Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2016 January 14

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, performed by Ritchie333, per WP:A7, "Article about a band, singer, musician, or musical ensemble, which does not credibly indicate the importance or significance of the subject" North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:43, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Phase Five (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 very uncertain at the moment. Only articles I could find on them were a puff piece from a music venue website and one music website. They've released one single with around 3500 views on YouTube and are verified on Twitter. Blythwood (talk) 23:11, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. sst✈ 23:58, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. sst✈ 23:58, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as mentioned, certainly questionable for a better article. SwisterTwister talk 06:58, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 19:10, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

1st Carabinier Regiment (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)

nearly empty, unsourced article. Not enough info present to determine notability The Banner talk 22:45, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. sst✈ 23:59, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. sst✈ 23:59, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep This Napoleonic regiment is discussed in an English language book called Napoleon's Cuirassiers and Carabiniers. There is a strong presumption that far more sources exist in French. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 00:38, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Regiments are invariably notable and French Napoleonic regiments will undoubtedly have sources and are therefore verifiable. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:23, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - As per reasons given by the preceding editors. Kansiime (talk) 06:13, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Cullen32 and Necrothesp regiments in particular French Napoleonic regiments are notable.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 22:53, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • A near empty article? The Banner talk 00:09, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • WP:STUB. Perfectly acceptable. Can clearly be expanded. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:15, 20 January 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) 00:39, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The International Association of Project and Program Management (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. No evidence of notability or bona fides Rathfelder (talk) 22:17, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Promotional, fails WP:GNG and a Google search reveals nothing to support it that isn't their own website or social media accounts. Mrfrobinson (talk) 23:10, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. sst✈ 00:01, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• delete blatant advert for a questionable organisation. The IAPPM has no published official, physical office address, and their mailing address is a UPS Mail Store, where they have a postal box, located in St. John's, Florida says it all really. LibStar (talk) 14:45, 15 January 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. WP:A11, WP:SNOW, pick one, it's not gonna survive so closing per WP:NOTBURO. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 11:22, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Car drumming (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Fails WP:GNG and article written like a how to guide. Cubbie15fan (talk) 21:41, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete per WP:CSD#A11 (WP:MADEUP). One can drum on any surface; drumming on the surface of a car does not need its own article. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 21:48, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete as per above. Mrfrobinson (talk) 23:10, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. sst✈ 00:02, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. sst✈ 00:02, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. I do not see it meeting WP:GNG upon review. - ¢Spender1983 (talk) 00:29, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Does not seem to have significant coverage in reliable sources. The majority of Google hits are variations of "sitting in the car, drumming his fingers". Although conceivable that coverage exists in offline sources, Google Books returns the same results. I'm thinking that even if this weren't made up, nobody really cares about drumming on this particular surface. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 22:37, 15 January 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. seems a clear BLP1E and marginal notability - meaning that the subjects request to delete can be given weight Spartaz ^Humbug! 22:26, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Bevan Chuang (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)

Borderline notability. I think we should take these edits [1] [2] by @BevChuang: as a WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE -- haminoon (talk) 10:56, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE covers "biographical articles of relatively unknown, non-public figures". The first two paragraphs of the article as it stood at the time the user with the name BevChuang blanked it established her as a community leader, political figure, and even publicity hound. She continued to receive mention in New Zealand news sources in 2015, mostly but not entirely in connection with her affair. —Largo Plazo (talk) 12:48, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK  22:26, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK  22:26, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK  22:26, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• delete significant BLP Concerns. The article contains a lot of negative coverage. As for being a "community leader" that's a vague term. LibStar (talk) 14:22, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Negative coverage (a) that is validated by multiple citations; (b) that is significant, not peripheral, to her notability; and (c) which she, herself, has acknowledged publicly. Where is the problem? Largoplazo (talk) 15:30, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

interesting that an anonymous IP turns up with a limited edit history... LibStar (talk) 15:53, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting that you felt that my browser logging me out obviates my substantive comments. —Largo Plazo (talk) 17:17, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• keep Has enough coverage to meet general notability criteria. If there are BLP concerns, that can be addressed through editing. Schwede66 18:53, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Notability rests solely on the liaison with Len Brown. Remainder of article is filled with trivia. Nothing here to justify a stand-alone article. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 04:34, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge and redirect to Len_Brown#Extramarital_Affair as all the coverage stems from connection to Len Brown. Stuartyeates (talk) 23:16, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - seems that the only claim to notability is a form of inherited argument: the subject is only notable for an association with someone else. At best the page should give a brief mention along with other notability (possibly with the episode in question discussed in more depth elsewhere), but the present page seems to me to be unnecessarily personal to a non-notable subject. JMWt (talk) 08:50, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and merge relevant content into Len Brown as per StuartYeates. Has no merit otherwise. NealeFamily (talk) 21:29, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - She is a living local body political figure who has not faded from the scene after her affair with Len Brown. She has involvement in other community organisations and is likely to appear again in future local body elections as a candidate. - Cameron Dewe (talk) 11:37, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"likely to appear again " is WP:CRYSTAL balling. LibStar (talk) 12:16, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe so. What I am arguing is that her notability continues after the Len Brown affair. For example she was a pro-democracy protest organiser in 2014. I don't think we should be deleting an article about someone who has achieved notoriety for one event but continues to come to public attention for other activities afterwards - even if they are currently less notable. Merging with Len Brown is not really appropriate, either, because much of her background and subsequent activities have nothing to do with the Len Brown affair. I think it is too soon to consider deletion and suggest that the article be given a year or so to mature. - Cameron Dewe (talk) 13:17, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Cameron Dewe's argument. Schwede66 01:37, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There is nothing of significance beyond the Len Brown affair in the article - everything else is minor, even her so called public activities NealeFamily (talk) 03:35, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Len Brown#Extramarital affair. I've been persuaded to strike out my Keep !vote above (based on the notability question—there is no BLP-privacy issue here for this woman who speaks openly and at length with the media), but the affair was notable, and it's already written up, so let's redirect people there. —Largo Plazo (talk) 10:23, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Redirecting to Len Brown seems very dubious to me. We don't have to follow the lead of gutter journalism. I'd prefer it was redirected to Auckland mayoral election, 2013 (which she stood in and the affair was a fallout of) or not redirect at all. -- haminoon (talk) 11:07, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• The primary objection to having a dedicated article for her is that she's known essentially for one thing. Her affair with Len Brown is that thing, it was a significant event, and the Len Brown article is where coverage on her appears. It isn't "gutter journalism", it's supposedly the main reason people know who she is.

You appear to be mistaken that she stood in the 2013 mayoral election, given that that article excludes her from the list of candidates and that the article about her says that the election she stood in in 2013 was for the Albert-Eden Local Board. Therefore, there is no reason why her name should redirect to that article. —Largo Plazo (talk) 12:37, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies I meant Auckland local elections, 2013. -- haminoon (talk) 21:24, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Even so, running in an Auckland local election isn't what she's primarily known for. If it could even be considered as contributing to her notability, then she'd be notable on two fronts—her affair and the election—and then we wouldn't have all these "delete" votes based on the notion that she has no notability outside of the affair. On top of that, she isn't mentioned in the local elections article anyway. —Largo Plazo (talk) 22:05, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment both those wanting keep the article aeem to be saying it is too soon to delete. Surely under WP:TOOSOON the reverse applies. NealeFamily (talk) 23:04, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 19:11, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Mantell (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Delete: as non-notable actor; fails WP:NACTOR and WP:GNG. Quis separabit? 01:19, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:32, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:32, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete for now at best as none of the IMDb-listed works seem convincing enough for WP:CREATIVE and the IMDb-listed awards are also simply local film awards (unlikely solid enough). My searches also found several links (with "Michael Mantell actor") at Books, News and Highbeam but nothing for a solid enough article. SwisterTwister talk 02:23, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Fails WP:NACTOR and WP:SIGCOV.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 08:19, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete no significant coverage, fails WP:NACTOR & WP:GNG per nom. Matthew Thompson ^{talk to me!} 10:31, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 19:13, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Pavlos Lagoudakis (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)

Prof. Lagoudakis contacted OTRS and asked for deletion of the article (VRTS ticket # 2016010610021425) because the page "contains inaccurate and outdated information". A Google News search shows no significant coverage; Google Books is similarly unhelpful; Google Scholar gave his own work but little else. The article was tagged for notability concerns since 2013; it cites no reliable third-party sources that cover Lagoudakis in any detail. Huon (talk) 18:07, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. One of Mishae's mass-created stubs; given that it's unexpandable from existing sources, the subject disputes it and there's minimal if any public interest in keeping it, there's no good reason not to delete it. ‑ Iridescent 18:11, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

His h-index is 25, quite average for inclusion. Just because the subject disputes it, doesn't mean we should abide by what the subjects says. Lets ask @Randykitty: for thorough examination of the whole thing.--184.97.149.210 (talk) 15:37, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions. Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 03:10, 20 January 2016 (UTC) [reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics-related deletion discussions. Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 03:10, 20 January 2016 (UTC) [reply]

• Delete according to subject's wish. I get a GS h-index of 16 which is around borderline so no reason not to delete. Xxanthippe (talk) 05:10, 20 January 2016 (UTC).[reply]

Correction: search for P G Lagoudakis does give a GS h-index of 25. Vote unchanged. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:07, 20 January 2016 (UTC).[reply]

• Delete per subject's wish. For precedent, the article is a keep to me, but not so important in the public interest as to overrule the subject's interests. -- Michael Scott Cuthbert (talk) 15:25, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per subject's request. I am generally not supportive of subjects having a large amount of control of their articles. With that said, the level of English writing and comprehension is problematic in this series of articles, and it is reflecting poorly on the subjects. Many of these issues could be addressed by rewriting, but I think it is reasonable to delete articles in such a state upon request. (I do get the same h-index as Mishae did (25) by looking at the GS profile sourced in the article, though it is inaccurate to suggest that one article is responsible for anyone's h-index.) EricEnfermero (Talk) 19:54, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Xxanthippe. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 05:45, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. I have placed the book citation on the talk page at Talk:Shahaji II for use by editors. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:57, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Vedokta controversy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Doesn't meet WP:NBOOKS. No actual content in the article anyway, just a copy of the table of contents and basic info. Nsteffel (talk) 18:04, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:20, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:20, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete for now at best as the best my searches found with "Vedokta controversy" was only a few links here and there at Books (one) and browsers (a few it seems). Not currently a better acceptable encyclopedia article, SwisterTwister talk 06:21, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete article, use as a reference I was a little puzzled about what the topic of the book actually is, but I found it in Shahaji II, section on Vedokta controversy . The book could be added as a reference there. DGG ( talk ) 01:36, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Smerge per WP:UNDUE, and as suggested by DGG. Much too little useful information exists for its own article. Bearian (talk) 21:17, 21 January 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. Article created of a blocked and banned editor. Mkdw^talk 17:05, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Julianna Pollifrone (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Seems to only have local significance; appears fails WP:GNG and WP:MUSICBIO Cubbie15fan (talk) 20:31, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. sst✈ 00:04, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete at best for now as the best I found was only one local news mention at News. SwisterTwister talk 06:56, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Non trivial notability is seen. Nabila66 (talk) 05:29, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Multiple media sources cited. A few grammar issues however need to be addressed Scambridge1972 (talk) 22:06, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment, maybe move to draft Local coverage does not negate WP:GNG at all. She may be very important locally, and if there is coverage, that's fine. However, the article isn't cited very well and the only 2 RS are the San Jose Mercury News and the Silicon Valley news. She's not turning up in my database searches. I think she's WP:TOOSOON and maybe the article should be moved back to draft space. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 18:30, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - only local fame. Bazj (talk) 16:02, 21 January 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 02:20, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Gala Tent (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

This is a promotional article about a non-notable company. If I search for this company it does get a few low level Google News hits. A bit of local news coverage, passing mentions, that sort of thing. More or less same article was speedily deleted as spam in the past but this new version is rather more subtle and avoids the same fate. I still think it has all the same problems though, just rather less obviously on show. Look at those references. A decent number but many go the the company's own website and some others go to search pages on non-RS sites and some have no valid hits at the other end. That is before asking how well they actually support the claims made in the text. Those awards. Impressive huh? Except that it is not clear who actually awarded them or even if all of them are real. ("Chamber of Commerce" is not a specific organisation, it is just a type of organisation). So, basically, I think this has verifiability problems as well as notability problems. Then there is the article text itself. All that innovation. So much innovation. And not just any innovation; Gazebo innovation! (Undeniably a great name for an indie band but not so good as a section heading in an encyclopaedia.) While it seems that a fair bit of effort has been put into making this look like a valid article at a first glance, I fear that closer inspection will show that underneath its gleaming white marquee lurks a wonky trestle table overloaded with plates of a certain questionable tinned meat product. DanielRigal (talk) 20:30, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. DanielRigal (talk) 20:44, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:53, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as unlikely notable with nothing currently convincing and the best my searches finding only this. SwisterTwister talk 06:55, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Per DanielRigal Fails WP:GNG and WP:ORG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 19:39, 20 January 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 might makes right. MBisanz ^talk 02:20, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Kratocracy (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 could just be a failure of imagination on my part, but it's hard for me to see how this is ever going to be more than a WP:DICDEF. I think various governments could arguably be categorized as kratocracies; realistically, you're not going to have a state overtly organized as such. I guess some animals organize this way, but calling that a government is a huge stretch. BDD (talk) 15:56, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. BDD (talk) 15:57, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as DICDEF (at best); the miserable apology for a source says it all really. It's a misnomer, it should be Kraterocracy, but as we're binning it I guess it doesn't matter. Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:38, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to William Pepperell Montague, which presently does not even mention the subject's devised term. This will enhance and improve the merge target article, à la WP:PRESERVE. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:35, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Do we know if this was an important idea of his or just a one-off coinage? The fact that his article doesn't mention the term makes me think the latter. --BDD (talk) 14:26, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@BDD: Maybe nobody thought to add the information to the subject's article because they were not aware of the term's existence. If this article is deleted sans a merge, perhaps readers never will be, like the term never existed. Maybe we can try to change Wikipedia's slogan to "keeping readers dumbed-down via omission of facts, because the topic wasn't notable enough for a standalone article." North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:30, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I guess the point is, was this one of dozens of trivial terms he mentioned once, or was it a serious usage? I've failed to find evidence for the latter online, but print might be different. Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:40, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to might makes right. The term has some currency in scholarly sources and seems to be worth a mention there, together with a brief discussion of Montague's philosophy on the subject. However, it's really just a synonym for "might makes right", and not a form of government as the infobox suggests. --Sammy1339 (talk) 17:45, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge and redirect as suggested by {{U{Sammy1339}} and per WPP:CHEAP. Bearian (talk) 21:20, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• That sounds like a more logical move. I could support that. --BDD (talk) 22:46, 21 January 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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 23:59, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dreieck Walsrode (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)

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

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

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

Not notable interchange. No assertion of notability, and searches did not turn up anything to show they pass WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 21:01, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete—fails to meet the burden of WP:GNG. One two sources are cited, one is a WP:SPS and the other is a compilation of statistics, neither of which demonstrate "significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject" as we require for stand-alone articles. Imzadi 1979 → 21:59, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Imzadi1979, I believe that you are on record as disregarding maps in considering sourcing, yet much of this article is sourced by maps.  Do you agree that this article currently satisfies WP:V?  Thanks, Unscintillating (talk) 08:19, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's verifiable to maps, but that's only one part of the equation. To have an article, we look at WP:GNG, not WP:V, and maps alone do not satisfy the "significant" coverage part of "significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject". Imzadi 1979 → 09:07, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • WP:N states, "Sources of evidence include recognized peer-reviewed publications, credible and authoritative books, reputable media sources, and other reliable sources generally."  All of these could be works by cartographers.  Unscintillating (talk) 19:02, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        • They could be, but simply appearing on a map is not "significant coverage", period. That's the cartographic equivalent of dropping a name in the middle of a newspaper article on a different topic. "Significant coverage" is what WP:GNG requires for a dedicated article. Imzadi 1979 → 09:28, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
          • First of all, the text I quoted from WP:N applies to more than WP:GNG.  Within WP:GNG, the definition of "significant coverage" is, "Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it need not be the main topic of the source material."  Examples of trivial mentions are at WP:ORG#Depth of coverage.  Readers including editors extract meaning from maps just as they do other source material.  Barber Island is an article sourced by maps.  Unscintillating (talk) 01:39, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
            • Let's take another look at the article being discussed here. There are exactly two footnotes in the whole article. The first is a self-published source in German. It's embedding an OpenStreetMap view of the interchange. OSM is essentially a wiki itself, and other wikis open to public editing are considered SPS and not RSs for our purposes. The remainder of that webpage is also self-published.
              The second footnote is to a page listing various maps and tables for download with traffic counts. In this case, it wouldn't matter if those traffic counts were presented in either form. Neither source rises to the level required of GNG.
              Turning back to maps as sources in general, I stand by my statement. Simply appearing on a map is not significant coverage. Appearing on the map with additional notations is needed to get beyond classification as a trivial mention. Imzadi 1979 → 09:48, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
              • You agree that some maps (those that contain "additional notations") can be reliable sources and used to satisfy WP:N.  My first question here was, "Does this article satisfy WP:V" and you agreed that it does.  Putting that together with what you've just said above about GNG for this article, that would mean that to you, WP:V can be satisfied with a trivial mention?  Thanks, Unscintillating (talk) 03:19, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
              • Here is a notability source for Dreieck Werder: [3].  Although the article is about Bundesautobahn 2, half of the article is a satellite map of Dreieck Werder.  Is half of this article a trivial mention?  Thanks, Unscintillating (talk) 01:47, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
                • The article isn't about the interchange, it's about the A2, with an illustration that shows the interchange. Totally trivial coverage. In addition, it's a state-run information site, about a state piece of infrastructure, so not really independent. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 02:00, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
                  • It is not at all clear that being a part of the government means that a source is not independent.  Governments represent the people-at-large, and contain multiple agencies and layers of local, state, and federal.  WP:RS states, "The reliability of a source depends on context."  Unscintillating (talk) 19:33, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
                    • A couple of points are in order. WP:V doesn't have the bearing on this discussion that you think it does. The bar the topic/article has to exceed is WP:GNG. Trivial mentions, such as just appearing on a map would be verifiable, but not notable. Also, we aren't saying that government sources aren't reliable, in fact I'd say they generally are. The question is whether or not they're independent of the subject. and if it's the same government agency that owns and maintains the interchange, it's not independent for the purposes of GNG. Imzadi 1979 → 11:25, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
                      • This thread of discussion is mostly about maps, and I don't think you can identify an example of where "just appearing" on a map is also a trivial mention.  I see that Template:Coord is used on 950,000 pages so there must be something of value just from that one piece of information, and each named point has a relationship with every other named point.  A trivial mention is something like someone's name appearing in a phone book.  Unscintillating (talk) 05:40, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep This is a major road infrastructure hub linking the 3 major North German cities of Bremen, Hamburg and Hanover. Wikipedia already accepts the genre as evinced by "Category:Road interchanges by country" which lists the interchanges of 18 countries, including 52 interchange articles in the USA alone. Bermicourt (talk) 17:03, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - The fact that there are categories for these types of structures, does not make each interchange notable. There is no evidence that this particular interchange meets notability criteria. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 01:22, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - The categories establish that these types of structures may be considered notable. And I have pointed out the notability of this one - just look at the map!!! Or is it only US structures that are notable in this encyclopedia? Bermicourt (talk) 09:27, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - Size doesn't establish notability, and this has nothing to do with not being a US structure. It is simply a case of notability, or, in this case, the lack thereof. If this is notable, where is the in-depth coverage from reliable, independent sources? Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:13, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment  Regarding the banality of these topics, we have heard "like thousands of others" and "run-of-the-mill" repeated ad infinitum, yet today I took User:Bahnfrend's advice to read the article on Reichsautobahn.  The autobahn network was a proud effort of pre-WWII Germany to create a structure of roads to be compared with the Egyptian pyramids.  Simple things such as visible bridge arches were deemed something to avoid to improve aesthetics.  The article finishes,

  After the war, with the exception of the parkway aesthetic, the Reichsautobahn became the model for highways in other countries...

  Dwight D. Eisenhower realized the benefits of the Reichsautobahn during his time as an officer in the US Army, and as President, used those ideas to bring about the Interstate Highway System in the U.S...

Unscintillating (talk) 19:33, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• • Which is something that speaks to the notability of the system and has no bearing on the notability of this specific interchange. Notability can't be inherited; instead, it must be established in each individual article. Imzadi 1979 → 11:28, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • User:Imzadi1979, There is general agreement at Wikipedia that notability is not inherited, and for those not sure, it can be verified at WP:N.  The autobahns, autobahndreiecks, and autobahnkreuzes are all parts of the autobahn "network" in the sense intended by WP:GEOROAD.  Unscintillating (talk) 15:07, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • User:Imzadi1979, We know from the above quote from Reichsautobahn that the "parkway aesthetic" present in the German autobahn network is something not shared by the rest of the world.  The point remains that generalities to the effect that this topic is like "thousands of others" or "run-of-the-mill" are speaking without the very subject knowledge which you state "must be established in each individual article".  Believe it or not, there are still people posting to these autobahn AfDs making arguments such as "just like thousands of others".  Unscintillating (talk) 15:07, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • These interchanges are just like many others in the rest of the world, and GEOROAD doesn't establish a presumption of notability for any interchange, just the overall network and component highways. It does not extend that presumption to the level of the parts of component highways. Trying to say that because an interchange is an autobahnkreuz or autobahndreieck imports some notability to it is the opposite of allowing notability to be inherited. When it comes to interchanges, notability has to be individually established in each article through the demonstration of "significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject".

        This "parkway aesthetic" is not unique to Germany, nor is it really distinguishing at the level of an interchange, so I don't buy your second argument. If it were truly a distinguishing characteristic of an interchange, the articles nominated at AfD would be making that claim and citing reliable sources to back it up. That fact remains that there were dozens of articles on German interchanges not long ago, many of which were nominated for deletion through AfD or PROD, most of which cited only two sources. Of those two sources, one is self-published (fails the RS prong of the GNG test) and the other is just traffic data (fails the significant coverage prong of GNG). These articles were not making any claims to distinguish them from any other interchange in the world (making them "run of the mill") other than the fact that they were German and named. To keep these, you need to demonstrate that significant coverage (i.e. not trivial mentions) exists, even if it's not currently in use in the article, something which has not been done in many case. Imzadi 1979 → 17:14, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

        • As per our article on banal, "Banal describes something that is common in a boring way, to the point of being predictable."  The point of this opening comment had to do with editors using proof by assertion to say "this topic is banal, it is like thousands of others", or "this topic is banal, it is run-of-the-mill".  WP:RUNOFTHEMILL talks about cul-de-sacs and coverage of every street in every square mile of a city, which draws the conclusion that the approximately 200 kreuzes and dreiecks are unlike "run-of-the-mill".  The point remains that generalities to the effect that Dreieck Walsrode is like "thousands of others" or "run-of-the-mill" are speaking without the very subject knowledge which you state "must be established in each individual article".  Unscintillating (talk) 05:40, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        • What WP:GEOROAD says is that international road networks are "typically notable".  It seems that the way you read GEOROAD is that "network" only means one article for each international network as a whole.  Regarding your statement, "<GEOROAD> does not extend that presumption [of notability] to the level of the parts of component highways.", I don't see that the document makes a statement one way or the other.  It does say that "motorway service areas" may be notable, and drilling down I find that we have articles on 80 motorway service areas, for example Abington services.  Unscintillating (talk) 05:40, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        • Our Reichsautobahn article says, "...with the exception of the parkway aesthetic, the Reichsautobahn became the model for highways in other countries..."  You say, "This 'parkway aesthetic' is not unique to Germany..."  But you provide no evidence, and give no reason why anyone else would have tried to make their roads comparable to the Egyptian pyramids.  Unscintillating (talk) 05:40, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (drone) 12:28, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• delete There is nothing special claimed about this interchange, and the consensus of recent deletions affirms the principle that interchanges are not inherently notable, nor do they inherit notability by connecting notable roads. Mangoe (talk) 18:45, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Mangoe, (1) You say, "There is nothing special claimed about this interchange, but as per WP:N, "Determining notability does not necessarily depend on things such as fame, importance, or popularity".  Unscintillating (talk) 21:35, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • (2) When you say that an autobahndreieck connects notable roads, can you say where one stops and the other starts?  Does your definition of "connects" mean that only the pavement is part of the autobahn, and not the shoulder that receives the landscaping?  The word dreieck means triangle.  Does not your definition mean that the dreieck is only two sides of the triangle?  Do you reject the idea that autobahns, their landscaping, autobahndreiecks, and autobahnkreuzes are all part of one structure?  Unscintillating (talk) 21:35, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • (3) WP:N says, "For articles of unclear notability, deletion should be a last resort...If appropriate sources cannot be found...consider merging the article's verifiable content into a broader article providing context."  You agree that Dreieck Walsrode "connects notable roads", so is there a problem with merging this topic to Bundesautobahn 27?  Thank you, Unscintillating (talk) 21:35, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment  WP:N states,

  For articles of unclear notability, deletion should be a last resort.

  Also,

  If appropriate sources cannot be found after a good-faith search for them, consider merging the article's verifiable content into a broader article providing context.^[1]

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 02:21, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jesper Frismann (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 BLP PROD. No visible verifiable refs from reliable sources (2 refs are sourced from the subject).   — Jeff G. ツ (talk) 20:04, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Article is purely self-referencing with no independent sources demonstrating inherent notibility. _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 15:14, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Nothing demonstrates inherent notability here and the lack of independent sources is concerning. Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (witter) 12:34, 19 January 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 due to blatant sockpuppetry and spamming. See deleted contributions of User:Tigerpound, User:Suratfill, and User:Jacob Spencer Hurdler. - Mike Rosoft (talk) 20:18, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes. However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

Lemi Clothing Ltd (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

I propose a deletion and salting. Been previously deleted as spam and non-notable, but @Jacob Spencer Hurdler: removed the speedy tags. No evidence of any notability, fails WP:GNG and WP:CORP. Joseph2302 (talk) 19:31, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. All sourced, all good. --Jacob Spencer Hurdler (talk) 19:36, 14 January 2016 (UTC) — Jacob Spencer Hurdler (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
• Strong keep. Not a hoax, sourced can all be checked. Tigerpound (talk) 19:37, 14 January 2016 (UTC) — Jacob Spencer Hurdler (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
• Delete and Salt. The only source, now that I have removed the ones to Wikipedia articles, is a mention on a list of stockists. I can't find any significant coverage in independent reliable sources. The promotional tone is also a concern. Sarahj2107 (talk) 19:42, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• No third-party references, Google search for "Lemi Clothing" returns nothing but company pages. Delete. - Mike Rosoft (talk) 19:44, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and Salt. No reference that can be used to establish notability. Mike1901 (talk) 19:47, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Note User:Tigerpound has admitted that they are also User:Jacob Spencer Hurdler here. Sarahj2107 (talk) 19:49, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Got sources. Atom Human (talk) 19:57, 14 January 2016 (UTC) — Atom Human (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • What sources are you talking about? - Mike Rosoft (talk) 20:05, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• @Mike Rosoft: That user is blocked now, and is almost certainly a sock of the other 2 keep votes. Joseph2302 (talk) 20:06, 14 January 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) 00:22, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Josef Shirdel (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. Concern was Article about a footballer who fails WP:GNG and who has not played in a fully pro league. PROD was contested by the article's creator without providing a reason. Sir Sputnik (talk) 18:36, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 18:36, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Not notable - fails WP:GNG. Samf4u (talk) 21:00, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. GiantSnowman 21:13, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Fails NFOOTY as has not played senior international football nor played in a fully professional league. No indication that subject has garnered significant reliable coverage for any other achievements to satisfy GNG. Fenix down (talk) 15:59, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTY. --ArsenalFan700 (talk) 23:42, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per all above. Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (face) 12:35, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom fails GNG Matthew Thompson ^{talk to me!} 10:44, 21 January 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) 00:26, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Robert MacNiven (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 notability per WP:AUTHOR. The Black Library reference was the one reference that rescued this from the original BLP prod. It's a WP:Reliable source, but isn't evidence of notability as it's the publisher's listing for an as-yet unpublished book, and not a WP:Secondary source. There's no mention of MacNiven on the Jukepop reference, and it's doubtful whether a mention on him there would be evidence of notability. The reference from his WordPress blog, like the publisher reference, is a WP:Primary source. The remaining references are from Goodreads and a book blog, which as user-generated content is also not regarded as a reliable source on Wikipedia. Can't find any significant coverage online from reliable, secondary sources. NeemNarduni2 (talk) 16:00, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. NeemNarduni2 (talk) 16:02, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. NeemNarduni2 (talk) 16:04, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - I couldn't find other coverage of him in suitable reliable sources either, so it appears that notability has not been established when measured against WP:AUTHOR or WP:GNG. Drchriswilliams (talk) 16:19, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Questionably notably better for a encyclopedia article yet. SwisterTwister talk 07:14, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Books either self-published or published by very small presses. Nothing found in Booklist or Kirkus, which is about as un-reviewed as you can get. LaMona (talk) 23:35, 19 January 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 Peter P. Gudo. Any Merges should be discussed on the talkpage. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 19:15, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nigma Pictures Entertainment (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. Lacks sources and shows seem very small beer to me. TheLongTone (talk) 15:18, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:41, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:41, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:15, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:16, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect and partial merge to founder Peter P. Gudo. As sourcing Mozambique topics are fraught with problems, a redirect and mention within the article on its founder is sensible. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 20:22, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect as unlikely solidly notable yet. SwisterTwister talk 06:53, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 19:15, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Fabian Marley (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 purports to be the son of Bob Marley, but has zero reliable sources. A brief google search identifies a few pages making the claim, but I didn't see any that qualified as reliable. We need stronger evidence that a couple unrealiable web pages making a claim. S Philbrick(Talk) 14:38, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. sst✈ 16:01, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Caribbean-related deletion discussions. sst✈ 16:01, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as certainly questionable including for notability. SwisterTwister talk 06:55, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Easily satisfies WP:GNG: [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11], [12], [13], [14]. --Michig (talk) 09:00, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep – Per sources provided above by Michig. Meets WP:GNG and WP:MUSICBIO #1. Many of these are available simply by selecting the Google news link atop this discussion. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:23, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep passes WP:GNG and WP:MUSICBIO after some good work by Michig.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 22:56, 19 January 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 Gokarna,_India#Beaches. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 19:16, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Om beach (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. I've tried changing tis to a redirect to Gokarna, India but a misguided editor persists in reverting. TheLongTone (talk) 14:22, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:55, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. sst✈ 16:03, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. Redirect to Gokarna, India as proposed. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:44, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Gokarna, India § Beaches. The topic has received some coverage, but not enough to support a standalone article (e.g. [15], [16], [17], [18], [19]). Content in the article is already present at the redirect target. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:33, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect per the above comments. Needs more much more content to be considered an appropriate stand alone article under WP:CONTENTFORK. Kingofaces43 (talk) 03:15, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The beach is in top 20 in whole india on tripadvisor. https://www.tripadvisor.in/TravelersChoice-Beaches-cTop-g293860 There is an article on adjacent Kudle beach which is much less notable than this om beach. It is notable and trending well in google trends https://www.google.com/trends/explore#q=om%20beach%2C%20kudle%20beach&geo=IN&cmpt=q&tz=Etc%2FGMT-5%3A30 Ranks top beach if not at least top 3 in karnataka state on any website https://www.ixigo.com/beaches-in-around-near-karnataka-lp-1273353 http://www.trawell.in/karnataka/beaches http://www.holidayiq.com/Karnataka-Beaches-A-state-13-15.html. The nominator refused to use speedy deletion template. Poems of borns (talk) 04:03, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

La La La. a) see WP:OTHERSTUFF. and Wikipedia is not Trip advisor.TheLongTone (talk) 18:01, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I dont read the essays on wikipedia, dont give me such links, thanks. And please avoid illegally deleting articles by restoring redirects in future. And WP:3R doesnt apply if u revert to a redirect. Poems of borns (talk) 04:22, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The preponderance of opinion is that despite this person appearing to be of interest, we don't have the proper sources. Note: the immediately prior close by 24.228.114.100 was me, by accident, not realizing I wasn't logged in. -- RoySmith (talk) 16:08, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Syed Mohammed Hameeduddin Sharafi (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)

Frankly I almost PRODed this because it seems applicable considering my searches found nothing better aside from actually recovering the first listed source here. So unless this can be better improved from familiar sources and areas, there's nothing to suggest keeping this currently questionable notable. It's also worth noting this was first nominated in 2006 at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dr Syed Mohammed Hameeduddin Sharafi. Notifying the only still noticeably active AfDers Nakon and Gidonb. SwisterTwister talk 08:40, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 08:42, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 08:42, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 08:42, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 08:42, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep At the time my main concern was copyvio. Since this was later dismissed and doing additional web research, I think we should keep the article and shorten its name to Hameeduddin Sharfi. By my best of research he is a noted scholar of islam in the Indian media. gidonb (talk) 11:54, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Lean delete Neutral, but pinging Rumikhawar in hopes he can look for Urdu sources.--Jahaza (talk) 14:53, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sources [20][21][22][23][24]--Jahaza (talk) 16:00, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I believe that the relevant search term for this person is Hameeduddin Sharfi: gidonb (talk) 15:42, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

• Leaning towards delete. The sources mentioned above are only mentions. Can we build a biography with them? No. Are there better sources on the internet? Not likely. I have also tried حميد الدين شرفي, but to no avail (I think that is how it is written in the Urdu script, but correct me if I'm wrong), so internet-wise he fails WP:GNG. Are there better sources offline? Maybe. Will people with access to offline sources ever improve this article? Not likely, considering the very low edit frequency. Thus we are left with an unimprovable article. - HyperGaruda (talk) 21:08, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete The coverage is only passing mentions about the subject fails WP:SIGCOV and there are thousands of Islamic scholars in India not clear why the particular subject is notable.Further the organisation founded by him also does not appear to be notable and does not have a corresponding article WP:WTAF Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 13:57, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. There's no way to evaluate the career of scholars in this pattern, unless there are good written sources, and being referredto in the Indian press is not a sufficiently reliable source. DGG ( talk ) 17:02, 20 January 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) 00:29, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

2016 Copa São Paulo de Futebol Júnior (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)

Regional youth tournament with no evidence of notability. Qed237 (talk) 13:22, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Qed237 (talk) 13:23, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. sst✈ 14:09, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. sst✈ 14:09, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. sst✈ 14:09, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - no evidence of notability. GiantSnowman 21:12, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - non-notable youth tournament. Fenix down (talk) 15:59, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Non-notable footballer. --ArsenalFan700 (talk) 23:43, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - lack of coverage in reliable sources Spiderone 12:09, 16 January 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 Occupation of the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge. WP:SNOW The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:46, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Citizens for Constitutional Freedom (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

This is the name of the group occupying the wildlife refuge in Oregon. That single event is associated with this groups self-label. Said another way, there is no RS which discusses an organization with this name and shows the criteria for notability (as Wikipedia uses that word) have been met. There are no RSs that talk about it separate and apart from the ongoing Occupation of the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge. Indeed, the organization's name was only created and adopted by the handful of occupiers after they had remained in place for a few days. Apparently, they had to call themselves something with all the media attention. That does not pass muster with our standards of notability for organizations, which partially state that "An organization is not notable merely because a notable person or event was associated with it." Since the only reason for this label to exist is for the militants presently occupying the refuge to refer to themselves, this page should be deleted and redirected to the article about the occupation. If, and when, the group formalizes its operations and does enough stuff to get RS coverage as an organization, as opposed to an event then we can revisit. For now, it should be a redirect to the occupation article. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 12:44, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Occupation of the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge as proposer. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 12:49, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2016 January 14. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 13:05, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect as suggested. The "organization" in question is just the name chosen by the people involved in this single event. Any and all references in the article are also linked to this one event, so redirecting to the event is the logical conclusion per WP:ORG. --Reinoutr (talk) 13:49, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. sst✈ 14:16, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. sst✈ 14:16, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Occupation of the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge I can find no published references to the group before January 2016.E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:23, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Occupation of the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge If they do more than that, then perhaps it would be appropriate for a stand alone article. EricSerge (talk) 16:04, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect for now. There seems to be consensus here, can an admin take action sooner than later? ---Another Believer _(Talk) 18:34, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect per comments above. - Cwobeel (talk) 18:36, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to the article on the occupation Hardly can be found a group. Indeed a self-given label for the occasion of the armed occupation. Not known before 2016, and thus not known except through this single event. L.tak (talk) 18:52, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect per above. MB298 (talk) 01:15, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect per above. Parsley Man (talk) 04:18, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect Sounds like one event - if only involved in one event then should be covered on the page on their main activity. -- Callinus (talk) 08:06, 17 January 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 02:21, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Velibre GmbH (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 has not been established. PanchoS (talk) 12:34, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. sst✈ 14:20, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. sst✈ 14:20, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. sst✈ 14:22, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Setting aside the WP:COI at the article's origin to focus on content and notability, its text veers in many directions, such as how to use a Nespresso machine, but given its title needs to be regarded as being about the firm rather than the product. A German Google search turns up various product reviews, but I am seeing nothing to demonstrate WP:CORPDEPTH notability. AllyD (talk) 08:01, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as longtime troubled article a for seemingly non-notable company, nothing here to suggest convincingly better. SwisterTwister talk 06:58, 16 January 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:CSD#G11 advertising JohnCD (talk) 16:13, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Дизайн Орбита (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)

wrong language Jamesbushell.au (talk) 11:40, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - when translated it's obvious that this also violates WP:PROMOTION. Bazonka (talk) 12:27, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. sst✈ 14:25, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. sst✈ 14:25, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. sst✈ 14:25, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete was twice deleted yesterday as Design Orbita. I've also asked that this editor be banned as a promotion only account. Enough is enough. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:44, 14 January 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) 00:33, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Abigail Keam (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 notability per WP:AUTHOR: no significant coverage online from WP:Reliable sources, and her achievements so far are two vanity book awards, along with an award from a state fair honey competition. There are some brief mentions of her in the local press about her beekeeping [25] and and her writing [26] but not the kind of substantial coverage expected for WP:BIO. NeemNarduni2 (talk) 10:04, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. NeemNarduni2 (talk) 10:06, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Kentucky-related deletion discussions. NeemNarduni2 (talk) 10:06, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete my searches, like those of Nom, are simply not producing indications of notability.E.M.Gregory (talk) 11:30, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. None of the works are in more than 40 or so libraries, . They are published by "Worker Bee Press", which may be her own company but is not a regular publisher. DGG ( talk ) 04:38, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as none of this currently suggests better satisfying WP:CREATIVE. SwisterTwister talk 07:15, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nomination, lack of notability. Additionally, a quick search reveals the books are indeed self published (as DGG suspected). Matthew Thompson ^{talk to me!} 10:42, 21 January 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) 00:35, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Bruce Eric Ruben (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Seems to fail WP:PERSON and WP:ACADEMIC. All listed publications are conference presentations rather than peer-reviewed. No journal publication history that I can see. His business does not seem notable either. Blythwood (talk) 08:29, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. sst✈ 09:09, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:48, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Our article presents no evidence of passing WP:PROF nor WP:GNG. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:37, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete None of the references are about him (one is a link to the NOAA home page!). I cannot find anything about him other than directory listings. Got zero on G-scholar. LaMona (talk) 23:46, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. fails the usual tests. DGG ( talk ) 16:58, 20 January 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 Lubna of Córdoba. MBisanz ^talk 18:16, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Libana (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 honestly find no evidence that this person exists besides that the feminist artist Judy Chicago featured her in her 1978 artwork on female artists through history, The Dinner Party. She also mentions her in her book on the artwork (which doesn't cite a source). I honestly now wonder if she didn't confuse the name or make her up or something.

I can find no translations of her poetry or philosophy online, no articles on her. Ms. Chicago's book mentions her, of course, and even gives a date of death (975), but has no citation. Searching reveals a few medieval people and places with that name or variants on it, and a feminist dance group, but no information about Libana herself. Am I going insane? I don't read Arabic or Spanish so it's very possible I just don't know where to look, but I'm getting worried about this.

I need to go soon so I wanted to mark this down for discussion before I log off here. Please note that, again, it's very possible that I am wrong about this. If reliable sources turn up to prove that I've become an unwitting tool of the patriarchy in suppressing the existence of this person, please anyone feel free to close the discussion immediately. Blythwood (talk) 08:22, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. sst✈ 09:10, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. sst✈ 09:10, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:55, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Lubna of Cordoba (article found by הסרפד at Humanities reference desk).184.147.121.46 (talk) 17:47, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: There are a few issues to consider, as mentioned at the refdesk thread. Firstly, Aisha (poet) is a red herring; Aisha was a female poet of Cordoba but is not identical to Chicago's "Libana" as they are separately listed in her above-mentioned art work. Labana of Cordoba and Lubna of Cordoba are both said to have been poets and mathematicians in the 10th century; other details match as well. It seems obvious that the same person is meant by both names, especially since they seem to be alternate transliterations of the same Arabic word, yet that seems like OR and the sources for the identification on the web are not reliable. הסרפד (call me Hasirpad) 20:02, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"Labana" is the name used in this Italian history of literature dated 1785. It could very well be that it is the dated Italian spelling of "Lubna", later still used in (1904) " Samuel P. Scott, The History of the Moorish Empire in Europe", the reference used in the following muslimheritage.com mentioning Labana of Cordoba. Regarding Aisha, the following link does no seem that it would be not reliable. Like our Aisha article they give 1009-1010 as a probable date of her death. Both poets would be rather near contemporary ( which perhaps could make sense in relationship with Lubna's library ). If Lubna died in 975 as some sources are suggesting then perhaps "Libana" could become a redirection for the sake of J. Chicago but it would be best that this linkage would be made clear somehow. --Askedonty (talk) 21:39, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like if we vote to keep or merge, by the end of this discussion we'll have lots to add to the article. Leaning MERGE based on what's been said so far.Thmazing (talk) 04:44, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Occurs to me that original research etc etc. Thmazing (talk) 19:36, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete instead and mention briefly at Dinner Party if needed as this is certainly questionable, with there being nothing to suggest convincingly better. SwisterTwister talk 06:59, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Judy Chicago's point was that every figure honoured in the Dinner Party deserves to be remembered, and I'm inclined to agree, with this twist. Either the individual satisfies WP criteria for her own article, or she gets a mention in our page on "Women who have a place setting at the Dinner Party and don't appear to have enough reliable information for a stand-alone biography". I'm inclined to think that this discussion has revealed enough to push Libana into the former category. Carbon Caryatid (talk) 17:03, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: Does anyone here read Arabic? Ibn Bashkuwal's Sila §1413 is one of the primary sources of information about Lubna, according to this source, as is this source (§1589), whatever its proper name is. הסרפד (call me Hasirpad) 19:30, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • ... and here is Casiri's extract from Ibn Bashkuwal's above-mentioned work (see introduction to the same, pp. 66–67), where he lists learned women of Muslim Spain, the first two being "Aischa" (d. AH 400, ca. 1009) and "Labana" (d. AH 374, ca. 984; cf. Lubna, d. AH 364 per Ibn Bashkuwal) whose biographical details match those of Lubna from the same source. (Miguel Casiri's Bibliotheca Arabico-Hispana Escurialensis is one of the sources of Juan Andrés work, the "Italian history of literature" previously mentioned, see [27].) הסרפד (call me Hasirpad) 22:14, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Lubna of Córdoba. That Chicago's "Libana" is the "Labana" mentioned by early modern historians seems uncontroversial; identifying "Labana" with the historical Lubna, based on citations traceable to a common source, with minor typographical discrepancies (see Adam Bishop's comment at the refdesk), seems to be strightforward synthesis. (Note the three versions of her date of death, differing by one digit on the Islamic calendar: 975/364, 984/375 and 1009/395.) הסרפד (call me Hasirpad) 15:47, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete--Ymblanter (talk) 08:28, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Steve Corcoran (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)

Still not notable. As with the last afd, "Bio about a rugby player that does not meet WP:ATHLETE as the subject only played in U-21 teams. While there is some later local coverage of his work as a coach, it does not rise to the level we would consider to be significant."
Recreation of previously deleted content posted deceptively by a shill at Steve Patrick Corcoran to avoid connection to the last afd. This page is fraudulently sourced, a 2000 article from the UK cannot possibly verify that his team won a championship in Texas, USA in 2014 and 2015. duffbeerforme (talk) 07:45, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. sst✈ 07:55, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Rugby union-related deletion discussions. sst✈ 07:55, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. sst✈ 07:55, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. sst✈ 07:55, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Grahame (talk) 01:09, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per excellent summary from the nom. This person doesn't meet the WP:GNG, but the deliberately inclusion of a number of misleading sources is especially reprehensible. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 11:33, 16 January 2016 (UTC).[reply]
• Delete - it's baffling that there are so many fake sources here, and I think Duffbeerforme's analysis is almost certainly correct. In any case, neither WP:ATHLETE nor WP:GNG is met. --bonadea contributions talk 17:04, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Per excellent analysis from Duffbeerforme fails WP:NSPORT and WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 20:36, 18 January 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 Pentatonix. No objection to the meaningful stuff being merged Spartaz ^Humbug! 00:02, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mitch Grassi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

WP:BLP of a musician whose notability is entirely dependent on a band, and who does not have sufficient reliable source coverage, as a standalone topic separate from the band, to warrant a standalone BLP. The sourcing here is almost entirely dependent on unreliable sources, like IMDb and blogs and Q&A interviews and the band's self-published social media presence, which cannot support notability — there's only one fully reliable source in the entire article, but it just namechecks his existence in an article about the band rather than being about him in any substantive way. And furthermore, almost every detail in here about anything he did outside of the band context is entirely unsourced (except for a YouTube series that's sourced only to itself, rather than any media coverage of it.) Per WP:NMUSIC, a musician notable as a member of a band gets a redirect to the band, not a standalone BLP, until such time as you can properly source them over WP:GNG as a standalone topic. Redirect to Pentatonix. Bearcat (talk) 07:16, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. sst✈ 07:55, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge the two sentences about the Youtube show to the Pentatonix article and redirect. I don't see that a separate article is justified here. --Michig (talk) 18:04, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect as mentioned, unlikely independently notable for a separate article yet. SwisterTwister talk 06:58, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Grassi is notable as he "[h]as credit for writing or co-writing either lyrics or music for a notable composition" and "[h]as written a composition that has won ... in a major music competition not established expressly for newcomers" as he was credited for a Grammy winning arrangement. I do agree, however, that much of the article needs to be rewritten and all of the unsourced statements either need references or to be removed. ~Peter Dzubay (talk) 23:18, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Those are the criteria for classical composers and non-performing songwriters, not performing musicians who happen to have cowritten songs for their own bands. And at any rate, (1) Grassi isn't a credited songwriter on any song that has its own standalone article as a separate topic from the album as a whole, so it hasn't been demonstrated that he has credit for writing or co-writing a notable composition; (2) he wasn't a credited songwriter on the only song that's named in this article as having won an award (the band won a performance award for a cover of another band's song, not a songwriting award for an original composition), so it hasn't been demonstrated that he's written an award-winning composition. Bearcat (talk) 01:50, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Notable enough to pass the general notability guideline. Dcpoliticaljunkie (talk) 12:31, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What sources are available to demonstrate that he passes GNG as a topic in his own right independently of the band? They're certainly not in the article. Bearcat (talk) 19:13, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If you, as nominator, had followed WP:BEFORE, you wouldn't be asking... Dcpoliticaljunkie (talk) 21:00, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I most certainly did do my due diligence in that regard. I see a lot of blogs which cannot contribute to GNG at all, and a lot of mentions of his name in coverage of the band — I don't see a lot of RS coverage of him, in his own right outside of coverage of the band, that would adequately support a standalone BLP as a separate topic from the band. Bearcat (talk) 23:05, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect not notable as an individual based on Wikipedia guidelines. If that changes (like he did a solo album), then a separate article could be created. Kevin Olusola has enough independent coverage to merit his own article. Grassi, not yet. --‖ Ebyabe ^talk - Attract and Repel ‖ 19:42, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete per WP:SNOW. A search brings up nothing to show that the book would pass WP:NBOOK (also no hits using this special search engine) and the consensus here supports the same. I'm closing this early, since I can't see where this would close any other way. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 09:43, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Gambit (Beyond Nexus) (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)

PROD removed with exactly no explanation: "No better sourcing found to suggest better satisfying books notability guidelines.". SwisterTwister talk 06:54, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:55, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - No evidence of notabilty, Google search shows no coverage in reliable sources. ~ Matthewrbowker ^{Drop me a note} 06:59, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Doesn't seem to have had coverage in multiple reliable sources, fails WP:GNG. Also doesn't seem to have met WP:BKCRIT. —UY Scuti ^Talk 07:12, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Not a notable book. Does not meet WP:BKCRIT | Self published books. Possible unambiguous promotion by the author. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 61.3.147.52 (talk) 08:21, 14 January 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 08:04, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Bhavya Kaushik (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NAUTHOR is an upcoming writer and is a case of WP:TOOSOON . Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 06:46, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. sst✈ 07:57, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. sst✈ 07:57, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as certainly questionably notable for WP:CREATIVE. Notifying tagger Grayfell. SwisterTwister talk 07:16, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete for now. Lacks sources. I found bits and pieces, but nowhere close to enough to establish notability or indicate that it was worth digging further. Looks like too soon, per nom. Grayfell (talk) 09:14, 15 January 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 07:36, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Haarika Kanajam (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:SIGCOV and WP:NACTOR upcoming at best is a case of WP:TOOSOON . Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 06:39, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. sst✈ 07:59, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. sst✈ 07:59, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. sst✈ 07:59, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Per nom. No credible evidence of notability.--Dwaipayan (talk) 20:12, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as mentioned, not better satisfying WP:CREATIVE. SwisterTwister talk 06:44, 15 January 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. MBisanz ^talk 18:19, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nigel Ipinson (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. Lacks coverage in independent reliable sources. Whilst he may have been a member of two notable bands it was not as a prominent member and as a short term part for each, both outside the bands main fame. duffbeerforme (talk) 03:56, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. I also note that of the four references in the article, two are primary sources and a third is essentially a collection of photographs posted by a friend of the subject. The only independent source is the article from the Boston Globe, which is behind a paywall but appears to be about one of the former bands, and not the subject himself. NewYorkActuary (talk) 20:34, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• I am inclined to Keep here. As well as being a member of OMD and The Stone Roses, and writing/playing in Ian Brown's band (and there are several sources that exist for these that are not currently cited in the article), he was also part of the trio 'Elate', who had a top 40 hit in the UK in 1997 ([28]). --Michig (talk) 18:14, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:04, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep as I would usually say delete aside from then seeing his bands memberships may be able to keep this for now. SwisterTwister talk 05:37, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Lacks WP:SIGCOV about the subject himself and was only briefly a member of two notable band and again not a prominent member and again is not solely associated with any particular band . Now every member of a notable band is not automatically notable.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 21:58, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Needs Name References. CalabJessika (talk) 09:15, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Big Keep 100 percent notable musician.The Cross Bearer (talk) 20:00, 22 January 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). Vanamonde93 (talk) 16:03, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Rizin Fighting Federation (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)

Procedural nomination of declined speedy deletion. It is claimed that the federation has become more notable since the last AFD. I offer no opinion myself. SpinningSpark 00:33, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Marchjuly (talk) 01:01, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Marchjuly (talk) 01:01, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes. However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

• Keep - Asides from the dozen or so MMA-oriented sites, I see coverage in ESPN [29], Las Vegas Review-Journal [30], and Perth Now Sunday Times [31] for mainstream outlets. Apparently the December 31, 2015 event in Saitama Super Arena covered by ESPN was the inaugural event for this MMA federation, but they have major names such as Fedor Emelianenko and Kazushi Sakuraba associated so I see no justification to put this article to the torch. Jun Kayama 01:44, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - Vice News profiled Rizin [32]. WP:RS. Jun Kayama 04:28, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - Vice News I feel meets WP:RS and additional coverage from ABC News [33], Fox Sports [34] and Bleacher Report [35] [36] has also been forthcoming. While the emphasis has been on reporting the Emelianenko matchup, this is understandable since the federation only started hosting in December 29 and 31 of 2015. I suggest Keep until the April 17 event, and if nothing worth WP:NSPORT comes from it I will be more than happy to support an AfD for this article. As for the quality of the events ... I have no position on that aspect, only whether there is WP:RS coverage present. Jun Kayama 20:48, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Err, notability is not temporary, and it seems evident (based on the links you have provided) that the subject of this article overwhelmingly meets the standard notability requirement of significant coverage in two independent reliable sources. If it passes now, then I don't see how one could argue for deletion later, regardless of what happens on April 17th. 72.182.50.9 (talk) 08:26, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - Since this is a successor organization to Pride Fighting Championships by the same founder with the same stated organizational ethos, I would argue in the absence of the April 17 event that merging content with Pride is worth consideration, not for outright deletion. The point however is moot, as Rizin appears to be funded for the calendar year. Jun Kayama 14:44, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I don't see additional significant coverage now that they've held their first two events from when this article was deleted two months ago. The article's sources are more like fight announcements/results or, like the sources mentioned above, really about Emelianenko and his fight. The organization doesn't inherit notability from Emelianenko. Papaursa (talk) 01:05, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've crossed out my vote because, while I'm not convinced there is enough non-routine coverage from reliable sources to meet WP:GNG, I don't feel strongly enough to fight about it. I'll go with the consensus of other editors. Papaursa (talk) 04:19, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per Jun Kayama. Papaursa is either lying about the promotion not getting additional coverage after televising the two events on Japanese, Russian, and American television (on SpikeTV) or did not bother to actually look. For example, Karim Zidan of SB Nation described the first event "heard on laptop screens and television sets around the world" as "a reminder of a bygone decade" and noted that "the 10-minute opening round was certainly a welcome addition to the broadcast and helped distinguish Rizin from its international competitors" and that the "show surpassed all expectations." See here. --24.112.230.227 (talk) 19:43, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

As a new editor you might want to check out policies like WP:NPA, WP:AGF, and WP:NPOV. For example, the article you quote said it exceeded expectations "due to the exceptionally low bar set", that "they will become nothing more than a novelty show", showed "irresponsible booking that highlights a lack of care for the fighters involved", and was "cringe worthy" with freak show fights. Or the Vice News (is that even a reliable source?) story that had comments like "turned my stomach", "retrograde spectacle free of technique or ability", and "circus fights and endless beatings of one-time greats". Mdtemp (talk) 19:28, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep as no fact-based reason actually exists not to keep it. --173.241.225.193 (talk) 20:09, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nice to see another new IP from Ashland, Ohio.Mdtemp (talk) 20:19, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever, Papaursa... --173.241.225.193 (talk) 20:29, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Additional events are being scheduled for April 17, July, September and December 2016 with talent shared from Bellator MMA [37] Blackeye88 (talk) 12:00, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment It would be better if the Keep votes could address notability rather than it exists, is planning more events or is associated with Bellator - none of which are valid reasons for Keeping.Peter Rehse (talk) 12:14, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yet, no valid reasons have been presented for deleting it. --24.112.230.227 (talk) 19:19, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - sources found by Jun Kayama seem to be sufficient for keeping at this point.--Staberinde (talk) 11:15, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy keep WP:SK#1, no argument for deletion, and no one has yet !voted delete.  Note that if there is no one in the community who wants to prepare a deletion nomination, there is no need for a deletion discussion.  Also, please see discussion at WT:Deletion policy#Recommended deletions where I have proposed a place to request AfD nominations.  Specifically for IP editors, User:Graeme Bartlett has suggested using draftspace.  Unscintillating (talk) 05:55, 23 January 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. (Soft delete, minding low participation.) czar 07:39, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Kaloya clan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Unreferenced, orphan article (i.e. no others link to it), notability not demonstrated. – Fayenatic London 18:04, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2015 December 31. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 14:29, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:45, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:45, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - based on my searches, I wasn't able to verify this place exists. Doesn't appear to be notable. FuriouslySerene (talk) 22:05, 7 January 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 07:12, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hollyhood (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)

The album is unofficial. Koala15 (talk) 04:39, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. sst✈ 05:11, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Did a google search, a Youtube search as well as an iTunes search, found no evidence of this album ever existing. Ueutyi (talk) 05:53, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete It exists, at least as far as this and this are concerned, but I can't find anything significant about it. Perhaps if someone knows the rap sources to look in, there might be more - I did a Google search and I don't know how accurate that is for rap music. LaMona (talk) 23:54, 19 January 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 07:38, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Conor & Jay (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, parked entirely on unreliable sources that cannot support notability at all, about a band whose only substantive claim of notability is having placed some songs in a video game. While that would potentially be a valid claim of notability per WP:NMUSIC #10 if it were sourced properly, no criterion in NMUSIC ever grants an automatic notability freebie just because its passage is claimed — NMUSIC is not passed until reliable source coverage properly verifies the accuracy of the claim. Delete, without prejudice against recreation if real RS coverage ever materializes. Bearcat (talk) 04:03, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. sst✈ 05:02, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. sst✈ 05:02, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete and I was planning to nominate it when I first saw and reviewed it at NPP, nothing including my searches found anything to suggest considerably better. SwisterTwister talk 05:55, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom as failing WP:GNG. I am no closely familiar with artist/band sourcing, but it doesn't appear like there are any in-depth reliable independent hits to satisfy GNG. WP:BAND#10 does not seem to be well fulfilled with being only one of the song-writers for a game with a large selection of songs. I agree with nom that this shouldn't give a notability "freebie". At present there is no material (that has been found) to write an article. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 18:20, 16 January 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) 18:02, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mrs. World (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)