ain't any of it. WP:TNT is the correct course of action. Blythwood (talk) 17:36, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Scientology and its links to science has been adequately covered in the main article. Esquivalience t 23:47, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. North America1000 11:49, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Leicester International Short Film Festival[edit]

Leicester International Short Film Festival (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

declined prod. fails WP:GNG. I could not find significant coverage for this including its alternate name "Leicester Short Film Festival". there is one source which says it was the 4th biggest short film festival in the UK but that in itself does not grant inherent notability. LibStar (talk) 00:17, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Notable. The sourcing available satisfies GNG and being the fourth largest is certainly an indicator of notability. Alternatively, the page is a plausible redirect to the section of the article Leicester where the festival is presently mentioned, and has mergeable content. Accordingly deletion would violate ATD, PRESERVE and R. As I removed the PROD, I think it would be completely improper of me not to show up here. James500 (talk) 05:01, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
This festival seems to have had quite a few names including "CAN" and "Seconds Out" and "The Short Cinema". James500 (talk) 06:02, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. James500 (talk) 06:02, 8 February 2016 (UTC) [reply]
  • Delete Article is seven years old and has not grown. I assume it happens annually, so if notable and interesting it should have a lot more by now, for example films featured by year, festival outcomes / recognitions of presented by year, etc. Merge and redirect as per James500. Aoziwe (talk) 12:23, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:IMPATIENT is one of the proverbial 'arguments to avoid'. "Delete" and "merge and redirect" are mutually exclusive outcomes because of WP:CWW. If we merge the content to the Leicester article, we have to retain the page history in order to comply with the attribution requirements of the creative commons license that we use. James500 (talk) 16:48, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:15, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:15, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep perhaps as this seems improvable and at best Draft and userfy instead until a better article is available. SwisterTwister talk 05:00, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 02:17, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect strike my delete above. Not WP:IMPATIENT - if it was notable then there should be plenty of new secondary references available for every year it was held (and yes a lot more content too)? Aoziwe (talk) 14:07, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Aoziwe: I have struck your delete !vote above (diff), as it appears that you didn't do so after changing your !vote directly above. North America1000 03:48, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 03:48, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:40, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. North America1000 11:52, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Erica Roby[edit]

Erica Roby (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This is a non-notable actress with no significant coverage to be found. She was only in mockbusters made by the Asylum and all sources currently listed here are sources from the Asylum website and IMDb pages. edtiorEهեইдအီးËეεઈדוארई電子ಇអ៊ី전자ഇī😎 03:41, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: Well... if we can prove notability for the films and show that she played major enough roles, that would be enough to assert notability even if she was only in Asylum films. That said, sourcing Asylum articles can be difficult since they either get a ton of coverage or none. I'll see what I can find. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 08:54, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. Here's a rundown of the films:
  1. Hillside Cannibals barely passes NFILM. Roby is one of the first billed on IMDb.
  2. The Exorcism doesn't seem to pass, but she's the central actress and named in the sole review I could find.
  3. Bram Stoker's Dracula's Curse looks like it may pass, but Roby is not one of the top billed performers.
  4. Apocalypse doesn't seem to pass NFILM, Roby is mildly high up on the billing list. (Apocalypse article could redirect to the Asylum article, where it's mentioned.)
  5. The 9/11 Commission Report fails NFILM and Roby's role appears to be very minor. This article was redirected to its director, Leigh Scott.
  6. Halloween Night barely passes NFILM and her role is fairly high on the billing.
  7. The Hitchhiker looks like it would pass, but Roby's role is fairly low on the billing, suggesting that it is fairly minor.
  8. Invasion of the Pod People passes and I was surprised to find a mention in an academic text. Roby's role is central here.
The basic gist here is that she's been a major star in two Asylum films, with the remaining seven roles being supporting. Of the supporting roles, five of these are either extremely minor (meaning not within the first 5-10 people billed in the film) and/or the movie does not appear to pass notability guidelines. The remaining film, Halloween Night, has her relatively high up enough on the billing to suggest that it'd likely be a role that could contribute notability and the film barely passes NFILM. If this role was the only one I'd use to establish notability this would be a delete on my end, however she's had major roles in two films that received some coverage in RS and while one of the films doesn't pass NFILM, the fact that she received coverage does count towards notability to a certain degree. This isn't a strong keep for me and I won't be particularly upset if it gets deleted. (If deleted, it should redirect to Invasion of the Pod People, which appears to be her best known role.) However there's just enough here for her to weakly pass NACTOR as it currently stands. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 09:59, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 14:09, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
OK. I see your point. But let me ask you a question: Have you ever heard of the phrase "NOTABILITY IS NOT INHERITED"?edtiorEهեইдအီးËეεઈדוארई電子ಇអ៊ី전자ഇī😎 18:46, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I am sure Tokyogirl is is very familiar with the phrase. However WP:NACTOR invites us to consider whether a subject "Has had significant roles in multiple notable films" and it seems to me that is precisely what Tokyogirl has been doing with great care. If you have an alternative careful analysis, please present it. Thincat (talk) 21:26, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and draft & userfy instead as the article is still questionable for the applicable notability. SwisterTwister talk 21:28, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment three new references have been added by Tokyogirl Atlantic306 (talk) 04:18, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:41, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 01:53, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep As per WP:ARTIST notability guideline, an artist may be notable if the person has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work. As documented by the current version of the article, Erica has played a major role in co-creating Celebrity Rehab with Dr. Drew, Denise Richards: It's Complicated and the thirteenth season of The Amazing Race (associate producer). Further, Erica has produced Shipwreck Men and Hell's Kitchen too.[24] All of these works are creditably notable. Additionally, as per WP:ENTERTAINER notability guideline, an artist may be notable if the person has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions. As documented by the current version of the article, Erica has played significant lead roles in Exorcism: The Possession of Gail Bowers and Invasion of the Pod People. Both these works are also notable, being featured on Wikipedia. These are person-specific notability guidelines and do not require GNG to be immediately obtained for the person to be deemed possibly notable. Erica Roby easily passes both the guidelines mentioned by me. Thanks. Xender Lourdes (talk) 04:24, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 03:45, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:39, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete two leading roles and a variety of bit parts really isn't a significant body of work as I understand it. This person is a minor figure. Philafrenzy (talk) 18:04, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Philafrenzy. You mention a significant body of work as being required for notability. But WP:ARTIST does not mention a significant body of work for possible notability. WP:ARTIST's exact words are, an artist may be notable if the person has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work... That guideline seems to be referring to even one single work rather than a body of work as you are referring to. Erica has contributed two leading roles and not just a single one. Also, maybe you missed it, Erica has co-created Celebrity Rehab with Dr. Drew, Denise Richards: It's Complicated and the thirteenth season of The Amazing Race (associate producer); and has produced Shipwreck Men and Hell's Kitchen too. This is simply much more than the single a significant work requirement of the notability guideline. This again seems to be passing on the artist notability guideline. Am I wrong in assuming so? Do please help in clarifying. Xender Lourdes (talk) 18:26, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 19:25, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Kaz B[edit]

Kaz B (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Was speedied and proded due to probable COI creator. In reviewing the sources and Google News, subject does not seem to pass GNG or PORNBIO. Buzzfeed and Daily Sport are not RS. The Guardian is reliable but features a primary excerpt from the subject. Which leaves only AVN and one source is not sufficient to satisfy the GNG. Morbidthoughts (talk) 03:09, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Musa Talk  03:25, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Musa Talk  03:25, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Musa Talk  03:25, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:32, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete fails-to-borderline WP:GNG. Was added here by likely socking paid editor per SPI and COIN posting; in light of promotional pressure we should delete per WP:PROMO Jytdog (talk) 04:31, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as simply none of this seems better for the applicable entertainers notability. SwisterTwister talk 06:41, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Blatant self promotion. Non-notable photographer who was in the news recently for telling others to commit suicide/self promoting his vehicles. No credibly noted; no independent/non-promotional sources. seicer | talk | contribs 21:01, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jake Olson (photographer)[edit]

Jake Olson (photographer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Apparent autobiographical advertisement page created and edited by subject (new user, only contributions are creating and editing this article). Appears to not be notable; references consist mainly of being listed in several "socially influential photographers" lists, blogs and a self-published biography.

Subject of article appears to not have received significant coverage in reliable sources independent of subject; the article appears to have been created as a promotional tool by the subject. Article is supported mainly by self-published sources (not recommended per BLP guidelines).

Subject appears to not be notable, per WP:BIO. atomicthumbs‽ (talk) 02:54, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Musa Talk  03:26, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. Musa Talk  03:26, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Musa Talk  03:26, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete; Appears to be more self-promotional than anything else. I can't find much information about the subject aside from Facebook page, and main website, not much else. Windmillxt6 (talk) 09:48, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete; I can’t find any non-promotional source on the subject. Okhjon (talk) 09:48, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Commercial artist without significant independent coverage. Arthistorian1977 (talk) 13:57, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete. Self-promotional advertisement for non-notable photographer (<redacted>). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 161.113.20.135 (talk) 14:25, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

DELETE!!!

  • Delete; This article is a self-promoting advertisement. I could also write an autobiographical article about my photography and the multiple awards I've won, but it never crossed my mind because I don't have a business to promote. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jasonracey (talk • contribs) 16:14, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Policy based discussions are appreciated and not personal attacks—UY Scuti Talk 16:36, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Using wikipedia as self-promotion, also a douche.

Subject of article is a narcissistic, colossal douchebag.

Delete him

-I second that motion! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.84.236.24 (talk) 15:20, 22 February 2016 (UTC) [reply]

Subject of article is a waste of space, uses wikipedia to shame others. Delete.[1]15.195.185.84 (talk) 15:41, 22 February 2016 (UTC) [reply]

This person has not made any notable contributions above and beyond the THOUSANDS of other photographers floating around. Please consider deleting this entry. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.90.11.237 (talk) 15:44, 22 February 2016 (UTC) [reply]

this guy is a huge chode. Delete- not a good artist and not a good person.

This is clearly a page he created for self promotion.

Delete Artist has created this page as a way to promote himself and shame others on the internet.

References

  1. ^ https://i.imgur.com/x1LRoxT.jpg
  • Delete Seems 100% like self promotion by the subject of the article. - Vman81 (talk) 16:28, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Subject is not notable per WP:BIO. JohnDO|Speak your mind 16:30, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Per WP:GNG and WP:ANYBIO. Most sources I found were promotional, and didn't appear to be independent of the subject. There are a few sources that do meet WP:RS, but not nearly enough to satisfy the requirement for significant coverage per WP:GNG. ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 18:07, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Completely self promotional. 82.42.28.157 (talk) 20:22, 22 February 2016 (UTC
  • DELETE. Suggests suicide to all who disagree with him. Please see the following link: http://imgur.com/x1LRoxT.
  • DELETE- Suggests suicide to any who disagree with him, treats others with zero respect, and created this purely for self promotion. Uses it and links it frequently on his pages, as well as using it to rub in others faces as to how "important" he is just because he has his own Wiki page. [kstpeter29]
  • DELETE- 100% self promotion — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.222.194.93 (talk) 04:01, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This appears to be an obvious violation of WP:COI since the page appears to have been created by Jake Olson himself. Additionally, this does not fit the requirements established by WP:NOTE, specifically in regards to WP:NTEMP and WP:SPIP. Xe7al (talk) 01:12, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Wikipedia is not an advertising venue. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:647:4F00:4011:E019:E6EE:B75C:544B (talk) 08:25, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • While the author of this page could have been Jake Olson himself or someone hired to write it, it's important to point out the recent outrage wave towards Olson. Deleting this page can be an small victory fort people who are aware of Olson behavior but for potential clients and collaborators is imperative that they know the kind of person Olson is, while "contributions of the world of art" are a great PR strategy this can never hide the real human being behind his despicable attitude -- Horrasias (talk) 09:36, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Don't worry, whether the article is deleted or not will depend solely upon how well the article meets the requirements of Wikipedia's guidelines, especially those guidelines addressed in this discussion. --| Uncle Milty | talk | 12:23, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete if we can all create pages about ourselves, i'd like one! as a budding photographer (who treats people better than this guy (i don't even know who he is, so he's clearly not as famous as he thinks)) i'd like a page about myself!! so can i create one? haha! how long before this does get decided for deletion, or not? TQfan (talk) 20:43, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- page driven by Facebook controversy and sole Forbes listing (which is questionable given their platforming); seems self-promotional and self-referential. Icarus of old (talk) 22:49, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- Forbes and Huffington Post articles cited are written by the CEO of Raynforest, a Marketing company who compensate industry "influencers" to review and promote relevant products online. Neildorgan (talk) 00:39, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- The article is not enlightening about the subject. The subject does not appear to be a notable person, as per the rules for WP:Bio. As per the article history, the article was created on January 16, 2016 by User: A Wiki Account For Me, the User talk:A Wiki Account For Me page which begins with "Hello, Jake, please have fun editing your own insignificant Wikipedia page. We hope you feel very special by doing so.". I think it's safe to say that the creator of the page is none other than the subject of the "biography". And as we all know, it's generally frowned-upon to write one's own biography on wikipedia. MarchHare (talk) 04:17, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- The article is for all intents and purposes self promotion of a non noteworthy individual. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TVR Enthusiast (talk • contribs) 05:55, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete this promotional autobiography per WP:SNOW. —Tim Pierce (talk) 18:32, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        • Delete ****** or charge this person for advertising, it is 100% self promotion. I never had heard of this person until I read the rant he made about how great he is. Delete this bozo. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.95.218.68 (talk) 20:55, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please delete him. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.151.65.136 (talk) 20:46, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) sst✈ 05:02, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Rapzilla[edit]

Rapzilla (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This website fails notability guidelines, where it is not talked about in a significant number of reliable sources that are independent of the subject themselves, except for one article in The Christian Post. This is a great website, where they are an invaluable source to cover the Christian hip hop subgenre of hip hop music, while this is not a reason for keeping the non-notable websites article. The Cross Bearer (talk) 08:19, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 14:15, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep: Discussed in numerous independent reliable sources. In addition to the Christian Post article discussing the website at length, there are several other significant mentions. CBN broadcasted a piece about website, and the site has gotten some significant coverage of it's Freshmen compilations, these CCM Magazine and Wade-O Radio stories about the Freshmen 2015, for example. There also is some discussion of the site in reviews of it's King Kulture albums (see this and this for just two examples), and also some discussion of the accompanying school building project in Africa that the album sales support. In addition to that coverage, the site has partnered in events with several significant organizations, including Chris Chicago's radio show and the GMA Dove Awards. Lastly, I found two brief mentions in book sources (here and here).--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 18:04, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 07:03, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 01:51, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar 02:23, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Walter Görlitz, Ilovechristianmusic, would either of you like to comment here?--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 15:02, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: At the moment, the article doesn't have much coverage, hence making it fail the WP:NOTABLE guideline. If the article is left as it is, I say delete the article, but if there are plans to expand upon the article, I say keep. ilovechristianmusic (Tell Me Something!) 16:30, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Given the references 3family6 has stated above are added to expand the article, I say keep. ilovechristianmusic (Tell Me Something!) 16:33, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Noting I'll be happy to move this to draft space if a consensus develops to transwiki this somewhere. Lankiveil (speak to me) 11:21, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Id (Unix)[edit]

Id (Unix) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This is a trivial UNIX command line utility. The article is currently a manual on how to use it, and I don't see how we can create a policy-compliant article on this. There really isn't anything we can say beyond what's already in List of Unix commands. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 02:12, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Musa Talk  03:27, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Musa Talk  03:27, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Many of these Unix commands are all borderline WP:NOTMANUAL violations. I think it would be better to transwiki them en masse to Wikibooks in one complete book, than to delete them one-by-one. This should probably be discussed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Computing first, though. —Ruud 09:31, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure what the answer is but I don't beleive that dealing with this one article at a time is the roght approach. These two templates give you an idea of the current scope of coverage of individual commands and utilities. See also List of DOS commands. ~Kvng (talk) 14:04, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and mention and move elsewhere as the current article is currently questionable for the independent software notability. SwisterTwister talk 08:04, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I generally agree with Kvng that we should find a general solution for this kind of article. But some commands are more notable, such as those that have become associated with a wider arena, for example, uucp lead to UUCPNET. Similarly, some not-so-obvious UNIX commands have proved useful enough that they have been imitated on many other operating systems. I think these better-known commands deserve an article. Jc3s5h (talk) 14:21, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Jc3s5h: I don't think anyone would want to delete the article on UUCP for exactly the reason you give. But we wouldn't want separate entries for uucp, uux and uucico. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 18:43, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 18:17, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Texting Base, Inc.[edit]

Texting Base, Inc. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable web company. Sources are a blog, a primary source interview, press releases, the company website (and even that fails to support the statement where cited). Searches found nothing better, nothing that even begins to meet WP:CORP. Worldbruce (talk) 01:28, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Musa Talk  03:28, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. Musa Talk  03:28, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Musa Talk  03:28, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Musa Talk  03:28, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as newly founded company with unlikely enough solid coverage for a solidly notable company article. SwisterTwister talk 07:00, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: A WP:SPA article loaded into mainspace after being rejected 4 times at AfC. As per the advice from the AfC reviewers, "This submission's references do not adequately show the subject's notability", nor can better be located. Fails WP:CORPDEPTH, WP:GNG. AllyD (talk) 08:45, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy keep per WP:SK#1. Nomination withdrawn with no outstanding delete votes. (non-admin closure) • Gene93k (talk) 20:21, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Alan Cross[edit]

Alan Cross (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Citations provided here either lack independence (www.alancross.ca/about-me/ et al.), reliability (BlogTO), or come from sources without at least regional circulation (the Toronto Star, Post City). The article on this person requires evidence of non-trivial coverage in multiple independent reliable sources with a broader readership base than city newspapers in order to be retained. Right now it doesn't have it, and my own search for such sources turned up nothing that looked like it would qualify— being a radio broadcaster and having a website are not evidence of notability (though sorry, Bearcat). KDS4444Talk 00:18, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep: the Toronto Star typically has the highest circulation of any Canadian newspaper, so while it's got "Toronto" in the name, I believe it's a strong source. The article's current sourcing isn't great, but there are three solid articles about Cross in the Toronto Star: here, here, and here. There are also articles from the National Post, the Financial Post, and the Toronto Sun (the latter is admittedly a tabloid, but still offers some coverage). While some of these articles deal with the same topic (his relationship with Edge 102.1), I think there's enough varied discussion here to show WP:BIO notability. Thanks, /wiae /tlk 01:11, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. A sourced article about the host of multiple nationally syndicated shows. Here's another source from the Toronto Star [25] and other sources are apparent in searches. I don't think deletion of this sort of content improves Wikipedia's encyclopedic coverage of Canadian radio. --Arxiloxos (talk) 01:19, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Musa Talk  03:31, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Musa Talk  03:31, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. Musa Talk  03:31, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Toronto Star coverage is significant, and other sources are find-able per above. Ajraddatz (Talk) 09:06, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • The key notability claim here isn't the fact that he's been a local radio host in regular drive time — it's the facts that (a) his longrunning radio documentary program The Ongoing History of New Music has been nationally syndicated on radio stations extending all the way across Canada, and (b) the guy's written and published several books. The only reason the sourcing is inadequate here is that the article was created in 2005, a time when our sourcing requirements were a lot looser than they are now, and just didn't get improved as quickly as our RS standards evolved — the rule really once was that no sources at all had to be cited in the article, as long as the facts were verifiable if someone went looking for verification on their own time and dime. (I agree that sounds, and was, absolutely idiotic given all we've learned since then about how determined some people are to fill Wikipedia with PR bullshit and hoaxes and attack edits — but it is the way the rules were at one time, so we have to at least try to determine if an article created that long ago is salvageable before we run it out the door for not already being fully compliant with current standards.) At any rate, he gets over 200 hits on ProQuest, which means the sourcing does exist to get this back up to snuff. They won't all be useful or substantive sources, I admit, but even if just five or six of them are actually viable that would still be enough to satisfy GNG — and more than five or six of them will be viable, because even when I add "ongoing history of new music" to the search string to filter it further I still get 65 hits which nationalize to Ottawa and Calgary and Edmonton and Vancouver and Winnipeg and Halifax and St. John's and Victoria. Keep. Bearcat (talk) 23:37, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Now up to 16 sources. Content that was edging in an advertorial direction removed. Bearcat (talk) 00:54, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nomination withdrawn by nominator KDS4444Talk 13:00, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2016_February_22&oldid=1142622968"