Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2016 April 3

Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

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 speedy delete as WP:A7. Tokyogirl79 (。◕‿◕。) 03:38, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

C0nvexity (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not notable enough to be included in an encyclopedia. The creator's username proves this is an autobiography (and again it's not notable). Music1201 talk 23:29, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BAND #9 criterion has been met. WP:BAND #5 criterion slightly met. Jltompkins10 (talk) 00:51, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Winning the 6th Annual Horry County Schools Technology Fair would not be seen as a major award. On Wikipedia major awards would be things like winning a Grammy or the equivalent thereof. Local awards rarely, if ever, qualify as something that would even give partial notability on Wikipedia. The only time they do qualify for even partial notability is when the award winner gains some coverage for winning the award - something which I'm not seeing in this situation. As far as the record label goes, from what I can see the article states that you (I'm assuming that you are the performer himself) have released your album on your own label. While this doesn't automatically mean that you are self-publishing your works, it's not terribly far off from this and a major indie label would be one that has gained enough coverage in independent and reliable sources, likely enough to merit an article of their own. I don't see where you've gained any coverage at all. I hate that this all sounds so harsh, but I need you to understand why this article is up for deletion. Wikipedia heavily discourages people writing their own articles because it's so easy to see more notability than there might otherwise be and it's also extremely easy to take things personally. It takes a lot - an awful lot - to pass notability guidelines on Wikipedia, enough to where the vast majority of musicians wouldn't pass notability guidelines. We've all seen situations where musicians can play regularly, but still fail notability guidelines because their only coverage were routine notifications of events. I'm sorry, but I just don't see where you pass notability guidelines. Tokyogirl79 (。◕‿◕。) 03:33, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. MBisanz talk 00:50, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

List of National Debate Tournament Resolutions (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 fail to see any encyclopedic value to this, just listcruft Jac16888 Talk 22:32, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:00, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:00, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This list was originally part of the National Debate Tournament but was removed by someone because it was deemed too lengthy. I created a separate page and linked to it instead. It's the annual U.S. intercollegiate debate topic with thousands of students researching and debating it from a couple hundred schools. So, its not as if the resolutions are insignificant.

There are no sources and no context, nothing to suggest this is a worthwhile topic--Jac16888 Talk 17:13, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:17, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:17, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

Forgive me for being dense, if I am indeed dense, but the Wake Forest list of Annual College Debate Topics has not been updated since 2012. Someone needs to either find a current list somewhere, or restore the Wikipedia page that listed them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 100.15.126.47 (talk) 23:56, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. MBisanz talk 00:20, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

No real sources or indication of notability Jac16888 Talk 22:29, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk) 09:08, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk) 09:09, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:13, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. MBisanz talk 00:20, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Port 8789 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The port in question is listed as unassigned. Other, much more prominent ports (80, 22) do not have their own wikipedia pages, but instead are referenced in List of TCP and UDP port numbers. At best, it should be included there. Plandu (talk) 22:08, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:01, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the tip! Much appreciated. (FWIW, I did do a general search for sources supporting notability.) Thanks! Chris vLS (talk) 00:25, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:15, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. consensus is too keep (non-admin closure)Davey2010Talk 22:35, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Paddy Murphy (Liverpudlian) (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 indication of subject's notability, to the extent required. There were thousands of foreign-born workers in Liverpool in the period of the subject's life, and the only reason for this one to be treated separately are that he was a distant relative by marriage of the Japanese emperor, and he adopted an apparently amusing nickname. Notability is not inherited, and the nickname itself is of little intrinsic interest (the fact that it's "funny" is not significant). The few sources that mention him give little support to claims of notability. The subject was a local character of insufficient notability to justify an article. Ghmyrtle (talk) 21:18, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, with regret since it's a funny piece of trivia. I can barely find any mentions of this person that would qualify as non-trivial per the WP:GNG—a couple of local news obituaries, mentions in trivia books, and that's (seemingly) it. Apart from notability I'm also slightly concerned over veracity. I couldn't turn up anything from a search in Japanese. Admittedly I might be putting in the wrong queries: the Silver Drum reference would at least be sound confirmation on that front, but I don't have the book—can anyone verify it/post the relevant quotation?Nizolan (talk) 21:59, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Strike that on the Silver Drum, I just noticed it's only cited to justify a claim about the princess who wrote it, not Murphy himself. Definitely leaning further towards delete in that case—without further verification this could just as well simply be a thing a Japanese immigrant made up. —Nizolan (talk) 22:01, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. —Nizolan (talk) 21:59, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. —Nizolan (talk) 21:59, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. —Nizolan (talk) 21:59, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Wha? -- huh? Just three of the sources:
(1) Belchem is a scholarly book by Liverpool Univ. Press.
(2) Liverpool Gateway is a work on local history, not "trivia".
(3) Fritz Spiegl was for forty years a respected author and columnist (e.g. for the BBC's The Listener) on language and culture.
GNG's sigcov requirement is merely that " 'Significant coverage' addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it need not be the main topic of the source material." The coverage need not be extensive nor lengthy. Where little is known about a subject, little will be written, but the multiple sources that have written him up (at roughly 10-year intervals for fifty years -- sixty if you count a 1962 interview I've been unable to access so far) more than meet GNG.
It's not at all surprising there's no coverage in Japanese, since he spent almost his entire life in England (beginning before WW1), and the amusing name change does not, of course, add to notability, but neither does it detract. EEng 22:30, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@EEng: Belchem's notice of Murphy is a trivial mention (quite literally two sentences) sourced to Spiegl, and Spiegl's is in turn sourced to the local obituary. One would expect there to be at least some small notice in Japanese given the man's genealogy—I also note that I can't find any relatives of Princess Chichibu with the surname (native or assumed) of Yoshida for any permutation of kanji with that reading. —Nizolan (talk) 22:36, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
To add: from checking the book, Connections – Liverpool Gateway is a "public art project" (quote from the foreword) comprising interviews with Liverpool residents, not a work of historiography, and the relevant part within it is a two-page interview with Murphy's grandson with no evaluation made of the claims. The idea of someone claiming close relationship to the highest levels of Japanese society simply turning up in England for unknown reasons and working menial jobs in the navy while not being present on any genealogical tables is possible but still pretty incredible—falling under the WP:REDFLAG of "exceptional claims requiring exceptional sources", I would think. —Nizolan (talk) 22:51, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Belchem's is not a trivial mention. Yes it's two sentences, but they're long and complex ones that succinctly summarize his life [1] -- and used, BTW, by Belcham to illustrate " 'the Liverpool That Was', a cosmopolitan heritage of Merseypride briefly embraced by Black Liverpool, until as Jacqueling Nassy Brown has noted, its history became as apart as its geography." Not that I know enough about Liverpool to have more than a vague idea what that means, but clearly it's a serious scholarly point. Belchem says, in fact, that Murphy "best personified" this heritage, so he's not dragging Murphy in just for giggles over his name, if that's what you imagine. And that Belchem cites to another secondary source is completely irrelevant as well -- not every source needs to have done original research from primary sources, and the fact that Belchem, writing for a university press, chooses to rely on Spiegl without qualification confirms Spiegl's reputation for reliability.
The Federal Writer's Project was also, to a large extent, a public art (well, cultural) project that very much relied on oral sources. So what? Most of what's cited to Gateway are exactly the sorts of things one would find nowhere else e.g. the scar, the soft spot. Most or all of the rest is in the other sources as well, but I used Gateway exactly because it was open access so others could see it. I guess this is my reward for that consideration.
Spiegl himself lived in Liverpool, and that he quotes from (reproduces in facsimile, in fact) the obituary doesn't mean the obit was his only source of information, and it's of no interest to us whether he lists them all, unless there's some conflict among sources we need to sort out.
There's nothing REDFLAG here. He was born a commoner -- a relative married into the imperial family decades later -- and died a commoner, so I don't know why we should expect him to show up anywhere at all in Japanese sources. We take the sources we have at their word. REDFLAG is for men from mars, cold fusion, and claims that appear to contradict known fact and common sense.
How about if we take a breather so others can comment. EEng 23:52, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
He wasn't born a commoner, though; Princess Chichibu's family on the male side is of the Tokugawa clan and her mother was of the Nabeshima clan, so he would be from one of those. Two sentences in an entire book, "long and complex" or not, is pretty much textbook WP:TRIVIAL (though one sentence more than just the one, I guess!) in terms of not representing any contribution to notability. —Nizolan (talk) 00:07, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Commoner: I was relying on Princess_Chichibu: "Although technically born a commoner, she was a scion of distinguished aristocratic families with close ties to the Japanese Imperial Family on both sides."
Textbook TRIVIAL: You and I must be looking at different textbooks, because the example TRIVIAL gives (as a trivial mention of Bill Clinton's high school band) is this sentence in a Clinton bio: "In high school, he was part of a jazz band called Three Blind Mice" -- nothing at all like Belchem's coverage of Murphy. And the relationship between the book's quantity of coverage of the subject, versus the overall size of the book is irrelevant. You're acting as if coverage sufficient for notability has to be found all at once in a single source, which of course isn't true -- it's the totality of sources that matters.
The subject's story is a simple one, but one which has been repeatedly told in RS. Now, again, can we please wait for others to comment? EEng 00:28, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Like, totally keep, dude! It's a radical article! EEng 22:10, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. MBisanz talk 00:20, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

Article about an individual vocational program at an individual high school, with no credible or sourced claim of wider notability. The only source here is a self-published print-on-demand book written by the author of this article, who clearly has a direct family relationship of some kind with the teacher of the course (their surname is too rare and distinctive for it to be a pure coincidence that they both have the same one) -- which makes this a conflict of interest flying in two directions at one. None of this suggests that the course warrants the attention of an international encyclopedia. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 19:13, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: doesn't meet WP:GNG or WP:GROUP, with the only refs I could find being either self published or WP:NOTRELIABLE. crh23 (talk) 20:02, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree that this program does not warrant a separate article on Wikipedia. On the other hand, sources indicate that it is a noteworthy aspect of the high school (e.g. [2][3][4][5][6][7]), and I would have !voted to merge this to the high school's article, but for the improvident fact that the school doesn't yet have an article. So instead I will suggest userfying this content until such time as it can be incorporated into an appropriate article about Roseville High School (Roseville, Michigan). --Arxiloxos (talk) 21:04, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: None of the sources Arxiloxos cites would meet the GNG, I'm afraid; they're all fleeting mentions of the subject of the sort debarred by WP:ROUTINE. That the auto shop is an integral part of the high school I don't question -- my own high school's vocational wing was an integral part there as well -- but I doubt it's any more noteworthy than its English department or football team, elements of high schools that don't commonly achieve their own articles. Ravenswing 06:53, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as a local school's local program, no signs of Wikipedia notability. SwisterTwister talk 04:46, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I agree with Arxiloxos that this article could conveniently be merged (shortened) into a future article about Roseville High School (Roseville, Michigan), but non-notable drafts aren't supposed to be left to languish indefinitely in userspace. If and when an article about the school comes into being, one would hope that the author of this article has saved his text privately; if not, I'll be happy to provide it for him at that time. But not now. Bishonen | talk 18:41, 7 April 2016 (UTC).[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:02, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:02, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:02, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. MBisanz talk 00:21, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

USS Letitia (SP-398) (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)

Cannot possibly be attributed to reliable sources, including neologisms, original theories and conclusions, and articles that are themselves hoaxes (but not articles describing notable hoaxes). Thorough attempts to find reliable sources to verify them have failed. DrkBlueXG (talk) 17:56, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per... article? It is a boat that very little is known about, as per the article. It couldn't possibly pass WP:GNG, as it is barely known to exist! N.B. I'm pretty sure that [8] is an uncredited wiki mirror, so no WP:Copyvio. crh23 (talk)
  • Comment. I see no evidence of any hoax at all, what gives? Could the ship be the first Letitia covered at http://ahoy.tk-jk.net/macslog/TSS.Letitia2sistershiptoi.html? There is source North Atlantic Seaway by N.R.P.Bonsor, vol.3, p.1014 given there. That is a ship built 1912, converted to a hospital ship for WWI. It was wrecked near Halifax Nova Scotia in 1917 which does not preclude it being on the way to the U.S. The link uses "TSS Letitia" which uses the ship prefix TSS for "Twin Screw Steamer" which does not preclude it being a U.S. ship. The image at the link uses "HMHS" prefix for "Her Majesty's Hospital Ship" suggesting it was taken into British service, but conceivably it could have been transferred between services, starting or ending in U.S. service. [Update: From this source on Canada-related hospital ships which includes the image, it is clear that it was a British ship.] Or, as the current article suggests, it may merely have been considered for use by the U.S. Navy, per Navsource: in 1916 "the U.S. Navy began a registry of privately-owned pleasure craft and yachts that were available for patrol service in the event the United States was drawn into the conflict." Those ships considered are the ones listed at Navsource's "Section Patrol Craft (SP) and Civilian Vessels (ID) Index" page. And note at disambiguation page HMHS Letitia there is "HMHS Letitia (1912), which served during WWI", showing as a redlink entry. Which brings me to the following suggestion/vote, below. --doncram 22:10, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but move to HMHS Letitia (1912) and edit the article to describe the hospital ship (which is clearly notable: the link above, a chapter on it in a dive book, with interesting detail about its service at Gallipoli, and multiple mentions of soldiers shipped on it such as this. Let the Talk page show (including by link to this AFD), that there was a mystery USS Letitia listed in the U.S. Navy's register, which may or may not have been this ship. And I think it would be okay to mention that potential confusion explicitly in the mainspace article, too, perhaps in a footnote (simply stating: "In the U.S. Navy's register, there was a U.S.S. Letitia listed" without asserting any opinion). Handling the article this way keeps the edit history intact, giving credit properly if verification is obtained, and allowing future editors who might be looking for the U.S.S. Letitia a way to see what happened when the wp:SHIPS wikiproject editors were working their way through the Navsource list of ships, most of which are Wikipedia-notable. --doncram 22:10, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • 20-Mule-Team Delete: Are you kidding me? There's nothing here to keep! Heck, I'd be fine with a A7 on the ground that there's no assertion of notability here. My suggestion to Doncram is that if he thinks there ought to be an article on HMHS Letitia (1912), he's free to create one, and blessings upon it. But I see no reason whatsoever to keep an edit history or attribute "credit" for an article with no meaningful content, with a subject that was a different ship in another country's navy. Ravenswing 06:58, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:17, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:17, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:17, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:18, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The principle of Wikipedia of giving credit to contributors through attribution in edit history is not to be so casually dismissed. Here there is some confusion, but it is clear that Mdnavman, who is still an active editor, identified correctly in 2010 that this was a ship considered by the U.S. Navy for use during World War I, and wrote carefully. The limited article said nothing incorrect. It never stated that the ship was in the U.S. navy, i.e. "in another country's navy", it said it was listed for consideration: no one is disputing that. Assuming the ship identified by the US Navy was in fact the hospital ship, which may yet be confirmed by additional sources, the move preserves edit history that was valid, and it avoids the affront of deleting an article created by an editor. In AFD process in general there should be more appreciation of work done, and more effort spent in preserving and developing rather than dismissing and tearing down. --doncram 18:29, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I find this credit perfectly easy to dismiss, thank you. It's a garbage entry of the sort that brings disrepute on Wikipedia as a legitimate resource, and the only difference between it and (say) a promotional article on an SPA's garage band is its use of grammar and formatting. The "OMG we need an article for every possible item on this list" mindset has led us to such pointless entries as Mali at the 2006 Winter Olympics and Scouting in the Vatican City, "work" worth neither appreciating nor preserving. Ravenswing 21:03, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I agree mostly, and I doubt the creator of this article cares about this old item, and I think I overstated a bit. My general concern about AFD is more about when the contributors involved are new and/or they don't have a substantial amount of other contributions surviving. I don't mind if this article is deleted. Still I happen to think it is a tad better to convert it to become an article on the hospital ship, or to be a redirect to a section for it within a list (say a List of hospital ships?). --doncram 01:46, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
There is List of hospitals and hospital ships of the Royal Navy with no mention of it, I am adding mention now. --doncram 01:55, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge to I'm Not There. MBisanz talk 00:20, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

Article about a "film" which exists only as a fictional plot point within another film, with no reliable sourcing or real-world context to demonstrate a reason why it would warrant a standalone article as a separate topic from its parent film. Wikipedia is not a fan site on which every individual plot point in a film automatically warrants its own separate article, and the only "sources" here are the parent film itself, and a review of that parent film which contains only minimal content about the film-within-a-film -- so this topic should certainly be discussed in the article on I'm Not There, but nothing here warrants a separate article about this. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 17:45, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 04:47, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:11, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:11, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:11, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. MBisanz talk 00:21, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

B.C. (2013 film) (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:MOVIE. A Google search turns up nothing about this film, and the article doesn't include any sources. It does have an IMDb page, but that leads me nowhere. JudgeRM 17:25, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk) 09:10, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:08, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:08, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. MBisanz talk 00:21, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

10.0 (rapper) (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)

Poorly sourced (relying entirely on social networking platforms and blogs) WP:BLP of a musician with no strong claim of notability per WP:NMUSIC: his only release to date is an independent mixtape, the airplay component is tied to Soundcloud streams and a single standalone radio station rather than a national network, and nothing else here even tries for any other NMUSIC criterion. As always, Wikipedia is not a free public relations platform on which every musician on earth is automatically entitled to have an article just because he exists -- reliable source coverage, supporting a claim of notability that satisfies one or more Wikipedia inclusion standards, must be shown for him to earn one. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 17:06, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk) 09:12, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Zimbabwe-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk) 09:12, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. MBisanz talk 00:21, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The page contains no assertion or evidence of historical or other significance, and I couldn't find any either. The cited source may confirm his existence, but certainly nothing to rise to the level of WP:GNG. Article was created by apparent SPA account, User:Johnwilsonisbae. Speedy deletion challenged on the basis that "Fighting in several notable battles is significant." Mojo Hand (talk) 16:57, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:BASIC. Like Russell's teapot, perhaps there is significant coverage in period print sources, but, based on the article, I doubt it. I don't have access to the print source given in the article, but I assume it's WP:ROUTINE and may has reliability problems as well (per WP:SELFPUBLISH, a will or similar document, even one reprinted in a governmental index, is not going to be a reliable source for its subject's life accomplishments).  Rebbing  17:35, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:56, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:56, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:56, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:07, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. MBisanz talk 00:49, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

2017 WGC-Dell Match Play (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:TOOSOON Event is a year away and dates are not official yet. Article is basically a copy of the main article and 2016 event. It contains no info on the 2017 version. I tried to make this into a redirect but article creator reverted. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 23:44, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • KEEP There are a couple of things that need to be addressed here. Firstly, for special events that are held annually (such as certain golf tournaments like this one), it's common for a Wikipedia editor to prepare the article six months to a year in advance, and there typically not only isn't any problem with it, but additionally other editors usually help out to get it prepared as much as possible, regardless of the date the event is to be held. (This is the first time I have ever encountered someone being bothered with this common practice.) Also, this business of preparing an article up to a year in advance is done frequently in not only golf, but also auto racing, tennis, and the Olympics. Look at the Masters and other articles of its kind for this year, and you will find they were prepared a year in advance with no problem.

Secondly, it was of no surprise when we found who is trying to do this deletion. The user in question has an extensive history of years of arguing with Wikipedia editors and making their online experience quite uncomfortable. The user in question also has 8 blocks on their record and threats of several more blocks from administrators who are tired of their troublemaking. I fully expect that the article will stay up as it is, as there is no credible reason for it to come down, even with a redirect; if there had been a legitimate reason for the article not to exist yet, I'd not have bothered to create it at this time. And even if it is to come down, it will only be a matter of hours before it is back up again, as there are a handful of editors who are equipped with the script for it who will have no qualms about putting it back up immediately at their first availability. This pettiness and nonsense will not be tolerated. Johnsmith2116 (talk) 00:19, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

CommentAgain you start in with personal attacks against me without proof[9] and which earned you a week long block[10] over two years ago. Do you really want me to ping the blocking administrator so he can decide if another and even longer block is necessary?...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 01:54, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:04, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Golf-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:04, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:04, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 16:19, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No matter what the nom has done before, this is definitely WP:TOOSOON. This page should be created only a month or two before the event, not a year beforehand. Sheepythemouse (talk) 22:47, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: Raised eyebrow time: for an editor of Johnsmith2116's longevity to claim that he'd never encountered a TOOSOON complaint about a sports event before can only suggest he's new to editing sports articles; I've seen this quite frequently over the years. (Such a claim is also untrue: he was warned about incivility in terms of CRYSTALling two years ago. [11]) The standard defense is that TOOSOON doesn't apply where there is known information backed by reliable sources concerning the tournament. But that's not the case here. With the exception of the date change, the infobox is copied from the 2016 tournament article. The only cited reference plainly refers to the 2016 tournament, and not to the 2017 one.

    That aside, whatever Johnsmith2116's irrelevant complaints about the nom may be, they're trumped by his threat that his buddies are prepared to defy the community's consensus here, and put this non-qualifying article right back up should we decide to delete it. For my part, I'm happy to add the page to my watchlist should it be deleted through process, and get a G4 speedy on it should that happen. In the words of a wise editor, John, is this the hill you want to die on? Ravenswing 07:19, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: It's not an article, it's more like a template waiting to be filled in. Wiki is not a crystal ball. After (if) the event occurs then write the article, otherwise it's like putting the cart before the horse. The Results section borders on idiotic. Samf4u (talk) 20:10, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: I agree it is WP:TOOSOON and the sole reference is the "Format Overview and Glossary", which is entirely generic and does not even mention the 2017 event. It seems to fail WP:GNG on that basis. - Ahunt (talk) 00:17, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note to closing administrator If this AFD is closed as a delete, I propose that the article be SALTed for 6 months based on the article creator's threat (Quote- And even if it is to come down, it will only be a matter of hours before it is back up again, as there are a handful of editors who are equipped with the script for it who will have no qualms about putting it back up immediately at their first availability.) above to recreate the article[12]....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 00:32, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for now as noticeably too soon. SwisterTwister talk 04:51, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. MBisanz talk 01:23, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Roller Coaster Rumbler (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)

Roller Coaster Rumbler violates WP:GNG Yoshiman6464 (talk) 18:17, 27 March 2016 (UTC) Creating deletion discussion for Roller Coaster Rumbler[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:30, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 16:18, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Can you confirm that (1) those mentions are reviews, and (2) that they exist? czar 13:05, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have access to the paper if that's what you are asking. But yeah, I'd say that the abime.net link is believable--compiling things like that is what it does. Hobit (talk) 13:50, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. MBisanz talk 01:23, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Carlos Veras (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 few passing mentions are not enough to establish notability. SSTflyer 17:15, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ProgrammingGeek (Page!Talk!Contribs!) 22:43, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Caribbean-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:50, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:50, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 16:17, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Pretty poorly written article and sources (in the article) seem to mostly cover him as one of a handful. Ideally they would be covered as a group. His name is very common and so he's hard to search for. I suspect he meets WP:N but I can't find enough solely on him to prove it. Hobit (talk) 09:05, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per SwisterTwister. I conducted web searches under several different terms, but the most I was able to turn up were some social media profiles and a few YouTube videos. --Erick Shepherd (talk) 22:48, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete.  Sandstein  12:44, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Bernard Lequime (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)
Leon Lequime (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)

Biographies, sourced only to a single local history book, of two brothers notable only as early local settlers and business owners in a single local area. Neither article provides or sources any evidence of wider notability -- and while it's not impossible for people of purely local notability to get into Wikipedia, it takes a lot more sourcing than this to demonstrate why an international encyclopedia should maintain the articles at all. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 16:16, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:04, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:04, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. MBisanz talk 01:23, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The only notable event seems to be the visit of the Thai PM and none of the sources reference this society. Other sources are not independent suggesting non notability Aloneinthewild (talk) 13:21, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. The presence of famous people doesn't confer notability and the society itself hasn't attracted much (if any) coverage as far as I can tell, so it fails WP:CLUB. All the independent coverage I can find is trivial per WP:SIGCOV (i.e. of the form Famous Person X said Y at the Oxford International Relations Society). —Nizolan (talk) 15:03, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. —Nizolan (talk) 15:14, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. —Nizolan (talk) 15:14, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. —Nizolan (talk) 15:14, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. —Nizolan (talk) 15:14, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 15:29, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 16:15, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Hobit: Agreed with Aloneinthewild. Could you be more specific on which sources? If this is in reference to the Thai controversy, as far as I can tell none of the articles even mentions the International Relations Society. —Nizolan (talk) 14:26, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus.  Sandstein  14:05, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

This article failed to meet the terms of Wikipedia notability through Basic criteria and Additional criteria. No reliable sources. Three of the five references are dead link. Otherwise no strong Third-party sources. ~ Moheen (talk) 07:26, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This is not an argument for keeping. Journalists do not have inherent notability. LibStar (talk) 01:47, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Worldbruce (talk) 21:01, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Worldbruce (talk) 21:02, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for now actually as the article is still questionable overall and the Keep votes are not confident enough to suggest this will be better improved especially considering the article's current troubled state. Delete for now at best, Keep only if it's noticeably improved and, if not, Draft instead for future uses, and imaginably return to mainspace when better. SwisterTwister talk 06:23, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein  12:02, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:42, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:42, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The most informative of the sources cited by the article is the Global Journalist story,[22] which is half interview transcript and half capsule bio. The latter might be the result of research and analysis by the reporting staff, but it reads like the average self-supplied author bio. The rest of the cited sources are largely written by him. To this I can add only one piece from the St. Louis Post-Dispatch.[23] It's a fluffy everyman story about his relationship with his teenage daughter, but at least it's about him rather than by him. These are insufficient to pass any notability guideline.
Lemongirl942 has listed seven additional sources above. The deepest is most of a paragraph in the Herald (Karachi: Dawn Media Group)[24] which describes the self-censorship he has found necessary in Pakistan. The rest are generally of the form "Kamal Siddiqi, editor of the Express Tribune, said" followed by a brief quote. More of the same type are available. The problem is that networking with other news organizations, exchanging quotes, and getting your paper mentioned seem to be a routine part of the job of editor. Just because a journalist has been quoted by a dozen different media outlets, doesn't make them notable.
Perhaps he can satisfy criterion #1 of WP:JOURNALIST, "regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors." Wikipedia itself cites articles he has written only 4 times. Google scholar shows a dozen citations spread over half a dozen of his articles. Google books returns many false positives, but if one further limits the search to after when he began his career (1990) and by the names of papers where he has worked, one gets 11 (Dawn) + 9 (The News) + 8 (Indian Express). These are not notable numbers. --Worldbruce (talk) 02:12, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 16:15, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I don't think every journalist deserves a page, but this guy seems to. I think it's more appropriate to keep it and add a banner asking for more references.VanEman (talk) 17:15, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
seems notable? LibStar (talk) 09:43, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
see WP:VAGUEWAVE. zero attempt to explain how notability is met. LibStar (talk) 09:43, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
When the sources in the article meet the sourcing requirements of WP:N no additional comment is needed. But if you prefer: [25] is a source solely on the topic. [26] provides both an independent biography and documents an award from Stanford University. In addition he has been interviewed by The Guardian about the paper he's the editor for here as well as by the Washington Post [27]. Hobit (talk) 12:28, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete fails WP:BIO and WP:CREATIVE. the supplied sources are not in-depth about the subject but merely confirm his role. Secondly most of the keep votes presented here make no real attempt to explain how a notability guideline is met. LibStar (talk) 09:45, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • What most !votes do doesn't matter. That sources have been provided (both in the article and above) is all that matters. Just saying that "sources aren't in-depth about the subject" makes one suspect you didn't read the sources since at least one is purely about the subject... Hobit (talk) 12:46, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: My perusal of the sources offered here and in the article reveal far too many passing mentions and primary sources. An example is this, which Lemongirl942 seems to consider comprehensive coverage (as it's grouped with several as "independent") and then offers two that are "passing mentions" separately. This example is most definitely a passing mention, rather than the comprehensive coverage needed to establish notability in a Wikipedia context. The most convincing argument I've seen for meeting notability criteria is the argument by Worldbruce, but I don't think it's quite there. For Hobit, I have read the sources, and this is my conclusion. The article simply having sources isn't sufficient, the sources must be reliable and of sufficient quality. Chrisw80 (talk) 06:24, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Evildead. MBisanz talk 01:24, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

Not notable. Meets no part of WP:NALBUMS. No independent discussion of the album to be found. | Uncle Milty | talk | 21:53, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. | Uncle Milty | talk | 22:43, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]


Well....... it would appear that all Steamhammer/SPV GmbH releases should be deleted, it would seem that you are playing favorites. This album meets all requirements for relevancy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Caryn davis (talkcontribs) 23:15, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • there are two sources shown I will remove the wiki source.... problem solved
  • There is no evidence given for notability. The source given is "Wikipedia Article: Evildead" which just seems recursive. The source for a Wikipedia article is another Wikipedia article. That just can't be considered good enough. Maybe the page is work in progress, but if nothing better can be found it should be a Delete Pupsbunch (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 23:43, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as none of this suggests solid independent notability. SwisterTwister talk 22:08, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein  12:00, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:40, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 16:14, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete.  Sandstein  14:06, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Incredible Things (fragrance) (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 fragrance. Being endorsed by Taylor Swift is not enough. Greek Legend (talk) 03:53, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:04, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:43, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 15:53, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Yamamoto Ichiro (talk) 17:55, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

Not notable. Nothing in news. Greek Legend (talk) 03:04, 27 March 2016 (UTC) blocked sockpuppet Atlantic306 (talk) 18:41, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:46, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 03:49, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 15:51, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep appears to easily meet WP:BAND#5. Hobit (talk) 08:57, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Trivial references made up mostly of non-notable music blogs and the like equals zero evidence of coverage or references by non-trivial independent sources. ShelbyMarion (talk) 22:15, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • What do you think of the WP:BAND#5 issue? Hobit (talk) 02:54, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • In reply to you, Hobit, while this band involves some level of contributions from a hodgepodge of musicians who are, in some cases, unquestionably notable, the band (or project?) itself lacks verifiable evidence of accomplishment or notability. The references provided are fan blogs and the band's own website. If the article provided non-trivial, independent references it would go a long way towards getting me to consider changing my vote, but I'm not even sure that would be enough. The band's social media efforts on Facebook have resulted in little more than 150 likes, and the founder's You Tube channel posting of the bands videos average less than 1,000 views. While such evidence is not within wikipedia's guidelines for determining notability, something tells me there's not much "there" there, if you know what I mean. ShelbyMarion (talk) 08:51, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Searches did not turn up enough in-depth coverage to show it meets WP:GNG, and doesn't pass WP:NBAND. Onel5969 TT me 18:38, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. not my field, but even I can see that this is a clearly promotional article. DGG ( talk ) 04:25, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was SNOW Keep (NAC). SwisterTwister talk 04:33, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The links are mainly the subject's blogs and appears to be self promotion or publicity. Considering the criteria for Notability in media and arts, she does not appear to be influential, has contributed no new theory or technique, does not contribute significantly to a well-known body of work, nor has she significant critical acclaim. EvidentAnalogy (talk) 14:08, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have just noticed that the delete request is from an account which has no previous contributions. I think this deletion request is in bad faith and should be removed immediately. I am aware of the Wikipedia "good faith" policy, but to create an account with the sole intent of asking for a deletion is suspect. Could this account be a sockpuppet? --Tallard (talk) 15:11, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well-spotted, I hadn't noticed that yet. I've guarded this page against many vandals, usually they edit from an IP address and have an obvious malicious intent by smearing the subject's reputation. This one may be the sneakiest yet in creating an account (likely an SPA) and almost correctly filing a formal deletion request, which still looks like a thinly veiled attack on the subject's reputation. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 13:09, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Satisfies notability criteria. Years of being a standup comedian & her board membership of British humanist & feminist organisations is sufficient for notability in Britain. I know Kate & I was connected to Goldsmiths College for 10 years. There has been a clique at Goldsmiths that have emerged in the last 2 years that seeks to silence free speech that they disagree with. The deletion request is coming from a malicious intent


Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:01, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:01, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:01, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:01, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:01, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. MBisanz talk 01:24, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nicolas Bachand (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)

NN minor-league hockey player, ephemeral career. Subject was deleted at AfD nearly a decade ago for failing WP:NHOCKEY and the GNG. Recreated by the infamous Dolovis, who was responsible for the creation of thousands of NN stubs, and was banned by the community from new article creation. Ravenswing 13:04, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:06, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:06, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:06, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:06, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Katietalk 23:07, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

J.C. Gregson (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)

Unremarkable person; no sources; doesnt link to any article. Originally under CSD A7, moved to AfD after Contest for Speedy Deletion undetermined. Music1201 (talk) 07:55, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:38, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:38, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as searches noticeably found nothing better and there's nothing else convincing especially the article's current context. I'm also not optimistic about the Redirect mentioned above because he's currently not mentioned there and I'm not finding anything solid to confirm a Redirect. SwisterTwister talk 04:38, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 12:56, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. MBisanz talk 01:24, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

Article about a two year old musical group. Fails WP:BAND for lack of sufficient available sources. - MrX 12:36, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk) 09:15, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk) 09:16, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. North America1000 21:27, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mister Photogenic Indonesia (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, promo The Banner talk 12:19, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:28, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:28, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:28, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. MBisanz talk 01:24, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

Unsourced list of winners of a pageant that was deemed not notable (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Miss United Continent (2nd nomination) The Banner talk 12:06, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:30, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:30, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. MBisanz talk 01:25, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

Looks like WP:OR, fails WP:GNG as there are no independent sources The Banner talk 11:58, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 09:22, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 09:22, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. MBisanz talk 01:25, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Motus Drone (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 a notable company. After stating the company's name and nationality none of rest of the content of the article content or the references is about the company or its products. A WP:BEFORE search on Google delivered no usable results. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 11:57, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: nothing substantial in article to assert notability, Google gives very little, references in article don't mention the company, they're just listicles. crh23 (talk) 21:24, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 05:46, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 05:46, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 05:46, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: The company’s own website doesn’t even show up in a Google search, let alone any secondary sources to establish notability. giso6150 (talk) 11:48, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Maintain the article: Those people who ask for "deletions" are trolls and spammers. Wikipedia, for many years, has a bad reputation because those individuals. Asking for "deletion" is an extrem mesure, especially in this case, because the article is not offensive at all. In fact, it has, today, six references, based on different sources. Give the author the chance to gradually improve the article. Wikipedia's sources are voluntary contributors, not professional writers. So, you should be very cautious before considering an article for deletion. Lots of Wikipedia's articles are about enterprises, corporations and individuals. Not all of them are popular or famous. And not all the articles on Wikipedia are totally conform to its edition policy. So, just remember our Freedom of Speech. Energyelectrofree
This obviously can't be taken seriously for saving the article. SwisterTwister talk 05:07, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:43, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Energyelectrofree, please familiarize yourself with Wikipedia's rules, especially the ideas of neutral point of view and notability. Swistertwister, please don't bite the newbies. JHCaufield - talk - 17:25, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Bite the newbies? "Those people who ask for "deletions" are trolls and spammers" is egregiously uncivil, a baseless personal attack, and I'm issuing a civility warning to Energyelectrofree, accordingly. I see he'd never been warned for removing the Afd tag with an edit summary that is another personal attack, so I've issued another warning, which is his 3rd. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:38, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Shawn. The last time I looked, WP:BITE didn't say we're obliged to roll out the red carpet for aggressive COI editors. Nobody has bitten them. Bishonen | talk 19:56, 7 April 2016 (UTC).[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Mz7 (talk) 04:20, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Axonie (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 find a single RS source Greek Legend (talk) 01:15, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:27, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:27, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar 05:37, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 11:49, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Katietalk 23:23, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

This article fails to meet the WP:GNG or WP:Music guideline for notability. A google search reveals no reliable sources to verify this article's content. 4meter4 (talk) 03:23, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 04:19, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:19, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:19, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethiopia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:19, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: The article presently appears to be free from copyright infringement (0.0 percent confidence in copyright infringement, as of this post).
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 11:41, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. There is clear consensus not to have an article about this. A selective merger has been proposed, but does not find consensus here. Considering that a talk page merge proposal has also already been closed as failed, I'm deleting instead of redirecting. Should consensus later emerge to cover this topic at Donald Trump, as a testament to the quality of U.S. political discourse, the relevant material should be available on the talk page and can be copied from there.  Sandstein  12:41, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Short-Fingered Vulgarian (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)

Definitely not encyclopedic content. If really necessary, the content could be merged into Donald Trump, however I vote to delete it completely, since it has absolutely no importance in the description of Mr. Trump and is (imo) on the verge of being considered harassment. rayukk | talk 11:40, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. North America1000 11:44, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. North America1000 11:44, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. North America1000 11:44, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Trivial recentism. Imagine how many articles you can create for every nickname every celebrity has been called. The term 'unencyclopedic' has been used loosely before but it clearly applies here. Spellcast (talk) 12:48, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
30 years isn't "recent". Andy Dingley (talk) 16:23, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
If I understand correctly, Spellcast isn't saying that the original use of the phrase was recent, but rather that its attention in popular culture and the media is recent. —Granger (talk · contribs) 18:13, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge somewhere – Of course, this is rather silly, but perhaps the mention can be merged to an appropriate article, as per WP:PRESERVE relative to the decent coverage the topic has received. North America1000 14:00, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I agree, it is not encyclopedic at all, and it does indeed verges on harassment. I understand that is easy to view D. Trump negatively, but wikipedia should include comedic insults? Specially as a separate article? A lot of details form Trump's past are dug up, including "sensations" like "my date with Trump, " or "I showered with Trump" etc. This 30 years old expression would probably be forgotten if wasn't refreshed already, and soon will be forgotten by the media. Bialosz (talk) 15:25, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge & redirect. Per Northamerica1000. The notoriety and duration of the comic "feud" and the pervasiveness of the nickname are substantial. It should be borne in mind that although right now Trump is primarily being viewed in political terms, he's also had a long career in the entertainment world, and this content is thoroughly appropriate in that context. (At some point it may be appropriate to spin off a separate article or articles on Trump's career in entertainment and his media profile.) In the meantime I think this material, written in an appropriately NPOV tone, is appropriately included. --Arxiloxos (talk) 15:39, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I live (thankfully) an ocean away. I'm already familiar with this term. Some political insults are trivia, some stick. Some become defining of particular politicans: Nixon and Clinton, sweaty and unshaved or cigars - you all know instantly which goes with which. This term was coined thirty years ago and it's still in use. I can hear references to Trump's "dimensions" on my national evening news broadcast in a whole different country. This is a notable term with legs (I have no idea if he has short legs). Andy Dingley (talk) 16:23, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • The "sweaty and unshaved (Nixon)" thing related to a history-changing event/public reaction when presidential political debate was newly broadcast on TV versus the radio. The "cigar" thing related to Bill Clinton's impeachment proceeding, again having significance relating to a historic event. Do you have any similar historic significance to offer re the "short-fingered" thing? (If not then I'd say your comparison argument breaks down.) IHTS (talk) 23:41, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • We don't work by historical significance here, we work by the independent attention paid to it. This issue has garnered attention - fanned substantially by Trump himself. It also matters less if Nixon was unshaved or was even seen as looking unshaven - what matters is that the newspapers discussed it the day after. Clinton didn't smoke a cigar in the hearing, I don't even know if cigars were mentioned, but they were certainly mentioned in the press. The finger issue has received that same attention. Andy Dingley (talk) 01:08, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Your two examples (do you even know what the cigar reference you made is about?; it appeared you did, then subsequently that you don't) had some historical import/significance, so was reasonable to assume you chose them in whole/part for that reason. Now you're saying historical significance is irrelevant to notability, and the only basis you give for notability is the thing got "attention". If I tell you that being in print or generating attention and therefore references isn't sufficient for WP:Notability, it just might just kill me by boredom. (So I won't.) That apparently is your single argument, without qualification towards editorial judgement (save the element of some degree of historical significance, which you said is a ghost). IHTS (talk) 04:31, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Btw, is there a separate article on Nixon's beard-stubble? On Clinton's cigar? On any/all of the various alleged Presidential/Presidential-candidates' peccadilloes through the years? Shearonink (talk) 01:27, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
well, we do have Barack the Magic Negro, Barack Obama "Joker" poster, Shut up your mouse, Obama, You didn't build that. Jytdog (talk) 05:26, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
But nothing on the cigar or its close relative, The Blue Dress, or the stubble... Shearonink (talk) 05:45, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I think I have established beyond any reasonable doubt that extremely derogatory memes can have articles in Wikipedia. We can have this kind of raw racist shit but somehow Trump's short fingers are immune? Makes zero sense - apparently the NOTABILITY standards for political memes are far more flexible than any of the "deletes" here are aware of. Jytdog (talk) 08:19, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
There's also Binders full of women, Miss Me Yet?, and Series of tubes, but as far as I am concerned this conversation ended with Barack the Magic Negro. Jytdog (talk) 08:32, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Does someone really need to do the cliche thing and link you WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS? Maybe those subjects merit an article, maybe they don't. But the fact that they exist right now is not an argument that this one should. Fyddlestix (talk) 13:11, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
User:Fyddlestix if you actually read what I wrote here I have explicitly said that I am not making an OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument. What I said was that the community standards for NOTABILITY and what constitutes an "attack article" seems very low in this topic area. You are surely aware that various topic areas have their own tweaks on the basic NOTABILITY standards. People can disagree but do not distort what i am saying. Just don't do it. Jytdog (talk) 19:11, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete - First, it was created by a sockpuppet of a blocked user. While other editors have edited the article, the entirety of the content was contributed by a user who has been persistently promoting a comparison of Trump to Hitler. Even if none of that were true, the article should not exist independently of Mr. Trump's main biography, if at all. I suppose WP:DUEWEIGHT suggests that some mention should be given in the biography, but WP:NOTSCANDAL suggests that this type of content falls short of our goal of being a serious encyclopedia. Technically, the article should be deleted because Acroterion has removed the attribution required by WP:CC BY-SA, although I don't fault him for it.- MrX 17:29, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not really sure the attribution chain is any more compromised by the removal of the originating username than if intervening usernames are redacted. I'd propose starting over again if that's an issue, though it's a bit bureaucratic. I have no view on the actual notability issue here. Acroterion (talk) 22:40, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete - Article is not encyclopedic in the least.CFredkin (talk) 17:37, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete - If this material is worthy of including in an encyclopedia at all (which I seriously question) it can be dealt within the main Trump article. Obvious troll is obvious, we shouldn't be giving crap like this the time of day. Fyddlestix (talk) 17:51, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I agree with Rayukk and Spellcast's arguments—at most, this might deserve a single sentence in the article Donald Trump, if that. Moreover, if, as MrX says, the content of the article was created by a sockpuppet of a blocked user, it should be deleted for that reason as well. —Granger (talk · contribs) 18:09, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'strong keep i saw the posting at BLPN about this and came here just to check it out, thinking "hoax" or something but the number of legit sources that discuss this in depth was surprising to me. Meets GNG by a mile. About the G5 speedy tag, this has been worked over extensively (by MrX, ironically) and so the tag was no longer applicable - I am the one who removed it. That said, given the overwhelming "delete" response, i would of course accept a merge to the main Trump article. Jytdog (talk) 19:41, 3 April 2016 (UTC) (modify, after seeing what other kind of political memes we have articles for; paying mind to the genre standards for NOTABILITY is important Jytdog (talk) 05:28, 4 April 2016 (UTC)) (striking Jytdog (talk) 07:19, 7 April 2016 (UTC))[reply]
    I think it's worth mentioning that my work on the article consisted of removing the most glaring WP:BLP violations and using Refill to fill in references.- MrX 20:06, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, which constitutes a review and acceptance of the content added by the banned user. Jytdog (talk) 21:48, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
No, I'm pretty sure that's not how it works, but in case there's any question, I do not accept the content added by the banned blocked user.- MrX 21:56, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Why does the Trump article need a sentence on this? It seems like it certainly doesn't need this kind of non notable attack material added to it. --Malerooster (talk) 02:28, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
That would be because you've just deleted half the sources Andy Dingley (talk) 09:35, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
That was mainly an attempt to remove sources and strengthen the argument that the article has notability. If you go through my edit history, I have done the same for other pages as well, and after three sources that say the same thing, nothing is really gained when you have ten sources that all state the same fact. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 16:55, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
"an attempt to remove sources and strengthen the argument that the article has notability. "
That's not an argument, that's nonsense. Andy Dingley (talk) 17:20, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Excess sources always impress that the case for notability was weak to begin with. So to weed them is productive & helpful towards making any case of notability. What's nonsense is your accuse of nonsense. IHTS (talk) 04:39, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or better Merge. As Jytdog says, remarkably well sourced over a period of years. Only in death does duty end (talk) 08:07, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: If this is to be kept at all, it should either redirect to Spy Magazine or to Graydon Carter's article. This seems to mostly center around a "feud" between the two that includes the phrase but isn't limited to it. Most of the coverage on this specific phrase is relatively recent despite it being used in the 80s, as it's from the past few months with the exception of a handful of articles written in October of last year like this one. Tokyogirl79 (。◕‿◕。) 08:52, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
recent sources doesn't mean WP:RECENTISM. This is an almost thirty year old meme and of the 33,000 google hits of which many are low quality, here is one from 1989, one from 1990, the cover article from 1999 Jewish Weekly, Newsweek in 2004 completely just tossed in, a nice 2006 NYT piece by Christopher Buckley, 2004 Globe and Mail in the headline of a review of the Apprentice when it first came out, slate in 2006 again in reference to goings-on on The Apprentice, Gawker in 2008 picking up the gawntlet, national post in 2006 remarking contemporaneously with Trump making his quote about "In fact, my fingers are long and beautiful, as, it has been well documented, are various other parts of my body." " which he did away back then in 2006. And there are many, many over the decades. It has been a touchstone since it was coined and hammered on by Grayson. Jytdog (talk) 09:27, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
User:Bishonen apparently for politicians the NOTABILITY standard is much lower and BLP is more lax. See Barack the Magic Negro, Barack Obama "Joker" poster, Shut up your mouse, Obama, You didn't build that, Binders full of women, Miss Me Yet?, and Series of tubes. Not to mention Macaca (term). And we do it for brits, apparently: Ed Miliband bacon sandwich photograph. I am not making an WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument; I am saying that for this genre of articles, these are the community standards. This article is way more strongly sourced than almost any of those. Jytdog (talk) 10:23, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
(My god, hasn't the Ed Miliband bacon sandwich article been deleted yet?) OK, I expect you're right; this actually is the US- + GB-pedia, not an "international encyclopedia" at all. However, I don't understand why you and other keep !voters argue per "well sourced", as the nomination is nothing to do with sources. I don't see a single delete !vote complaining about sources. Massively sourced doesn't help if something's undue, trivial, and insulting to a living person. Bishonen | talk 10:42, 4 April 2016 (UTC).[reply]
I hear you kind of. But again it seems that for politicians that standard is very very low. Again, Barack the Magic Negro which has never been AfDed and was even on the front page as a DYK. That is WP's standards for this sort of thing. (as for the global thing, Trump is likely going to be the republican candidate and the world media is very aware of that) Trump has spent most of his career in the tabloids and this description stuck to him then and is still stuck to him. I cannot see how it is even close to being as demeaning as Barack the Magic Negro. I am baffled - really baffled - by anyone freaking out on "Short-Fingered Vulgarian" in light of the standards we have. Jytdog (talk) 10:49, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
There's nothing in BLP that says "this stuff doesn't apply to politicians." Trump is clearly the victim of a crude verbal attack and we should WP:AVOIDVICTIM. The other rubbish should go too.Talk to SageGreenRider 11:50, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, we went through this nonsense in 2012 (and probably 2008 and before), and I argued for deletion for pretty much every one of these things last time around too. Wikipedia should make an effort to stay above the fray and not act as a proxy battleground for these politicians and their supporters. I know; it's hard to type that without laughing. —Torchiest talkedits 12:43, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
This isn't funny or cute to me, and this is why I don't edit about politics. This phrase is sourced out the wazoo by multiple people (not just Grayson) for nearly 30 years, and people are having a cow. But Barack the Magic Negro is just fine and hey DYK worthy. Barak. The... Magic. Negro. A proud, proud, Wikipedia article indeed. A good reminder for me to stay the hell out of topics where there are poor sources and active online communities. There is no reason here. Ya'all will do as you will do. Jytdog (talk) 12:52, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Jytdog: Per your comparisons in this discussion, don't forget about Piggate. North America1000 13:23, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Facepalm Facepalm that article is so long! and exists. oy. Jytdog (talk) 13:27, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not saying it's cute or funny, I'm saying these articles are ridiculous. What's funny is the suggestion that WP will somehow not get sucked into political battles. I knew it was impossible when I said it, but it's still something to strive for. If it makes you feel any better, we did manage to delete Obama Eats Dogs. —Torchiest talkedits 15:13, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as an attack page. I'm no fan of Trump at all, but that's straight-up an attack page from a non-reliable source who's only purpose is to deride Donald Trump. Delete and salt ! KoshVorlon 15:50, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
BLP states that we can't say critical things without sourcing that they already have an independent notability outside WP. This does. It has had such for thirty years. Andy Dingley (talk) 17:21, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Consesnsus is against a merge. My proposal is a compromise. QuackGuru (talk) 18:11, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
WP:UNDUE notes that Wikipedia should not give more prominence to a concept inside Wikipedia than it receives outside. Mentioning the concept in Donald Trumps article would be in line with the relative importance of this. Dedicating an entire, stand-alone article is a BLP violation of its own self because of the undue level of prominence it gives to a minor issue. --Jayron32 19:57, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:50, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do not simply delete. A selective merge would be a reasonable compromise. There's ample RS to demonstrate that the phrase has notability and is not just a recent creation. Tricky Dick is likewise a redirect to Richard Nixon, with a single sentence and cite for this usage. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:58, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Selective merge and I'm noting that even some editors voting Delete are saying that they'd be okay with including a sentence or two on the main Trump article (under media coverage?) about this. I don't think the subject warrants a stand-alone article (and deletion of those Obama articles should be considered, too) but the fact is that this reference to short fingers comes up and it could be an element of the Trump campaign that readers are looking for clarification of. It would be BLP violation if Wikipedia stated Trump had these fingers while I think it's fine to include a mention of Grayson's term to indicate Trump's frosty relationship with NYC papers and magazines over the past three decades. It's part of his public profile, it's a feud that Trump brings up himself. It's the feud that is notable, not what Trumps fingers are like that matters. So, I vote for a neutrally worded, explanatory statement on the Trump bio would benefit readers, whatever their political leanings. Liz Read! Talk! 19:58, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Conservatism-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:59, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete and Salt Breaks BLP rules, entirely non encyclopedic, frivolous, has little informational value, and breaks the Letter and Spirit of Wikipedia. scope_creep (talk) 12:46, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Not independently useful as a separate article. Created for shits and giggles.--Milowenthasspoken 16:55, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete at most this deserves a line in the main article, but I don't even thing that it deserves that. I am sure there are lots of nicknames for Mr. Trump, but we are not mandated to include every single one. --kelapstick(bainuu) 20:46, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete at most this deserves a line in the main article. Although the reference may have 'gone round in circles' for umpteen years. It has not been the subject of any significant events/coverage etc. Pincrete (talk) 21:19, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge This is a real thing, it has been talked about for over 30 years, there are abundant sources. It is now relevant to current events. It is true and it is verifiable. While it may not justify an article I don't think the content of this article should go down the memory hole. It should find a home in another article. HighInBC 14:01, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: as an attack page on a living person; echoing MelanieN. Fylbecatulous talk 14:35, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as nothing more than a symptom of the ridiculously long election process in the USA. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 19:33, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • merge very briefly. -- NOT NEWS. The principle is NOT NEWS, and this type of article is one of the reasons why we have and need that policy. I would apply it not just to this article, but to almost all similar, except those with actually proven historical or literary significance. Almost all political insults have -- and are intended to haver -- only an ephemeral significance, and the middle of an election campaign is not the place to judge the permanent value. DGG ( talk ) 01:34, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. There are simply too few reliable sources, so the subject fails WP:GNG. Katietalk 23:18, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

HealthCare Global Enterprises Ltd (HCG) (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. Non-notable, fails WP:CORP JMHamo (talk) 00:58, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. On very day of the company's successful (oversubscribed) Initial public offering, with multiple articles about it in many sources over recent days! It was helpfully started as a stub by someone who noticed the omission in Wikipedia; they should be thanked not slammed by an AFD.
  • What efforts in wp:BEFORE were performed? Nomination does not state any efforts or explain why topic is "non-notable", could be based on just the fact that it is a stub article with only 2 reliable sources so far?
  • Here is article in The Economic Times (the 2nd biggest business newspaper in the world, behind Wall Street Journal). Note one crore rupees is 10,000,000 rupees (rs) is about 150,000 U.S. dollars. The IPO yielded Rs 292 crore in pre-sales round to "anchor investors", then Rs 650 crore in the main IPO. That is $141,300,000 U.S. dollars, which is above what i saw elsewhere was the median size out of the 350 IPOs in U.S. in part or all of 2013: $100 million. This study of 2015 IPOs in U.S. reports 275 IPOs raising $85.3 billion so mean is $310 million, but that includes Alibaba's record IPO and 15 others > $1 billion. Any way you look at it, being >$100 million is pretty big!
  • Search in Scholar (with search term modified sensibly to "HealthCare Global Enterprises" rather than the whole string) yields, for one: "Corporate Presence in the Health care Sector in India" by Indira Chakravarthi, Social Medicine, Volume 5, Number 4, December 2010, which lists it among private companies, giving

    xvix. Healthcare Global Enterprises Ltd (HCG), a chain of cancer hospitals with equity investments by IDFC Private Equity, Evolence India Life Sciences Fund and PremjiInvest, had 17 cancer treatment centers across the country in 2009 and was planning to expand to 40 centers with an investment of Rs 400 crores by 2012 (Business Line August 29 2009).

--doncram 04:50, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
this is 2016. Any idea what may have occurred in the last 4 years? DGG ( talk ) 20:05, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
No, but notability is not temporary. ~Kvng (talk) 22:27, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
(WP:NTEMP). North America1000 11:36, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 04:12, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:15, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:15, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:15, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:15, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 11:38, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete: I looked long and hard at this subject. Guidelines call for 3-5 independent and reliable sources with comprehensive coverage of the subject, so I'm confused about why people are voting 'keep' based on the two existing sources, the size of the company, or the amount their IPO brings in. These don't establish notability. Surely there is more out there if this company is notable? I found this and I thought "Oh, I may vote keep!" until I realized it might just be a press release ("ET Bureau" in the by-line) and it's primarily a quote from HCG anyway (primary source, not comprehensive coverage). I found a LOT of articles available on them, certainly, but the entire lot was either just coverage of one event (Their IPO) or a VERY LONG list of press releases. Chrisw80 (talk) 06:21, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. We should not have an article whose documentation is limited to the IPO. Companies are notable for what they do, and that's what has to be shown to be notable. DGG ( talk ) 23:27, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - searches did not turn up enough in-depth coverage, beyond the routine coverage of their ipo, to show they pass either WP:GNG or WP:CORPDEPTH. Onel5969 TT me 20:09, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Culture of Uzbekistan. MBisanz talk 01:25, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

This article appears to be a complete set of original research based on no reliable sources at all. It is also written in such poor English (I believe it to be a WP:MACHINETRANSLATION) as to render any attempts at clean-up impossible. Does Wikipedia need an article about Folklore in Uzbekistan? Yes. But not this article. I believe WP:TNT applies here. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 10:55, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Uzbekistan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:12, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:12, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:12, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Consensus is for deletion. North America1000 21:23, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Gina Genovese (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)

NN politician, one-time mayor of a small town, failed candidate for state senate. Deleted at AfD for non-notability in 2007, promptly recreated out of process and falling between the cracks. All-but-unsourced for several years. Fails the GNG, WP:POLITICIAN. Ravenswing 10:36, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:55, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:55, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I looked her up and a lot of the press about her actually comes after she left elected office and became a community organizer on issues that seem to get a lot of coverage. I would keep it with a banner that asks for more (and newer) references. VanEman (talk) 17:29, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Since, however, this is a BLP, and one that's essentially gone without qualifying sources for nearly a decade, source tagging it just doesn't cut it. We're enjoined to aggressively remove it if reliable sources providing substantial coverage about the subject (as opposed to community issues in which she is involved) are not demonstrated to exist. If you've found any, could you cite them, please? Ravenswing 19:31, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge to List of Autobots. (non-admin closure) Mz7 (talk) 04:17, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

Minor fictional character from the Transformers universe. No evidence of real-world notability. Josh Milburn (talk) 14:46, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:48, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:48, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein  10:24, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to List of waterfalls in India#Ganganna Sirrasu Water Falls. MBisanz talk 01:25, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ganganna Sirrasu Water Falls (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 unremarkable place. 333-blue 10:14, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:54, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 05:39, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Google results for this waterfall are not encouraging, and seem to consist almost solely of a single site: www.hoparoundindia.com . I don't believe this meets WP:GEOLAND on that basis, although it's entirely possible this is simply a language issue and there are sufficient non-English reliable sources. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:32, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy delete. WP:OR, made-up essay Jimfbleak - talk to me? 14:17, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Terracotta culture (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 search for "terracotta culture" has some hits, but none in the context used in the article. There wasn't any coverage I could find for this "phenomenon". Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 09:20, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 09:20, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 09:20, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. MBisanz talk 01:25, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Mercer (musician) (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)

From what I can see via a search, Mercer seems to have only gained coverage for his tragic death. I can't really find anything that goes into depth about his career as a producer or performer, so I have to assume that neither is of particular note. Notability is WP:NOTINHERITED by him having worked with notable persons and I can't really find anything to show that he had any overwhelmingly large influence on the bands or albums, especially as bands and albums can have many, many producers involved with an album to varying degrees. I think that the best I found was this brief mention in the Stranger.

If there's more coverage out there then that'd be different, but I can't find anything other than the one brief mention and some articles about him drowning. I'm aware that some of this coverage might be pre-Internet, so if anyone can find anything then that'd be great. Tokyogirl79 (。◕‿◕。) 09:02, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 12:09, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:42, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. MBisanz talk 01:26, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Arman Charostaei (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 political activist. Dandelo (talk) 08:31, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 05:36, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 05:36, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 05:36, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedily deleted by Bishonen per WP:SNOW. (non-admin closure) • Gene93k (talk) 02:15, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A look At History Of American, Celebrating (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)

Written like an essay. I can't even tell what this article is about, and it's likely not notable enough to be included in an encyclopedia. Music1201 talk 07:58, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Bishonen I think this nomination template needs to be closed, so it shows on the AFD stats. Yes? — Maile (talk) 20:54, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge to List of Autobots. (non-admin closure) Mz7 (talk) 04:18, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

Minor character from the Transformers universe. No evidence of real-world notability. Josh Milburn (talk) 14:51, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:49, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:49, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein  07:51, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. North America1000 21:19, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ludmila Bereznitsky (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)

NN gallery owner, article without references supporting the subject's notability since creation nearly a decade ago. The list of "publications" is all-but-unreferenced. No sources satisfying the GNG as giving the subject "substantial coverage" have turned up. Article originally deleted at AfD in 2007, recreated by a SPA with no other Wikipedia edits. Ravenswing 07:19, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:56, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:56, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:56, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:56, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. clear consensus--no bar to re-creation with adequate sourcing. DGG ( talk ) 04:11, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Al Hamad (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)
NN alleged Arabic "clan," no sources proffered. Unimproved in a decade The article was AfDed nine years ago with a bundle of similar ones, and in one of those brutal decisions common to the era closed as a keep based on the pious hope of the keep proponents that sources might eventually appear.

My comment from that AfD was "These articles represent the sole contribution to Wikipedia of User:Phsychyzed, of which he says of himself on his talk page 'Phsychyzed is a nickname created by child and has now risen to be one of the most famous "nicknames" in use on the internet.Nobody really knows what the nickname resembles but ofcourse many have given the simplest of guess where phsychy means crazy and zed just being the alphabet letter.' The earliest of these articles is over a year old now, and at no point has any attempt to improve most of them been made. Right now the only info I'm seeing on the web refers to (a) these articles and their mirrors, (b) repeated blogging by a Jordanian teenager named Al Zeitawi looking for pen pals; and (c) a business by that name in Abu Dhabi. There are no verifiable sources for this info, not a single one. I understand that people want to bend over backwards to be Arab-friendly here, but I strongly suspect WP:HOAX at this point."

No newer sources substantiating any of the information in the article have turned up since, and the article remains unimproved in all that time. Fails the GNG, but then again it always did. Ravenswing 06:54, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:48, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Palestine-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:48, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or merge with Al-Zeitawi. It is unfortunate that Arabic transliterations are not easily conducive to something that can be standardized into a Latin script, hence skewing our search return numbers. That however, does not diminish the actual content as I can verify as an Arabic speaker. Hawaan12 (talk) 06:55, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: What "content?" There are no sources listed here. You've cut-and-pasted this response to all the "clan" articles I AfDed, which leads me to question whether you've sought reliable sources for some of these at all. If you have, where are they? Ravenswing 07:45, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:36, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Middle East-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:36, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Can't find any coverage in either English or Arabic RSs. Eperoton (talk) 14:21, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as none of this suggests solid notability and there's nothing to suggest this is an improvable article. SwisterTwister talk 05:24, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as old, vague article with no sources. Searches do produce hits on Al Hamad as a contemporary surname. And references to clans of this name in various parts of the Arab world. But this article makes claims such as "Al Hamad (الحمد) is an old Arabic tribe who live in the village of Jammain" and my search on "Al Hamad" + "Jammain" comes up empty, except for mirrors of this article. Better to have no page than a page spreading information that cannot be validated. No prejudice against re-creation if someone can source a proper article.E.M.Gregory (talk) 10:15, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Like al-Zeitawi, this is probably not a hoax article, but should be deleted because it can't be verified and quite frankly, even if we could verify that the family exists, it would probably fail WP notability guidelines. This goes for all the supposed sub-branches of the Zeitawi clan. --Al Ameer (talk) 19:37, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Couldn't find anything to substantiate that this subject passes WP:GNG. Onel5969 TT me 20:11, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Sarahj2107 (talk) 13:39, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Al Sheikh Ahmed (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)
NN alleged Arabic "clan," no sources proffered. Unimproved in a decade The article was AfDed nine years ago with a bundle of similar ones, and in one of those brutal decisions common to the era closed as a keep based on the pious hope of the keep proponents that sources might eventually appear.

My comment from that AfD was "These articles represent the sole contribution to Wikipedia of User:Phsychyzed, of which he says of himself on his talk page 'Phsychyzed is a nickname created by child and has now risen to be one of the most famous "nicknames" in use on the internet.Nobody really knows what the nickname resembles but ofcourse many have given the simplest of guess where phsychy means crazy and zed just being the alphabet letter.' The earliest of these articles is over a year old now, and at no point has any attempt to improve most of them been made. Right now the only info I'm seeing on the web refers to (a) these articles and their mirrors, (b) repeated blogging by a Jordanian teenager named Al Zeitawi looking for pen pals; and (c) a business by that name in Abu Dhabi. There are no verifiable sources for this info, not a single one. I understand that people want to bend over backwards to be Arab-friendly here, but I strongly suspect WP:HOAX at this point."

No newer sources substantiating any of the information in the article have turned up since, and the article remains unimproved in all that time. Fails the GNG, but then again it always did. Ravenswing 06:54, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:48, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Palestine-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:48, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or merge with Al-Zeitawi. It is unfortunate that Arabic transliterations are not easily conducive to something that can be standardized into a Latin script, hence skewing our search return numbers. That however, does not diminish the actual content as I can verify as an Arabic speaker. Hawaan12 (talk) 06:55, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: What "content?" There are no sources listed here. You've cut-and-pasted this response to all the "clan" articles I AfDed, which leads me to question whether you've sought reliable sources for some of these at all. If you have, where are they? Ravenswing 07:30, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:36, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Middle East-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:36, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Sarahj2107 (talk) 13:39, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Al Sheikh Saleh (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)
NN alleged Arabic "clan," no sources proffered. Unimproved in a decade The article was AfDed nine years ago with a bundle of similar ones, and in one of those brutal decisions common to the era closed as a keep based on the pious hope of the keep proponents that sources might eventually appear.

My comment from that AfD was "These articles represent the sole contribution to Wikipedia of User:Phsychyzed, of which he says of himself on his talk page 'Phsychyzed is a nickname created by child and has now risen to be one of the most famous "nicknames" in use on the internet.Nobody really knows what the nickname resembles but ofcourse many have given the simplest of guess where phsychy means crazy and zed just being the alphabet letter.' The earliest of these articles is over a year old now, and at no point has any attempt to improve most of them been made. Right now the only info I'm seeing on the web refers to (a) these articles and their mirrors, (b) repeated blogging by a Jordanian teenager named Al Zeitawi looking for pen pals; and (c) a business by that name in Abu Dhabi. There are no verifiable sources for this info, not a single one. I understand that people want to bend over backwards to be Arab-friendly here, but I strongly suspect WP:HOAX at this point."

No newer sources substantiating any of the information in the article have turned up since, and the article remains unimproved in all that time. Fails the GNG, but then again it always did. Ravenswing 06:53, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:49, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Palestine-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:49, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or merge with Al-Zeitawi. It is unfortunate that Arabic transliterations are not easily conducive to something that can be standardized into a Latin script, hence skewing our search return numbers. That however, does not diminish the actual content as I can verify as an Arabic speaker. Hawaan12 (talk) 06:54, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: What "content?" There are no sources listed here. You've cut-and-pasted this response to all the "clan" articles I AfDed, which leads me to question whether you've sought reliable sources for some of these at all. If you have, where are they? Ravenswing 07:30, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:35, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Middle East-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:35, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Sarahj2107 (talk) 13:37, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Al-Zeitawi (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)
NN alleged Arabic "clan," no sources proffered. Unimproved in a decade. The article was AfDed nine years ago with a bundle of similar ones, and in one of those brutal decisions common to the era closed as a keep based on the pious hope of the keep proponents that sources might eventually appear.

My comment from that AfD was "These articles represent the sole contribution to Wikipedia of User:Phsychyzed, of which he says of himself on his talk page 'Phsychyzed is a nickname created by child and has now risen to be one of the most famous "nicknames" in use on the internet.Nobody really knows what the nickname resembles but ofcourse many have given the simplest of guess where phsychy means crazy and zed just being the alphabet letter.' The earliest of these articles is over a year old now, and at no point has any attempt to improve most of them been made. Right now the only info I'm seeing on the web refers to (a) these articles and their mirrors, (b) repeated blogging by a Jordanian teenager named Al Zeitawi looking for pen pals; and (c) a business by that name in Abu Dhabi. There are no verifiable sources for this info, not a single one. I understand that people want to bend over backwards to be Arab-friendly here, but I strongly suspect WP:HOAX at this point."

No newer sources substantiating any of the information in the article have turned up since, and the article remains unimproved in all that time. Fails the GNG, but then again it always did. Ravenswing 06:53, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:51, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:51, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Palestine-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:51, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Middle East-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:51, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - no reliable sources appear to exist to verify this, and I agree that it could well be a hoax. It is worrying - though sadly it no longer surprises me - that the article has survived this long. Cordless Larry (talk) 19:48, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Honestly, there's no way of knowing how much longer it would've lingered if I wasn't going through all the AfD discussions in which I'd participated where the subjects still had blue links. Ravenswing 23:11, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I doubt this was a hoax, because from what I've gathered through working on Palestinian village articles, the Zeitawi tribe is indeed a large clan in the town of Jamma'in and smaller villages in the vicinity, though I highly question claims of descent to Muhammad and the vast geographic extent of the tribe. However, due to the lack (or virtual absence) of coverage in reliable sources, this tribe and its sub-clans don't meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines. Even if a ref(s) could be provided to prove the clan's existence, I still doubt it would be notable enough. I'm surprised this article and its sub-articles were not deleted in '07. --Al Ameer (talk) 23:54, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep or merge with Al-Zeitawi. , The correct course of action when an article title is legitamate but its content is a bit iffy, is to add sone tags or templates to it, not delete. Due to transliteration issues, it does not produce more returns. Hawaan12 (talk) 06:16, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: That's certainly a common misunderstanding on Wikipedia, but official policy holds differently. From WP:V - "If no reliable third-party sources can be found on a topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it." From WP:GNG - "There must be verifiable, objective evidence that the subject has received significant attention from independent sources to support a claim of notability. No subject is automatically or inherently notable merely because it exists: The evidence must show the topic has gained significant independent coverage or recognition." I see no reason why this article should receive another ten years without references providing it significant coverage that satisfies the GNG. Ravenswing 06:42, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete It's obviously not a hoax, but I can find no coverage in RSs to meet notability standards, either in English or in Arabic. I've removed a non-reliable reference from the article. The others were pasted from the Arabic counterpart, which has no footnotes. Their reliability and relevance would need to be verified. Eperoton (talk) 14:00, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Seems more like a non-notable local family, rather than a big tribe; I could find no reliable sources when googling "zeitawi", "zaytawi", "zeytawi", or "zitawi" (although there is a gas station in Jamma'in called "Al-Zitawi", according to openstreetmap). I share Al Ameer's doubts about the exceptional claims, especially the one about the vast geographic extent. A bit to the northwest of Jamma'in is the village of Zeita. "Al-Zeitawi" may well be a nisba or toponymic name based on that village, so it does not seem that this "tribe" has traveled the globe before settling down, at least not by the name Al-Zeitawi. - HyperGaruda (talk) 20:15, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as another case where none of this yet suggests a better applicably notable article and this would still need any better improvements, any of which can happen if Drafted (when and if needed) later. SwisterTwister talk 05:16, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I've also filed AfDs on the last two "clans" from the old AfD: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Al Sharei, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Al Eisa. Ravenswing 11:10, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Ravenswing: you've missed one: Al-Khalil (family). - HyperGaruda (talk) 17:18, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You know what it is, the original Al-Khalil link in the 2007 AfD had been redirected to Hebron. Feel free to file on that one, though! Ravenswing 20:00, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. clear consensus--no bar to re-creation with adequate sourcing. DGG ( talk ) 04:11, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Al-Zaghab (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)
NN alleged Arabic "clan," no sources proffered. Unimproved in a decade The article was AfDed nine years ago with a bundle of similar ones, and in one of those brutal decisions common to the era closed as a keep based on the pious hope of the keep proponents that sources might eventually appear.

My comment from that AfD was "These articles represent the sole contribution to Wikipedia of User:Phsychyzed, of which he says of himself on his talk page 'Phsychyzed is a nickname created by child and has now risen to be one of the most famous "nicknames" in use on the internet.Nobody really knows what the nickname resembles but ofcourse many have given the simplest of guess where phsychy means crazy and zed just being the alphabet letter.' The earliest of these articles is over a year old now, and at no point has any attempt to improve most of them been made. Right now the only info I'm seeing on the web refers to (a) these articles and their mirrors, (b) repeated blogging by a Jordanian teenager named Al Zeitawi looking for pen pals; and (c) a business by that name in Abu Dhabi. There are no verifiable sources for this info, not a single one. I understand that people want to bend over backwards to be Arab-friendly here, but I strongly suspect WP:HOAX at this point."

No newer sources substantiating any of the information in the article have turned up since, and the article remains unimproved in all that time. Fails the GNG, but then again it always did. Ravenswing 06:46, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:50, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Palestine-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:50, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It is unfortunate that Arabic transliterations are not conducive to something that can be standardized into a Latin script, hence skewing our search return numbers. That however, does not diminish the actual content as I can verify as an Arabic speaker. Hawaan12 (talk) 06:47, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Happily, the sources you added are English language ones, and none of them mention the subject in other than a fleeting reference. The Savage book you cite gives this as its sum reference: "The Hilalian clans of Diyat, 'Araq, Zaghab and others spread over Ifriqiya like locusts." The Burton reference is a footnote defining Zaghab as Arabic for "the chick's down." You cite the title of the Hephaestus book, but perhaps you overlooked the part where the Google Books review states "To date, this content has been curated from Wikipedia articles and images under Creative Commons licensing, although as Hephaestus Books continues to increase in scope and dimension, more licensed and public domain content is being added." This cannot stand as a reliable source, and I'm removing it. Would you like to proffer any reliable sources that meet WP:SIGCOV? Ravenswing 07:40, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:35, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Middle East-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:35, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:39, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Consensus that the subject does not meet WP:GNG. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 01:38, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Samuel Huber (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)

Person does not appear to meet wider notability. This reference [35] indicates he did play 7 minutes in the Swiss Super League. Eldumpo (talk) 06:40, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 08:36, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:38, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:38, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Switzerland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:38, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 01:49, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Iowa vs Iowa State 2015 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The subject of this article is a run-of-the-mill regular season college football game that is not sufficiently notable on its own to warrant a stand-alone article. The game can be sufficiently covered in 2015 Iowa Hawkeyes football team, 2015 Iowa State Cyclones football team, and Iowa–Iowa State football rivalry. Jweiss11 (talk) 06:38, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 05:13, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iowa-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 05:13, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as written, the article does not meet any notability standard that I can find. It's possible that a single game could be notable--if this one is, we need more evidence of notability.--Paul McDonald (talk) 13:40, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. Paul McDonald (talk) 13:45, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:19, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:19, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Mz7 (talk) 04:14, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Temporal logic in finite-state verification (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)

Written like an essay or lesson. Music1201 talk 05:37, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Logic-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:57, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:57, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This is horrible and it has been that way for a decade. Yet I still can't see awful prose as reason to delete.
We have an army of CompSci grads - isn't there anyone who can rework this? Andy Dingley (talk) 16:31, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. WP:BAND, the relevant notability guideline, does call for multiple, non-trivial coverage of the subject in independent reliable sources, so I have given more weight to arguments that directly address the existence of this coverage. Consensus is that sufficient coverage exists to establish notability. (non-admin closure) Mz7 (talk) 04:08, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Air Traffic Controller (Band) (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 seems highly questionable. An independent band with no major releases, awards or influence, as required by the guideline. SuperMarioMan ( Talk ) 04:30, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 04:40, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 04:40, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep The band was covered heavily in The Guardian, as shown in the citation to the article in the Wiki articles, as well as here. editorEهեইдအ😎 06:33, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No reason to keep; clearly non-notable. Music1201 talk 06:47, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Clearly notable via the coverage received, e.g. [36], [37], [38], [39], [40], [41], [42], [43], [44], [45]. We have no guideline that 'requires' "major releases, awards or influence". I have to wonder whether those who have !voted delete here made even the slightest effort to search for coverage that would establish notability. --Michig (talk) 20:10, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Performance reviews in Boston Globe and the Guardian should suffice, as per the reviews found by Michig. Now those need to be added to the article, which is sparse. Also, it looks like the albums are produced by Sugarpop Records, and that should be added. Unfortunately, Sugarpop Records is the label founded by a member of the band, so the music almost self-published. This, however, seems to be common now that recording does not require a multi-million-dollar studio. 23:40, 6 April 2016 (UTC)LaMona (talk)[reply]
  • Keep "Has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial, published works appearing in sources that are reliable, not self-published, and are independent of the musician or ensemble itself." The Guardian and Boston Globe and MTV articles should suffice for this Wikipedia guideline for notability. Eleanorarroway (talk) 23:32, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. MBisanz talk 01:20, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Castle of Dragon (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. (?) It had nothing meaningful besides [46] in a video game reliable sources custom Google search and no reviews listed at our major repository for old reviews, MobyGames. A redirect to Athena (company) could suffice. czar 03:55, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. czar 03:55, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 04:41, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. North America1000 21:15, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Guingon Group of Companies (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 proof of this company's existence -- I looked over the links in the past revisions and there is no archived page except for 404-type pages. There is a chance that the article is a blatant hoax, but I can't identify it as that myself. If this is not a hoax, then this could be deleted for lack of notability. TheGGoose (talk) 02:26, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:21, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:21, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:21, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: almost certainly a hoax. The "Key people" started off as initials; later revealed by the only other substantive editor (named "Guingon") than the original (IP single-purpose) as various people called "Guingon"; with offices around the world, income of 100,000,000,000 yen, and no trace of a mention on the web other than copies of the WP article. I tried searching in Japanese (hampered by not knowing the standard American(?) pronunciation) but found nothing on: Guingon グインゴン ガンゴン ギンゴン ホルディング etc. I also see that the history is mostly one of evading deletion... if the company is this elusive, they are not notable. Imaginatorium (talk) 04:33, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as a likely hoax. I should note that the user who originally created the article (the one with the same name as the company), twice tried to have it speedily deleted under WP:G7, only to have other editors refuse that: [47] and [48]. Michitaro (talk) 03:53, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. MBisanz talk 01:20, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Emad Al-Muhaidib (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)

Businessman who I can't tell if he is notable or not-the only ref is a el to a business, this could also be a not inherited issue. Wgolf (talk) 02:26, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 04:44, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Saudi Arabia-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 04:44, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. MBisanz talk 01:20, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Lucky Englander (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 on the fence about this-not sure how to treat casting directors. While I will admit the casting the person has done is pretty nice, not sure if they count as being notable. Wgolf (talk) 02:00, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 02:18, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 04:46, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:48, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy delete. obvious self-promotion, no notability Jimfbleak - talk to me? 05:40, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Katie Queue (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 person and the article is written like an advertisement (hence the content and the article creator's username, which is also the same name as the article) this is an obvious autobiography. Music1201 talk 01:22, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 04:48, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 04:48, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 04:48, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. MBisanz talk 01:20, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

WP:ONEEVENT, doubtable notability The Banner talk 08:21, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Serbia-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 13:39, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:16, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:06, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Malcolmxl5 (talk) 06:49, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 06:14, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 01:16, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: as non-notable, non-pageant winner. Quis separabit? 01:41, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Soft delete: Many mentions but probably little coverage, even factoring in that foreign-language coverage may exist. I would normally ask an editor here with knowledge of Serbian to comment on this for further notice, but all the editors with sr-4, 5, and N seem to be inactive so I'll just vote soft delete. Esquivalience t 17:57, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. postdlf (talk) 13:16, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The evidence seems to be against a rivalry, and this article by a Utah media outlet suggests this rivalry is a Wikipedia fiction. However, this San Diego news article outlines some notable SDSU-BYU games stretching from 1979-2010 and some coaching connections between the two schools. But these don't a rivalry make. Arbor to SJ (talk) 04:28, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. Haven't fully evaluated but here is more coverage dealing with this series as a "rivalry": this from the Associated Press and published in a new Jersey newspaper in 2012. Cbl62 (talk) 15:14, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 18:30, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 06:12, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:40, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Utah-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:40, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:40, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:40, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:40, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I'm not finding much through searching on this rivalry. While the schools have played each other and seem to have a bit of a competitive attitude toward each other, it isn't being regularly covered as an actual "rivalry" in reliable sources. In other words, the rivalry may exist tenuously, but it doesn't appear to be notable. ~ RobTalk 22:25, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 01:12, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. The sources above suggest that SDSU fans do deem this a rivalry while BYU fans maybe not so much--in part because it has tended to be very one-sided in BYU's favor. Additional sources supporting the treatment of this as some sort of lasting rivalry: [49] [50]. This ultimately may depend on how stringent one's definition of rivalry is; for myself, I think a one-sided rivalry can still be notable and that there's enough evidence to support this on SDSU's side, at least, so I will go with a weak keep. --Arxiloxos (talk) 03:17, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Nothing to suggest that this "rivalry" is different from other football teams that BYU or San Diego State play against. FallingGravity (talk) 04:21, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: These sorts of articles are generated all the time, usually by partisans of one team or another after the latest hard-fought match or playoff series. What raises this to any more of a "rivalry" than between any other teams in the same conference? The burden of proof hasn't been established. Ravenswing 07:52, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This is just original research, no reliable sources indicate this is a rivalry. Jacona (talk) 12:39, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Edward Hooper (disambiguation). (non-admin closure) Wugapodes (talk) 04:41, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

This article is not actually about Edward Hooper, it contains only his work on the refuted OPV AIDS hypothesis. It is a WP:COATRACK and per WP:BLP1E we should cover this at the article on the refuted hypothesis, rather than as a faux-biography of someone who appears to be known only for this. Guy (Help!) 00:30, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sad, I really liked his book, here's biography at his website, he spent 18 years studying and writing about the OPV/AIDS origins. Can an article be made from his website-biography? Raquel Baranow (talk) 04:40, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Not really, because it lacks independence. The problem is that he didn't actually study the OPV AIDS conjecture so much as spend years trying to find supporting evidence, mostly after the reality-based community had abandoned it as provably wrong. Guy (Help!) 09:36, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep This book shall stand since it has been created.KingOfKingsTheAssassin (talk) 21:13, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Striking meatpuppet !vote JMHamo (talk) 22:13, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Redirect (delete) to Edward Hooper (disambiguation) and any text of relevance left place in to OPV AIDS hypothesis article. This Edward Hooper stuff is way too refuted to it to have space in a wikicyclopedia. But his book and 'lifes work' does have some worldly effects which mostly came in the form of dead babies (Nigerian) so his contribution to health crises in real terms to be noted on the OPV-AIDS page. Gongwool (talk) 05:32, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 15:23, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 15:23, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 06:05, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:21, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Conspiracy theories-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:21, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 01:11, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. MBisanz talk 14:53, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

Only one RS Source, which has a small mention. Second source is about a professor with the same name. Greek Legend (talk) 02:06, 27 March 2016 (UTC) [reply]

This actor should not be confused with an architect named "Rajeev Kathpalia". --Greek Legend (talk) 17:03, 27 March 2016 (UTC) confirmed blocked sockpuppetAtlantic306 (talk) 15:57, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 03:00, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Vipinhari || talk 13:05, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as a well known Indian television actor, the reliable source in the article from the telegraph (Indian version) represents significant coverage, at least one more RS needed. Atlantic306 (talk) 16:35, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The Calcutta Telegraph publishes many paid articles about Indian entertainment. Only RS source is TimesofIndia. India has many English sources which can prove notability. He is an active actor. He is not an Indian actor from 1956 that we can't find more than one RS. Greek Legend (talk) 17:00, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
thanks for the info, how did you find that out about the Calcutta Telegraph? Atlantic306 (talk) 20:28, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Rajiv Kathpalia is a well known actor on television and his debut film is releasing this year. Relevant reverences have been provided and more will be shared as we get them. Please keep this article. User:Shonell Thakker : How was the result keep? Greek Legend (talk) 02:18, 30 March 2016 (UTC) The references are in place. I dont understand what is the debate about? When a page is being considered for deletion and a query is raised and the reply is given why keep the debate open? just a query User:Shonell Thakker[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 01:08, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Not sure what some folks are describing as reasonable sourcing? Facebook? Hotstar (an even less reliable version of YouTube, which isn't considered reliable)? A press release masquerading as a news story from the Telegraph (becoming more and more common in Indian press)? Perhaps it's the YouTube cite? Or, wow, could it be the citation (which doesn't actually lead to anything about this person) from that incredibly wonderfully reliable Mega Model Hunt? I don't have access to the Times piece, so AGF, it's a good cite. That leaves a single citation for an actor who meets non of the criteria of WP:ACTOR. Searches turned up a single trivial mention on News, zip on Newspapers, Books, Scholar, Highbeam, or JStor. Onel5969 TT me 16:44, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - one significant coverage is hardly enough, assuming the piece on The Telegraph is reliable, which honestly does look like a press release. The piece on Times Of India is what I believe to be a photo of the subject as a model in an ad, fails WP:NACTOR and WP:GNGUY Scuti Talk 19:58, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

All those claiming issues with facts and citations seem to have their fact checks questionable too. Google search on article creator User:Shonell Thakker; thats me; shows career details. I have worked in the entertainment industry way early in my career. I am not employed by any PR agency neither am I promoting a film, neither am I hired by the film M.S._Dhoni_:_The_Untold_Story to promote the film. Before accusing or assuming please check your facts. Also there is no proof of money exchange, which hasnt happened coz I AM NOT EMPLOYED BY EITHER RAJIV OR THE PRODUCTION HOUSE!!! As far as the telegraph article goes, its a recognised newspaper. There is also an article by Times of India Bombay times. Just to counter argue, TOI also charges for articles how come that passes as the 'Reliable Article' in most other articles? YouTube and Hotstar links are given to show the proof of the casting and direction. If the visual isnt a proof enough then what is? Every single statement has a proof link. As far as film M.S._Dhoni_:_The_Untold_Story goes its on its early stages of promotions so links will be added as needed. Still if anyone has a query discuss instead of throwing baseless accusations around — Preceding unsigned comment added by 18:09, 11 April 2016‎ (talkcontribs) Shonell Thakker

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. Fails WP:GNG as the coverage listed is insufficient to establish notability. Katietalk 23:28, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Myles William (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 record producer. References are all just links to song credits or articles listing song credits. Some refs don't mention article subject at all. Article is mostly just a list of known artists who worked with article subject once -- | Uncle Milty | talk | 03:40, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. North America1000 09:23, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. North America1000 09:24, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America1000 09:24, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Response to Uncle Milty - He has had a song on the number 1 album in germany, His Yuna lullabies remix was in national radio rotation on SirusXM for over a year, He scored a song in the movie "The Other Woman" starring Cameron Diaz which was a box office number 1, has had songs released on at least 2 major record labels { Lil Wayne/Republic Records and Estelle/BMG} and every reference mentions him). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.91.92.129 (talk) 16:37, 27 March 2016‎
    1. What song did he write and/or perform that was on what #1 album in Germany?
    2. Odd that it appears that the Adventure Club remix looks to be so much more popular.
    3. "Scored"? No. From what I can find he provided "additional production" to one song on that soundtrack. "Scored" would mean he composed/arranged it. He didn't.
    4. Artists he worked for "had songs released on at least 2 major record labels". That could be notable, if he personally received some high-profile accolades for it.
    5. The Wikipedia articles you've included as references don't mention him. The other mentions of him are just that, mentions. It takes more than a mere credit listing as producer to achieve notability. --| Uncle Milty | talk | 17:14, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep
  • 3: Per Wikipedia's criteria for a work that is notable there is no mention of the criteria for "scored" only "performed", which the subject had a role in the creation.
  • 5: Without producers there would be no lyrics in music, publishing on records is split 50/50. 50% goes to the songwriter and 50% is received by producer. My point in that statement is that it's deeper than a mere credit listing.

Based on these facts the subject meets multiple areas within Wikipedia's criteria for notability. --Snacklord (talk) 22:40, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 01:04, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:34, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:34, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. MBisanz talk 01:19, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Croc Rose (Hari Niraula) (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)

May lack notability as an actor. Greek Legend (talk) 08:42, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Vipinhari || talk 15:12, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nepal-related deletion discussions. Vipinhari || talk 15:12, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 00:59, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. MBisanz talk 01:19, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

CoyIM (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)

Found only one RS source. Greek Legend (talk) 08:44, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. North America1000 09:22, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 00:59, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as notable in forcing end-to-end encryption for Jabber/XMMP. --95.91.4.202 (talk) 15:25, 3 April 2016 (UTC
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. MBisanz talk 01:19, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

Non-notable software Greek Legend (talk) 08:47, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. North America1000 13:30, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 00:59, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. czar 22:49, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wildling Band (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:BAND. The search results show Wilding Band, but the results are about some fictional group in Game of Thrones. It seems there is some group named Wilding Band in Game of Thrones. I am sure that is not this band.Greek Legend (talk) 04:08, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 13:28, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 13:28, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 09:31, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 00:57, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedily deleted by Bishonen per CSD G12 (unambiguous copyright infringement). (non-admin closure) • Gene93k (talk) 02:25, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wade Williams (journalist) (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 found only one RS source about this journalist. There are other people named Wade Williams in search results. Greek Legend (talk) 04:11, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 23:06, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 23:06, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 09:31, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. North America1000 09:32, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 00:57, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • CopyVio Copied from Humphrey Fellows blurb. This reads like a draft article, and if the creator (User:Williams704 - one single edit, which was the content of this article, and hasn't returned to make more edits) would like to take it back to draft space there might be something that could be done with it. I did find articles by her, a mention of a speaking engagement, and one reference (not ideal) about one of the awards, which I added to the article. LaMona (talk) 01:19, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you, LaMona. I have speedied the article as an unambiguous copyright violation, and written a note to the author. If he wants to work on it, or if by any chance he owns the copyright himself, he can contact me. Bishonen | talk 15:40, 7 April 2016 (UTC).[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. North America1000 21:11, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Conlin's Furniture (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 GNG CerealKillerYum (talk) 05:59, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 13:25, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Montana-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 05:19, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of North Dakota-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 05:19, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This is an old article and poorly sourced. However, A regional chain founded in 1937 with 16 stores is almost certainly notable. I'll add a few sources, but, I feel rather strongly that this is the sort of article that any editor would do better to source or tag rather than delete. Over-aggressive deletion can be as destructive to the project as other kinds of drive-by editing.E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:59, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
sourcing added a few news articles, all of the papers in the region have coverage of this retail chain going back decades, I used what came to the top of a Proquest Newspaper search, there's lots more out there. And, certainly the article can be improved, expanded form RS.E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:18, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 10:52, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 00:56, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. MBisanz talk 01:19, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The refs are primarily self-published or from IMDB which is not a RS. I expected Phantom Tollbooth to be promising, but it was simply a mention. I can find no other RSes and his common name doesn't make it easier. Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:30, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 13:24, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 11:21, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:04, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:04, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 00:56, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. MBisanz talk 01:19, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Brandon Ruckdashel (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 evidence this actor meets WP:GNG. References are poorly sourced. Self-promotional and not Neutral POV. Zigmundbratwurst (talk) 16:40, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Zigmundbratwurst (talk) 17:04, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 11:30, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:09, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 00:56, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. 21 references, great! But the one to the NYT is a dead link, and none of the other 20 are to reliable third-party sources. Some of them mention Ruckdashel in passing, but many of them don't mention him at all, it's ridiculous. Bishonen | talk 15:22, 7 April 2016 (UTC).[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. MBisanz talk 01:19, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

Unsourced album. Programming G E E K (mah page! // use words to communicate page) 12:16, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Link to discogs.com. --Dimitrij Kášëv 12:44, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:15, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:15, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 00:51, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I checked some Italian sources but found nothing about this album. It would be hard to search anyway because the title is a very common phrase. I also looked at the WP article for the musician, and it has only one -- very poor -- source, and has huge lists of unsourced works and performances. I marked it as needing sources, and it may be possible to find them in the Italian press, but it will be very difficult to do from outside of that country. Note, the Italian article is very long and detailed, and only cites AllMusic and MTV, so there's nothing to borrow from them. Also, to User:Dimitrij Kasev, Discogs not a reliable source because, like IMDB or even Wikipedia, it is crowd-sourced. LaMona (talk) 01:03, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • user:LaMona, sorry for my English. I don't understand which sources I bring: "Stanno tutti bene" (2012) is the last "full album in studio" released by Bassi Maestro: a short record in Italian article, a review on rapburger.com, another review in Italian. --Dimitrij Kášëv 11:35, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
User:Dimitrij Kasev, @en Wikipedia has a rather strict set of policies about sources. These are at wp:rs. Any sources must meet those criteria. For example, Rapburger says: "Sei un appassionato di hip hop, di rap o del mondo urban? Allora collaborare con RapBurger potrebbe essere la tua oppurtunità." This implies that some of the reviews are written by people who do not work for the site. Acceptable reviews should be by professional writers. The review for Stanno Tutti Bene is by someone who is not listed in the staff list of the site. The HipHopMN review may be acceptable, but that gives you only one viable source. (Devo dire che anche per musica americana o inglese e' difficile trovare fonti accettabili per la music "indie"; trovarli per musica indie di altri paesi e' praticamente impossibile. A lo stesso tempo, WP non e' un sito per l'elenco di tutta la musica in giro, come AllMusic o Discogs. E' un enciclopedia, e allora ha uno scopo diverso. Capisci?) LaMona (talk) 16:12, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
User:LaMona, understood and thanks for the explanation. But, this aren't a ordinary album of a ordinary rapper, that is what I mean. Can you checked myhiphop.it? Tracks and review. --Dimitrij Kášëv 20:41, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
A tracklist is just ... a tracklist. So that doesn't help. And the "review" is an interview. While interviews can be used selectively for some facts, they don't confer notability. As it is, the page for the artist is very weak, with only one reference, so if you wish for him to remain in WP @en it would be most productive to find -- and add to the page -- reliable sources about the artist. Otherwise, it is possible that page could also be deleted. LaMona (talk) 22:05, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Katietalk 23:21, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

Promotional page made by COI editor. Independent coverage of this company not deep - brief article from press gazette in 2008, another here http://www.pressgazette.co.uk/swns-news-agency-takes-editorial-headcount-nearly-100-takeover-national-news 7 entries from holdthefrontpage.co.uk (a couple of which are quite insignificant) http://www.holdthefrontpage.co.uk/tag/south-west-news-service/ One article in the guardian media section http://www.theguardian.com/media/greenslade/2015/nov/05/swns-moves-into-london-by-acquiring-yet-another-news-agency Majority of google results are from major publications using the photo agency Rayman60 (talk) 20:13, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 00:52, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 00:52, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, appreciate they're separate issues. Outside of the issues raised, wasn't sure of whether this met notability purely according to notability criteria, hence putting it up for judgement by those that know better.Rayman60 (talk) 20:51, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete at best and Draft and Userfy if needed as my searches simply found nothing better and, although the article may seem acceptable and improvable, I believe I've concluded this is best deleted for now or otherwise removed from mainspace as it's still questionable. SwisterTwister talk 22:12, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 13:01, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above statement is from an employee of the agency who has recently been advised of the COI policy but has not declared it in this statement.Rayman60 (talk) 14:02, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I included it in my username so it would be clear from the outset. I apologise but I thought that it was obvious. The previous comments seemed to agree the article was not promotional and NPOV. The remaining question seemed to be about notability which I was hoping to address. --Jonmillsswns (talk) 15:28, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 00:47, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. clear consensus DGG ( talk ) 04:11, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

CAHDİ Party (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)

Apparently non-notable Somalian political party, and the article has some promotional content. It was CSD'd in April 2015, as well: [51]. Since then, however, the article has not made much progress. The only link provided was to the official website. Most results were either brief mentions, Wikipedia clones, or unreliable sources. There may be material in Somalian that I am unable to read, so I would appreciate if someone with familiarity with the language could help with that. This fails WP:ORGDEPTH. GABHello! 20:15, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 00:51, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Somalia-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 00:51, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 13:01, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:37, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 00:47, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to California Dreams. MBisanz talk 01:18, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Cade (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)

Almost completely analogous to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/William James Jones (which was recently closed as "redirect") – subject is not independently notable under WP:GNG, and likely fails WP:NACTOR as well with only one "significant" role (in California Dreams). --IJBall (contribstalk) 20:59, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. --IJBall (contribstalk) 21:00, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. --IJBall (contribstalk) 21:00, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to California Dreams also as this is simply not yet solidly convincing for the actors notability, none of this suggests a better separate article. SwisterTwister talk 06:20, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as there is a UK Daily Mirror article highlighted in highbeam, still looking for it, also found a Brazilian article but the website needs checking out Atlantic306 (talk) 05:37, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Again, you seem not to understand the meaning of "significant" coverage required by WP:GNG. William James Jones had an entire Chicago Tribune article devoted to him, but that alone wasn't enough to establish notability. Also, if you found a cite as you claim, why have you not added it to that article? --IJBall (contribstalk) 02:40, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • The evidence of the Daily Mirror article is in the highbeam results which mention it, when I can find it I'll add it. After investigating the Brazil website I think its a content farm so that excludes it. Regarding sig coverage the AFC advice for reviewers is that significant coverage from one source is at least one substantial paragraph, see here its in the box of section two [52] which is a lot less than a whole article, personally I had thought it had to be a bit more than a paragraph. Atlantic306 (talk) 00:20, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 13:02, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:38, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 00:45, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. Thanks to Tokyogirl79's editing, the article is now at least less promotional.  Sandstein  14:55, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A Smile in the Mind (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 particularly distinguished book; the article is promotional , depending upon selective review quotes and a great deal of name dropping, linked to the 18 out of 300 contributors who are notable. DGG ( talk ) 22:26, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:53, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:53, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Just looking at the sourcing in the article, it appears that the only usable source is the review from the Sydney Morning Herald. Creative Review is a primary source (since it's a piece written by the book's authors) and the publishers' pages are certainly primary as well. That a primary source is trying to back up a claim that it's an essential book doesn't help it seem less promotional either. Offhand I'd endorse giving it a dose of WP:TNT because it's so horribly promotional that it cannot be salvaged in its current state. I'm also blocking the editor Brandstrategy since a quick search shows that they share the same name as a marketing company. I'd recommend a look at all of their created pages to see if they're as equally spammy as this one. Tokyogirl79 (。◕‿◕。) 03:53, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've speedied The Partners (brand consultancy) as sheer spam since it was more of the same here and had some concerns of notability because it had the same puffy claims backed up by some fairly dodgy sourcing. They also created Jérémie Pauzié, which needs to be cleaned for spam and also have far better sourcing, since it relies on equally poor sourcing. The guy might be notable, but Brandstrategy did the guy (and whomever hired him) a huge disservice by how promotional he made the article. Tokyogirl79 (。◕‿◕。) 04:03, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm finding some sourcing in Highbeam from Step Inside Design and Design Week, but these look like they're offhand mentions. My Highbeam has expired so I'm unable to verify how it's mentioned. Offhand this is really all I'm finding, mentions here and there. I'm going to try my college's library next to see what I can find. Tokyogirl79 (。◕‿◕。) 04:09, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've stubbified everything. I'm not seeing huge evidence to show that it was as direly influential as the article suggested, but it does appear to be fairly well thought of in the design world. My school's database brought up evidence of possible reviews from places like Graphis, Baseline, and Communication Arts, but my library doesn't have access to these articles so I can't tell how in-depth they are or if they're even reviews. They likely are, but I can only find the most basic of outlines that states that something was written but doesn't state exactly what. I added two sources to the article, which brings this up to three sources now, which would technically be enough to pass NBOOK. I just wish that we had stronger sourcing besides this and the brief mentions here and there. Tokyogirl79 (。◕‿◕。) 04:35, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 13:03, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:39, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 00:45, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep even if not confidently as compared to others because the listed sources and improvements are convincingly enough. SwisterTwister talk 05:10, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, meets WP:NBOOK, now reflected in the article thanks to improvements made by Tokyogirl79. Also, although it does not appear in any bestseller lists, the smh article [53] does call it "bestselling" - "A viral object in itself, A Smile in the Mind has been a bestselling product since it was published in 1996. Reprinted 13 times, with sales of more than 100,000 copies (impressive for a design book), it has now been updated for the first time in 20 years." Coolabahapple (talk) 16:34, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. North America1000 21:08, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The woman is only notable for singing for Esmerlda and nothing else. She sang beautifully in the film, and I wish she garnered more major roles for her to satisfy WP:NACTOR. editorEهեইдအ😎 22:55, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 00:51, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 13:03, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:39, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:39, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 00:45, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Umber hulk#Vodyanoi. (non-admin closure) SSTflyer 02:16, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Vodyanoi (Dungeons & Dragons) (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)

All info is redundant with Umber hulk. There are only three sources, all of them minor and WP:PRIMARY listings from books with dozens and dozens of other monsters. No indication that this meets notability guidelines. I Turned this into a redirect per WP:BOLD, but was reverted by FreeKnowledgeCreator who requests consensus. Grayfell (talk) 00:41, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 04:53, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:28, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. North America1000 21:04, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Grass Roots North Carolina (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 organization is not notable. Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies) : "An organization is generally considered notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources." Felsic2 (talk) 19:18, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Firearms-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:15, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:15, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:15, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 00:39, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. postdlf (talk) 20:09, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Tricia Raikes (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)

Everything here is mentions or PR. no evidence for notability DGG ( talk ) 20:13, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 05:38, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington, D.C.-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 05:38, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 00:38, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.