Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2016 January 31

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 30 January	1 February >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. KTC (talk) 02:01, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Chennai Super Kings in 2016

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

Chennai Super Kings has been suspended and will not play in 2016 IPL. There is no need for this article now. Bharatiya 29 05:52, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Bharatiya 29 05:53, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Bharatiya 29 05:53, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – obvious deletion per nom. A WP:CRYSTAL creation that has not come to pass. Harrias ^talk 10:41, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

For exactly the same reason, I am adding the following article to the nomination:

Delete both per WP:CRYSTAL, and they're never going to be notable since these seasons won't happen. Joseph2302 (talk) 22:01, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom. GreenCricket^TALK 12:21, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both at best for now. SwisterTwister talk 02:41, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Anjana Larka^{SEND WIKILOVE💗} 08:10, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was draft. About half the people said userfy, but nobody has stepped up to own it, so I'm just going to move this to draft space Draft:Home (2016 film). -- RoySmith (talk) 21:17, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Home (2016 film)

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

Non notable film. Fails WP:GNG. Koala15 (talk) 22:46, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 22:55, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. clpo13_(talk) 23:17, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Soft delete or Userfy. Apparently complete but not-yet-released, this topic is simply TOO SOON. Article can always be resurrected when we have confirmation of release. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 01:22, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for now at best until a better article is available. SwisterTwister talk 02:39, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - clearly a case of WP:TOOSOON. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:33, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Userfy- Movie is notable but it is WP:TOOSOON, definitely it deserves a page. It will be better to userfy than delete at this moment. Amitbanerji26 (talk) 15:19, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Userfy per Sir Michael. @Amitbanerji26:; what do you mean by "Movie is notable but it is WP:TOOSOON"? Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 18:47, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. KTC (talk) 02:01, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Young soulja the realest

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

Non-notable rapper; fails WP:MUSIC and WP:GNG. No legitimate third-party sources found. sixtynine ^{• speak up •} 22:33, 31 January 2016 (UTC) Article creator since blocked as a promotional account. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Beemer69 (talk • contribs) 18:07, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 22:56, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per the lack of third party sources. --Rubbish computer (HALP!: I dropped the bass?) 23:08, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Not enough to currently better satisfy the notability guidelines. SwisterTwister talk 07:12, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I can't find any reliable third party sources. Doesn't meet WP:MUSICBIO or WP:GNG.--William Thweatt ^Talk^Contribs 06:25, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was a snowball close as delete. This is only going one way.--Malcolmxl5 (talk) 14:00, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Kiernan Majerus-Collins

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

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}}.

Delete Simply does not pass the GNG or Politician guideline. Created by single-purpose user. Dcpoliticaljunkie (talk) 22:14, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Sidenote, the commons photo accompanying this article was uploaded by a user named "Kiernanmc" -- who shares the subject's name. What are the odds this is the same user, or at least coordinated by the same user? Dcpoliticaljunkie (talk) 22:19, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - The odss are quite good, but the fact is irrelevant to the deletion discussion. BMK (talk) 00:59, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    - Agreed, simply thought it was a factor for editors to consider. Either way, Majerus-Collins is clearly simply a local LARP-er with no national or international significance as Wikipedia, I believe, requires. Dcpoliticaljunkie (talk) 17:48, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Dcpoliticaljunkie (talk) 22:24, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Dcpoliticaljunkie (talk) 22:24, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:GNG and WP:NPOLITICIAN. Joseph2302 (talk) 22:43, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG and WP:NPOLITICIAN. Pretty cut and dry. dimaspivak (talk) 22:44, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Annekeye (talk)

— Note to closing admin: Annekeye (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this AfD.

Why? Remeber WP:ILIKEIT is not a valid reason. BMK (talk) 00:56, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ah! You are the creator of the article. It would have been better if you had said so. BMK (talk) 00:57, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If Wikipedia doesn't include information about who our local elected representatives are, no one will. Majerus-Collins represents about 2,300 constituents in West Hartford. For the sake of promoting democracy, Wikipedia should have an article about him, so that his constituents can know who he is. Besides, it is not like he's gotten no public notice—in the past few weeks alone, media outlets across New England have covered his protests of Trump. Simply put, there is no reason to delete the article, and several reasons to keep it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Annekeye (talk • contribs) 20:03, 31 January 2016‎ (UTC)[reply]

Annekeye, please read Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Politicians to see Wikipedia's standard of notability for politicians that is sought for articles covering local politicians. This is not a personal attack on you and your article, it's that Wikipedia has notability standards. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:29, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Liz, I read it. Majerus-Collins qualifies. "Local politicians whose office would not ordinarily be considered notable may still clear the bar if they have received national or international press coverage, beyond the scope of what would ordinarily be expected for their role." Without a doubt Majerus-Collins meets this criteria. His coverage in regional and national newspapers, TV, and radio far exceeds that of his colleagues on the West Hartford Democratic Town Committee.

Unfortunately for you, the proof of the pudding is in the eating. Your references are to the Hartford Courant, the Yale Daily News, a local TV station, and the school paper of a small local college. You have not demonstrated in any way "national or international press coverage." For instance, Hartford is only about 2.5 hours from New York City, and there's no mention of Kiernan Majerus-Collins in the archives of The New York Times, and only a single mention -- via the Courant report -- in the Boston Globe, the other world-class newspaper that's nearby.
You have to face it, your subject made a tiny ripple in the mediasphere, but not enough of a splash to make him notable as far as Wikipedia is concerned.
Which leads me to another pertinent question: are you in any way connected to Kiernan Majerus-Collins, either personally or professionally? We have rules about editing with a conflict of interest, and about paid editing, both of which you are obligated to follow in order to edit here. Please familiarize yourself with them in case you do any future editing here. (Your current article is, I'm afraid, toast. The clear consensus of editors is that the subject is not notable, and as such it will be deleted within the next week.) BMK (talk) 05:29, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Hartford Courant is absolutely a national newspaper. It's America's oldest continually published daily newspaper. Annekeye (talk) 17:55, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Hartford Courant is 56th on the list of newspapers with the most circulation in the United States (see [1]), and, in any event, an item in a single newspaper does not qualify as "national and international coverage". BMK (talk) 18:06, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Hartford Courant is a major metropolitan daily with a well-deserved reputation for excellent, serious journalism and is absolutely eliegible to be counted as supporting notability. However, to actually pass WP:GNG would require more coverge in the Courant and other media than presently exists.E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:22, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As E, M. Gregoiry says, it is undoubtedly true that the Courant is a quality newspaper, however, it is also the local newspaper for the event (see WP:BLP1E) described, which is why, Annekeye, it does not count when considering whether the subject has garnered "national and international" coverage. BMK (talk) 18:27, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Anna Rachel Keye is a known alias of Kiernan Majerus-Collins. That is to say, the subject of the article pretended to be a constituent of his own district to write and then defend an article on himself. Rmckenney (talk) 16:22, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Really? Who, then, are you, who created an ID simply to vote in this AfD and "out" Anna Keye? BMK (talk) 17:40, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure what's being argued here. If WP:SOCK is being violated (as it appears to be), then this article should be speedily deleted, regardless of how editors stumbled upon this page. dimaspivak (talk) 18:33, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete Appears to be a definite A7 from my eyes in its present state. Amortias (T)(C) 23:05, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Very minor local politician, fails all relevant notability requirements. BMK (talk) 00:56, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Beyond My Ken, not true. Majerus-Collins qualifies. "Local politicians whose office would not ordinarily be considered notable may still clear the bar if they have received national or international press coverage, beyond the scope of what would ordinarily be expected for their role." Without a doubt Majerus-Collins meets this criteria. His coverage in regional and national newspapers, TV, and radio far exceeds that of his colleagues on the West Hartford Democratic Town Committee. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Annekeye (talk • contribs) 00:18, 1 February 2016‎ (UTC)[reply]

See my comments above. Your interpretation of our standards is incorrect, as evidenced by the opinions of all these editors around you who disagree. Also, please "sign" your comments by adding four tildes (~~~~) at the end of the message. BMK (talk) 05:36, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, the closer I look, the worse this gets. The subject is not even an elected official in West Hartford (see this), he's a member of the town's Democratic Committee, therefore he has no "constituency" per se. He's not even the chair of the district he's part of, just one of 8 members for that district. (There are 56 members of the Committee as a whole - see [2]). This person fails our notability requirements on so many levels there's really no reason for this to go the full 7 days. BMK (talk) 17:54, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This article should probably be deleted...for now. Mr. Majerus-Collins is an "up and comer", as they say, so no doubt he will meet the requirements in the near future. I've just come to add my two cents about the underhanded actions of editors. Users dimaspivak and Rmckenney (and possibly Dcpoliticaljunkie) are blatant aggressors of the subject of this page. (Majerus-Collins leaves everything public on his Facebook page and you can see their constant spamming of his posts) I'm obviously very new to Wikipedia but if there is a way to flag them as "biased motives" or something of that ilk, that would be recommended. AfD pages are for discussion, and just saying things like "Pointless article" are not constructive at all. I realize I am slightly derailing the discussion myself, but I think it's important that editors not make decisions based on disliking the subject of the article. I would also like to add that in this case, the argument that "Your interpretation of our standards is incorrect, as evidenced by the opinions of all these editors around you who disagree." doesn't really hold water when many of the editors are against him for personal reasons. RobCanCan (talk)— RobCanCan (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

RobCanCan, your wording seems to indicate a (very) close connection to the subject, the users above are correct. This seems like (yet another) alias of what appears to be the subject himself. Please refrain from doing such actions they go against Wikipedia's policies, as referenced here WP:SOCK, and WP:COI. Thanks. Xin Deui

RobCanCan is ia brand=spanking new user. BMK (talk) 23:23, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously, I am a brand new user, but I don't know how you can ascertain from "my wording" that I am the subject. Citation needed, as they say, not just using misguided intuition. I am not Majerus-Collins, though I am from West Hartford and I see his actions on social media. Various people (including the users above) have been posting this article to social media for the explicit purpose of brigading to get it taken down. Once again, I think this article should be taken down, but on its lack of merits, not because these people think he is a bad person. That sounds like a CoI to me. Also, if you check the history, it's clear that various detractors of the subject have been vandalizing the article; underhanded and unprofessional editing all around. RobCanCan (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 02:15, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Just for the record, the repeated addition by anonymous IPs of unsourced claims of illegal or unethical activity is indeed a violation of our WP:BLP rules; a claim like that has to be sourced very carefully because of its sensitivity. Accordingly, I've applied semi-protection to the article, so that anonymous or newly-registered editors cannot edit it anymore. Established users will still be able to, however. Bearcat (talk) 17:39, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete A definite A7. Xin Deui (T)
Delete per others points - I can't add anything new. Legacypac (talk) 04:45, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG and WP:NPOLITICIAN. Pointless article. Rmckenney (talk) 22:59, 31 January 2016 (UTC)— Rmckenney (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Delete. No notability per WP:NPOL, and no substantive reliable source coverage. And as the person who wrote the "how a local politician might occasionally still get over the bar" clarification that the creator is citing above, let me assure them of this: that criterion is not meant to cover off local political figures whose coverage is limited to their local newspaper — if he were getting coverage in The New York Times or The Washington Post or The Los Angeles Times or The Seattle Post-Intelligencer, then that criterion would come into play. Attaching a claim of national significance to a hometown paper which is covering him in a local context is not how you satisfy that criterion — the places where the coverage is coming from have to nationalize to get a person into Wikipedia on that basis. If the coverage is coming exclusively from local media, however, then making claims that the local media outlet in question has national prominence is not enough — for example, The New York Times has far more national prominence than the Hartford Courant does, but even it still can't singlehandedly carry the notability of a local political activist in New York City. If that person doesn't pass WP:NPOL on the basis of their position, and hasn't expanded outward to also garner coverage in Washington or Seattle or Chicago or San Francisco, then the mere fact that the local coverage happens to be in The New York Times rather than the Podunk Pennysaver does not augment their notability in and of itself. Bearcat (talk)
Delete, WP:TOOSOON.E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:24, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete Not notable in the slightest, and I'll echo everyone else saying WP:TOOSOON. "He gained attention by attending a Trump rally" - seriously? sixtynine ^{• speak up •} 17:02, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as, despite current coverage, there's nothing else convincing. SwisterTwister talk 02:44, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete probably should have been speedied - looks like classic A7 to me. Otherwise it fails WP:NPOL and the WP:GNG. The "references" only prove he is indeed on the Democratic Town Committee but do nothing toward establishing his having done anything WP notable.--William Thweatt ^Talk^Contribs 06:35, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Maalai Nerathu Mayakkam. MBisanz ^talk 02:34, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Balakrishna Kola

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

Questionable notability-has been redirected before as well as prodded-need a expert on Indian actors for this. Wgolf (talk) 22:00, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - he's done one film, which didn't perform well at the box office. Little coverage of him away from the reviews of his film. Probably should wait for a few more films/a notable film before re-creation. Editor 2050 (talk) 23:15, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Maalai Nerathu Mayakkam. No significant coverage other than mentions of his roles so does not pass WP:GNG; and, WP:NACTOR requires "multiple notable films." I think it is debatable if the films he was in were notable so falls short here as well. --CNMall41 (talk) 02:25, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Atlantic306 (talk) 00:27, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as none of this imaginably better satisfies WP:CREATIVE. SwisterTwister talk 07:54, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 07:54, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Electric Burst^{(Electron firings)}_(Zaps) 17:40, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Water & Bubbles

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

~~Nominating for deletion as a page created by User:Mr. Lama, a confirmed sockpuppet of User:Giovannigiulio.~~ Fails WP:GNG. Article has not been sourced since its creation.. Electric Burst^{(Electron firings)}_(Zaps) 21:05, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. clpo13_(talk) 23:29, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. clpo13_(talk) 23:29, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. clpo13_(talk) 23:29, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep. This article was created 2013-12-21 and the relevant blocks were not imposed until January 2015. G5-type deletions are meant only to make block evasion ineffectual, not to punish pre-block bad behaviour. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by admins since 2006. (talk) 01:25, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article meets guidelines, in this case it doesn't matter who created it.--5 albert square (talk) 01:32, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: the nominator completely changed their rationale in the middle of the discussion, making the subsequent comments by User:Hullaballoo Wolfowitz and User:5 albert square nonsensical. I restored and strikethrough the previous rationale, as it should have been made. Cavarrone 06:04, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep. Whatever the rationale was, there is an obvious lack of WP:BEFORE. Passes GNG, and being the first 3D animated TV series ever produced in Italy, as noted in the Variety article cited in the article, makes the series historically notable. As noted in other AfDs started by the nominator, if Mr. Lama/Giovannigiulio was ever disruptive, nomitator is being disruptive as well, possibly more, mass-nominating dozens of articles in a few minutes with spurious rationales and not caring about their actual notability. Cavarrone 07:10, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Created by a sock, but edited by multiple editors since then; sourced fine enough and hardly a deletion candidate. Nate • (chatter) 08:13, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Electric Burst^{(Electron firings)}_(Zaps) 17:12, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ghost Son

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

Nominating for deletion as a page created by User:Mr. Lama, a confirmed sockpuppet of User:Giovannigiulio. Electric Burst^{(Electron firings)}_(Zaps) 21:05, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. clpo13_(talk) 23:17, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. clpo13_(talk) 23:17, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

Keep per meeting WP:NF no matter who brought us the topic two years ago. And as this was authored one year before the sockmaster and puppet were blocked, it is not the issue. What is the deciding factor is that this had wide release and multiple reviews over multiple countries over several years and available Non-English coverage shows notability. What serves the project is improvement through regular editing, not deletion. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 01:12, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep and warn the nominator as they are mass-nominating/prodding all the articles of Mr. Lama, regardless of when they were created, regardless of who else edited them, regardless of their notability and even regardless of their actual sourcing. If Mr. Lama/Giovannigiulio was ever disruptive, nomitator is being disruptive as well, possibly more. In a case like this, G5 is clearly not eligible, notability is obvious, there is no improvement for the encyclopedia from the deletion of the article, and AfD like these are just a big waste of time for the community, who has better things to do. Cavarrone 05:45, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 18:24, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Lucky Luke (film)

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

Nominating for deletion as a page created by User:Mr. Lama, a confirmed sockpuppet of User:Giovannigiulio. Electric Burst^{(Electron firings)}_(Zaps) 21:04, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. clpo13_(talk) 23:20, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. clpo13_(talk) 23:20, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Keep per meeting WP:NF no matter who brought us the topic two years ago. And as this was authored one year before the sockmaster and puppet were blocked, it is not the issue. What is the deciding factor is that this had wide release in multiple countries over several years and available Non-English coverage shows notability. What serves the project is improvement through regular editing, not deletion. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 01:05, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Probably the most notable Lucky Luke film out of a large selection of them (though it hasn't aged as well as the animated ones). The cover of this movie is also featured in the Lucky Luke article's film section. In addition this is a Terence Hill film and seemingly the beginning of a television series. Oh and since you probably don't know who Terence Hill is, he is more known in Europe for comedy spaghetti westerns. He and "Bud Spencer" pretended to be American movie stars and Europe gobbled it up. --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 06:24, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) —UY Scuti ^Talk 18:04, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

My Son, the Hero

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

Nominating for deletion as a page created by User:Mr. Lama, a confirmed sockpuppet of User:Giovannigiulio. Electric Burst^{(Electron firings)}_(Zaps) 21:04, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. clpo13_(talk) 23:21, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. clpo13_(talk) 23:21, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

alts:

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

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

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

Keep per meeting WP:NF no matter who brought us the topic two years ago. And as this was authored one year before the sockmaster and puppet were blocked, it is not the issue. What is the deciding factor is that available Non-English coverage shows notability. Books, media articles, and more.[3] [4] [5] What serves the project is improvement through regular editing, not deletion. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 00:49, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep and history merge with Arrivano i titani. Article was actually not created by User:Mr. Lama but by another editor in 2012, Lama just manually moved to the English title copy-pasting it. About the rest, I agree with the comment by Schmidt above and see my comment in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gladiators of Rome (2012 film). Cavarrone 05:55, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Administrator note I have carried out the history merge; the full history is now at My Son, the Hero. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 10:57, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep perhaps as although the current article may not be with the best state, there is some to convince enough and any improvements may need to made if available. SwisterTwister talk 02:47, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Snow Keep. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 18:25, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Pet Pals

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

Fails WP:GNG. Article has not been sourced since its creation.. Electric Burst^{(Electron firings)}_(Zaps) 21:04, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. clpo13_(talk) 23:23, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. clpo13_(talk) 23:23, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. clpo13_(talk) 23:23, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Cavarrone 06:32, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:BEFORE, hundreds of articles easily available searching for the original title, see [6] and [7]. Clearly notable, this is not even a close call. Cavarrone 06:30, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Cavarrone. We might have to wait for an Italian fluent editor to come along, before things can get spruced up, but the sources exist. --Jpcase (talk) 13:15, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

Keep as a notable topic despite needing work.[8][9] Specially as a perception of WP:UGLY is not a deletion rationale. I urge the nominator to spend less effort tracking down pre-block articles by someone blocked six to twelve months after authorship and more time using WP:BEFORE and WP:IMPROVE prior to judging topics incorrectly. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 06:58, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Electric Burst^{(Electron firings)}_(Zaps) 04:00, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Lastrego

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

Nominating for deletion as a page created by User:Mr. Lama, a confirmed sockpuppet of User:Giovannigiulio. Electric Burst^{(Electron firings)}_(Zaps) 21:04, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. clpo13_(talk) 23:19, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. clpo13_(talk) 23:19, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. clpo13_(talk) 23:19, 31 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 Snow Keep. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 18:25, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In Verbis Virtus

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

Nominating for deletion as a page created by User:Mr. Lama, a confirmed sockpuppet of User:Giovannigiulio. Electric Burst^{(Electron firings)}_(Zaps) 21:01, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. czar 21:24, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. The topic has plenty of introductory coverage in a video game reliable sources custom Google search, but not a lot in the reviews dept. The Italian sources in the article are potentially passable, but I haven't reviewed their reliability. The RPS intro can be construed as a review, and TT calls their's a "sort-of review". Ultimately, I see plenty of sources to write about the Gameplay and some Reception to this game, even if it's mostly on the basis of its core conceit (casting spells through speech recognition). czar 21:33, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. clpo13_(talk) 23:18, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Sources to show notability exists, this article can be salvaged. I don't see much point in deleting it just because a sock got creation credit, if it's perfectly valid to immediately recreate it. -- ferret (talk) 18:27, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as passing WP:GNG with multiple reliable independent in-depth sources, namely WP:VG/RS. It's not great, as Czar notes, but it's sufficient for GNG threshold. It doesn't look like there's any major content issues we cannot rewrite or source, so deletion doesn't seem necessary for that reason. If really pressed, we can just recreate the article. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 15:51, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Electric Burst^{(Electron firings)}_(Zaps) 18:47, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Tunnel Under the World

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

Nominating for deletion as a page created by User:Mr. Lama, a confirmed sockpuppet of User:Giovannigiulio. Electric Burst^{(Electron firings)}_(Zaps) 21:01, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Cavarrone 07:14, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. Cavarrone 07:15, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. Cavarrone 07:43, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

using due diligence, we have

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

Keep as a film topic whose available sourcing has the topic meet WP:NF and we can then encourage improvement through regular editing. That it was created by a person who was blocked six months later does not mean it is non-notable. We determine inclusion though notability, not through six-month pre-block actions. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 18:39, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. KTC (talk) 02:02, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Joshua Adomako

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

Non-notable footballer, PROD contested by article creator. Article creator claims he's played for Hammarby Fotboll, but no reliable sources suggest he's played in a fully professional league- as a result, fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTY. Joseph2302 (talk) 20:43, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Has not played in a FPL, nothing to suggest he passes GNG any other way Seasider91 (talk) 00:20, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 16:28, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - He has not played in a fully pro league or received significant coverage, meaning the article fails WP:NSPORT and WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik (talk) 16:28, 1 February 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) 16:40, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 18:11, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as currently questionable for the applicable notability. SwisterTwister talk 02:50, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. KTC (talk) 02:02, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Donut Kings

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

I couldn't establish that they meet WP:BAND or WP:GNG Boleyn (talk) 20:06, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete at best as none of this suggests or also conceives any applicable notability. SwisterTwister talk 02:55, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 02:55, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NBAND and WP:SIGCOV.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 10:36, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Withdrawn apparently (NAC). SwisterTwister talk 02:51, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yamantaka

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

The article has been tagged ever since December 2008 for insufficient inline citations. ({{unreferenced}}) Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 19:16, 31 January 2016 (UTC)'[reply]

Withdrawn by nominator. The "...discussion has produced new information about the topic..." (WP:WDAFD), thanks to JimRenge who provided sources to the article. Next, we need to point out the sources for specific arguments in the text. Indeed, the topic meets the requirements of Wikipedia:Notability, but even a notable article wouldn't pass the new article creation process without proper sourcing. The work continues from here. Cheers! Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 01:28, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that the article is currently not being curated does not warrant it for deletion. Likewise, the fact that an article may suffer from insufficient inline citations does not warrant it for deletion. The deity that the article refers to is of remarkable and notable importance for many Buddhists who follow the Himalayan traditions. There are numerous translations, publications, and discussions regarding this deity and affiliated practices. (20040302 (talk) 19:36, 31 January 2016 (UTC))[reply]

Thanks for chiming in, 20040302. The article has been in this state ever since December 2008. If there were ...numerous translations, publications, and discussion regarding this deity and affiliated practices..., I would expect this abundance had been shown up in the article. But unless we have sources, we can hardly consider the topic WP:NOTABLE.

Of course, according to WP:AFDFORMAT: "... you can directly improve the article to address the reasons for deletion given in the nomination. You can search out reliable sources, and refute the deletion arguments given using policy, guidelines, and examples from our good and featured articles. If you believe the article topic is valid and encyclopedic, and it lacks only references and other minor changes to survive, you may request help in the task by listing the article on the rescue list in accordance with instructions given at WP:RSL, and then adding the {{rescue list}} template to the AfD discussion by posting {{subst:rescue list}} to the discussion thread."

Cheers! Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 20:18, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This is ridiculous. Here are several starting points: ISBN 81-85102-78-3,ISBN 0-646-38291-8, ISBN 1-891868-06-3. For academic sources cf. ISBN 095154246X / ISSN 0954-859. These don't have mere references to Yamantaka - they are entire books on the subject. This is from the latter text, (Siklos 1996, p7) : "Yamantaka is present in several tantras which predate the Vajrabhairava treatises. In the Guhyasamajatantra, dated by Wayman to the fourth century, Yamantaka makes two appearances (as one of the 11 khrodha deities, and at the eastern gate of the mandala 1977:99 123-4)." .... and so on. As I mentioned above, just because the article is not curated does not mean it's not notable. I am unsure if you are aware of this but, as is true with much of annuttarayogatantra, the practice of Yamantaka entails vows of secrecy which are adhered to by most practitioners. Yet there are still major academic works published both within the scholarly buddhist community and amongst the western academic community that are solely based upon the practise and history of Yamantaka. (20040302 (talk) 22:18, 31 January 2016 (UTC))[reply]

For another list of published works cf. http://www.yamantaka.org/index.php/2-uncategorised/205-books-on-yamantaka-practice

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Buddhism-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:18, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This Tantric Buddhist deity gets 75 Google Scholar hits, 92 Google Books hits, 95 book hits in WorldCat. I think, for the subject matter of Vajrayana Buddhism, that meets the threshold of notability. SJK (talk) 11:04, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. KTC (talk) 02:04, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sir John Kothalawala Maha Vidyalaya (school)

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

Note: The article has now been moved to Sir John Kothalawala Maha Vidyalaya - Piliyandala. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 10:23, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: The article has been moved again to Sir John Kothalawala Maha Vidyalaya, Piliyandala. • Gene93k (talk) 17:57, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Subject is a primary school that, as far as I can tell from the information given in the article, covers grades 1 through 6. As such, it does not satisfy the longstanding criteria that only secondary schools are deemed to be inherently notable. Nothing that would indicate any notability for this primary school. No school district article to redirect this to. The best option here would be to simply delete. Safiel (talk) 18:40, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:45, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:45, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Not notable. And reasons per nom --allthefoxes ^(Talk) 04:48, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per guidelines and outcomes. Not to mention PROMO. John from Idegon (talk) 19:08, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Not notable. And reasons per nom. Not finding any WP:RS to support claim of WP:GNG or WP:SIGCOV. Viewing the article in the most favorable light, this would be a case of WP:Too soon. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 14:57, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- What, at 35 years old?! -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:41, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES. VMS Mosaic (talk) 12:00, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Actually appears to be a secondary school, so WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES most certainly doesn't suggest it should be deleted. Nothing in the article says it's a primary school (indeed, the infobox says it educates grades 1-13) and a Google search, while not turning up many references, does turn up references to it having a senior cricket team. This pretty much invalidates the whole nomination on that basis. Yes, it's a poor article, but the topic appears to be notable per our usual consensus that all secondary schools are notable. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:40, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. This appears to be an (extremely poorly written) article about a secondary school. Since the article was nominated for deletion, they have brought their website online. Unfortunately, it matches the Wikipedia article almost verbatim. Yes, we usually keep secondary schools as Necrothesp states, if they can be verified, and that's a big problem here. I'm not seeing a great loss if this article is nuked. • Gene93k (talk) 20:32, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. KTC (talk) 02:05, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yousuf Gabriel

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

Delete: A Google search reveals no notability at all. The article initially read like a fan page and contained some really bizarre assertions. I've cleaned it up, but it still says nothing of importance and is drawn only from the subject's own "official website" -- which the page creator later tried to retitle as "unofficial" (as if that matters; it's still non-neutral) -- as well as some unattributed and subjective text surrounding one book on Google books George Custer's Sabre (talk) 18:33, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. I was unable to find reliable sources independent of the subject or independent of parties conducting a campaign of drawing attention to the subject so as to promote sales of subject authored book. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NBIO. -- Paleorthid (talk) 20:27, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Don't Delete per nom. The sources are reliable as well as verifiable and in Urdu Language. These sites dedicated to the research on this personality and to promote it's mission of peace in the world. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mjadil (talk • contribs) 12:28, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Actually you created this page yourself and did so by filling it full of subjective, fan-like and poorly judged statements with unacceptable sources. You also seem to be promoting the sale of a new book. Why have you put "per nom"? Don't you know what that means?George Custer's Sabre (talk) 16:42, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

George Custer's Sabre Then It should be corrected instead of to be undone. What about other sources that has been removed by your good self? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mjadil (talk • contribs) 09:48, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:NAUTHOR: no independent coverage except for a mention in a local newspaper (I mean, a very local paper: an internet magazine proudly called The Times of Sost, which is a Pakistani village of a hundred houses or so). Has recently published a single book, itself failing WP:NBOOK. No slightest indication of significance, either. — kashmiri ^TALK 17:10, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Subject does not passes the WP:GNG, WP:NBIO, and nor WP:NAUTHOR and WP:NBOOK.Justice007 (talk) 10:15, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Pl. explain the points being violated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mjadil (talk • contribs) 08:25, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Merge to Network Ten and the history is still available if needed (NAC). SwisterTwister talk 03:01, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Tenplay

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

This article appears to be a WP:CFORK and does not have the amount of content that warrants its own article, it could easily be summarised and given its own section in the Network Ten article. – Nick Mitchell 98 ^talk 06:54, 31 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 31. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 17:39, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into the Network Ten article so that a redirect is kept. AtHomeIn神戸 (talk) 00:40, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Network Ten#Availability, as is standard with all network catch-up/VOD services. Nate • (chatter) 01:05, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Grahame (talk) 02:18, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. KTC (talk) 02:06, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Swimmer (2013 film)

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

The page contains no WP:RS, and I cannot find anything better therefore suggest it has not met the WP:GNG. JMWt (talk) 16:41, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I cannot find any coverage either, only for the 1968 film of the same name and a novel. Opencooper (talk) 01:13, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Grahame (talk) 22:34, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Atlantic306 (talk) 00:57, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

delete clearly fails WP:NFILM. LibStar (talk) 09:04, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

checking alts:

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

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

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

Delete per failing WP:NF. While it can be confirmed that the film screened at a number of festivals, it has not itself received coverage. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 21:41, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete at best with there being nothing for better applicable coverage and notability. SwisterTwister talk 03:00, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Linguist111 (talk) 19:07, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jana Beller

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

Article is about a person who may not meet notability guidelines. Linguist111 (talk) 16:15, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as there appears to be significant coverage in reliable sources. --Rubbish computer (HALP!: I dropped the bass?) 23:18, 31 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. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Linguist111 (talk) 19:09, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jennifer Hof

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

Article is about a person who may not meet notability guidelines. Linguist111 (talk) 16:12, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as through the "News" link alone there is a large amount of coverage. --Rubbish computer (HALP!: I dropped the bass?) 23:17, 31 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. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Linguist111 (talk) 19:11, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Alizée Gaillard

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

Article is about a person who may not meet notability guidelines. Linguist111 (talk) 16:10, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Linguist111, give us your reasons. Savvyjack23 (talk) 17:58, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Savvyjack23 The article does not give us very much info about Alizée, which probably means she hasn't had much notable success. Like many other Top Model winners' articles. It seems the only notable thing she's known for is winning France's Next Top Model, and she hasn't achieved as much success as notable Top Model contestants such as Ksenia Kahnovich, Patricia van der Vliet and Lena Gercke.

News Tell me if she still isn't notable Linguist111. It appears she is no longer just a "Top Model" contestant. Please do not propose a deletion without a simple check first. If you did so you would have known that. I've noticed that you have been consistently taking this approach with other articles since you joined Wikipedia in the second half of 2015. This is simply not how things work. I will not sugar coat a thing; if you continue to use this the wrong way I will make certain that your editing privileges are revoked. This was a waste of my time and everyone else's who seek to get involved. The page simply needs verification, which is a completely different approach. Savvyjack23 (talk) 18:13, 31 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. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Linguist111 (talk) 18:51, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Rafaela Franić

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

Article is about a person who may not meet notability guidelines. Linguist111 (talk) 16:06, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Linguist111: you're supposed to make an actual argument for deletion. Does she or doesn't she? --Joy [shallot] (talk) 16:45, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Hrvatski Top Model. (non-admin closure) sst✈^(conjugate) 14:48, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sabina Behlić

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

Article is about a person who may not meet notability guidelines. Linguist111 (talk) 16:03, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Linguist111: you're supposed to make an actual argument for deletion. Does she or doesn't she? --Joy [shallot] (talk) 16:45, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I only found one article about her: http://www.index.hr/xmag/clanak/hamed-bangoura-djevojke-iz-top-modela-nemaju-sanse-za-daljnju-karijeru/517245.aspx Linguist111 (talk) 18:42, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge whatever is salvageable into Hrvatski Top Model. I don't think WP:GNG is met in this particular case. The same might apply to Rafaela Franić. GregorB (talk) 12:46, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect at best as unlikely to better satisfy the applicable notability. SwisterTwister talk 02:59, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Linguist111 (talk) 18:59, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Meaghan Waller

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

Article is about a person who may not meet notability guidelines. Linguist111 (talk) 16:01, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as there appears to be significant coverage in reliable sources, for example through the "News" link. --Rubbish computer (HALP!: I dropped the bass?) 23:35, 31 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. KTC (talk) 02:06, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Rebecca Hardy

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

Article is about a person who may not meet notability guidelines. Linguist111 (talk) 15:58, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as fails GNG - I've found this and a book (Which was copied from here anyway!) but other than those 2 there's absolutely nothing .... I'm only finding results on a different Rebecca being mauled to death but that's it, .... –Davey2010^Talk 16:08, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as questionably better for WP:CREATIVE. SwisterTwister talk 03:10, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. KTC (talk) 02:07, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sam Bashor

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

Doesn't appear to meet WP:GNG or WP:BIO. Paucity or nonexistence of substantial coverage in independent reliable sources. —Largo Plazo (talk) 15:05, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Musa^Talk ☻ 15:36, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Musa^Talk ☻ 15:36, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as questionable for WP:CREATIVE. SwisterTwister talk 03:09, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 03:09, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:BIO and WP:SIGCOV.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 10:37, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. KTC (talk) 02:07, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dwayne Miller (entrepreneur)

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

Young businessman, not yet notable per WP:BIO. I've twice cleaned out the blatant marketing from this article, and noticed that he's not mentioned in most of the references given here, and the businesses he's founded also aren't yet notable per WP:CORP. His sole claim to fame seems to have been winning a youth business award, for which he got a paragraph in the Sun newspaper article, along with a little local press coverage. Lots of name-dropping of famous people he's claimed to have worked for or with, but notability is not inherited, and I can't find any WP:Secondary sources to verify the claims. No significant coverage online from WP:Reliable sources. NeemNarduni2 (talk) 14:40, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. NeemNarduni2 (talk) 14:41, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. NeemNarduni2 (talk) 14:41, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per the lack of secondary sources. --Rubbish computer (HALP!: I dropped the bass?) 23:12, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the reasons above. Whatever sources are in the article are dubious at best. sixtynine ^{• speak up •} 01:55, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - None of this has the better convincing signs of the applicable notability. SwisterTwister talk 05:41, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was nomination withdrawn due to sourcing improvements. Bearcat (talk) 17:28, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mernet Larsen

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

WP:BLP of an artist, without adequate reliable sourcing to support it. Of the five sources here, one is a blog, and three are the websites of institutions with which she has a direct professional association — making them primary sources which cannot confer notability. One source here (#4) looks decent, but (a) one valid source isn't enough to get a person over WP:GNG by itself if all the rest of the sourcing around it is inadequate, and (b) it isn't actually supporting any content that would constitute a genuine notability claim under WP:ARTIST, but merely a single descriptive statement about her style. Delete, without prejudice against recreation in the future if it can be sourced better than this. Bearcat (talk) 03:51, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 17:07, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:02, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:07, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Musa^Talk ☻ 15:39, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Musa^Talk ☻ 15:39, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Musa^Talk ☻ 15:39, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. no real indication of significance. DGG ( talk ) 03:06, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as questionable for the applicable notability. SwisterTwister talk 03:26, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I think the press clippings listed towards the bottom of http://www.jamescohan.com/artists/mernet-larsen are enough to demonstrate a pass of WP:GNG. They include in-depth coverage of her art from the NY Times, LA Times, and Huffington Post, by three different critics. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:55, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Monograph about her work is significant coverage when supported by NYTs LA Times, etc.-- Michael Scott Cuthbert (talk) 02:03, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep After adding references and monograph, and confirming that work is in the collection of two major museums, the subject now meets wp:ARTIST Mduvekot (talk) 17:45, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough, this is now much better referenced than it was. Consider this withdrawn. Bearcat (talk) 17:28, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Spartaz ^Humbug! 11:49, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Great Hacker War

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

Notability guideline - the opening paragraphs of this article recognize that the event probably didn't even happen. Also, this article is really terrible. Just read the "The truth of the matter" graf. This article could possiblybe salvaged by an enterprising Wikipedia editor with an interest in '90s hacker subculture, but it would need to be significantly curtailed to include the few objective facts about this thing. Foodlegs (talk) 02:28, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Human3015^{It will rain} 03:41, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:01, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The edit history shows that this article has received the attention of multiple editors. The talk page explains that the article is sourced with the offline book, and the two offline Wired articles show wp:notability. Searching on Google books shows books in 2005, 2007, 2010, 2012, 2014 and 2015 with information in the snippets covering the topic. Unscintillating (talk) 00:18, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:06, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I remember reading about this and being interested in the matter some years ago. The statement in the lead does claim so but it has a "citation needed" next to it. The article is fairly packed with information proving otherwise. --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 06:35, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as this seems convincing and may need better improvements. SwisterTwister talk 03:40, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 02:34, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Taurino Araujo

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

This article is trying to use Wikipedia to promote a person that don't meets WP:NOTE. See this discussion on page deletion request at pt-wiki. pt:Wikipédia:Páginas para eliminar/Taurino Araújo. . HombreDHojalata.^talk 20:06, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Commentary

Agree Article was deleted from Luso-Wiki because it was created as propaganda. Should be eliminated. Luizpuodzius (talk) 20:53, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. J^♯m (talk | contribs) 17:58, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Page Maintenance

Let me kindly disagree about the proposition to delete this page. Taurino Araujo is a notorious person of Bahia, not the kind of popularity singers, soccer players, TV or movie actors have. He has a relevant profile on media, appearing to answer questions about law, justice and social sciences, to make it crystal clear, indeed he is a professor and the youngest person honored with the highest decoration of Bahia's parliament, representing more than 14 million inhabitants. It is common sense, quite a rule of thumb, to give such a decoration to whom has about 60 years old or more. He got it at age 44. He is notable, lots of people guess, let’s say 14 million. It´s weird, but he is the only one notorious holding a João Mangabeira Medal - CBJM not present in pt.wikipedia, maybe envy or some kind of dictatorship lovers revenge. Some say attorneys are Devil´s creation, as so are politicians and professors. This guy is all of these. But let me tell you, even under the heavy truncheon of dictatorship in Brazil, he gave his contribution to nowadays democracy and freedom. There are lots of other info you can get in the article, make a try. His notoriety is based on the recognition of his peers, the people of Bahia, his work, his professional journey and the recognition made real with medals, titles and decorations. You can’t get such things on Ebay for some bucks. I mean some things has value, others has a price tag. So, I ask to maintain the page because, as we can infer, this proposition is based on mislead. The belief is that a page must be deleted everywhere without criteria because it was deleted someware. We must pay attention to the WP:WHACAMOLE game and WP:POINT. Prudenciosilva (talk) 16:14, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 03:11, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:57, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Musa^Talk ☻ 15:41, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Musa^Talk ☻ 15:41, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Musa^Talk ☻ 15:41, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. Musa^Talk ☻ 15:42, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 07:16, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now at best as this seems questionable for the applicable notability with perhaps nothing else better convincing. Notifying DGG for better analysis. SwisterTwister talk 07:17, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

DGG and SwisterTwister in particular. Helping with the suggested better analysis, I hope the inclusion of Taurino Araujo CBJM page in several lists should not deviate the focus and context in which it was created and through which it can stay in en.wiki, fulfilling the general requirement of notability: the discussion was initiated under a flawed argument, but should not be conducted same way. What is done in the pt.wiki is entirely this community's job, it does not concern other languages wikipedia. As can be read in the article, he is honored with the highest decoration of Bahia's Parliament, thus he is notable, as is notable everyone awarded Meritorious Citizen of the Freedom and Social Justice João Mangabeira (CBJM). It is a precondition, but, let´s assume that one decorated could be a complete stranger, an alien from outer space; after the prize he became notable and worthy to figure in history and be known. This is the wikipedia job, let info be available, without censorship and bias. Freedom for free. Taurino Araujo clearly passes WP:BASIC, which states "If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability", and WP:ANYBIO “The person has received a well-known and significant award or honor, or has been nominated for one several times”. Prudenciosilva (talk) 01:23, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. ~~outrageously~~ promotional, and does not meet any rational notability standard . Highest level national awards can bring notability, but not state awards. For the award Meritorious Citizen of the Freedom and Social Justice João Mangabeira (CBJM), it seems the ed. who started this article also started that one. And I notice that the corresponding article to the present one is the Spanish WP is marked as promotional. DGG ( talk ) 03:39, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

DGG, I do not take part in any kind of promotional campaign or related activities. My concerns are en.wiki and pt.wiki, other pages in languages not comfortable to me are out of my radar. By the way, Taurino Araujo has huge coverage of media, so, a wiki page is not relevant to him as it could be for some celebrities. Perusing the Spanish page it was tagged for deletion in June, 7, 2014, and the decision was maintenance (Spanish talk). Now there is a new proposal to delete. If the page remains I infer the next year there will be a new proposal and so on. The argumentation to preserve this page was based on a technical level, discarding subjective appreciations and opinions. Prudenciosilva (talk) 17:38, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

the effect is promotional, regardless of your good intentions. DGG ( talk ) 19:13, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User:Prudenciosilva, I suggest that you take a little time to familiarize yourself with Wikipedia guidelines such as WP:GNG before attempting to create new articles.E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:17, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete because sources do not exist to support notability. E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:15, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Antes de mais nada, desculpem-me por falar em português e trazer a tradução por tradutor automático. Fui um dos criadores desta página na wikipédia lusófona e até hoje não compreendi seu apagamento lá; sou um ex-administrador, e sou da Bahia - o estado do biografado que, aqui, recebeu a mais alta homenagem de uma assembleia composta por 63 deputados (histórico do artigo que motivou-me a criação deste artigo e dos outros que citarei adiante).. Também biografei na pt-wiki outros que receberam tal homenagem (como este e este) e, curiosamente, não tiveram seus artigos apagados. Minha suposição sobre o apagamento na pt-wiki é de que há em curso perseguições a editores que possam se insurgir contra os desvios de conduta que lá acontecem e ficam impunes. Por apagamentos como este, patentemente persecutórios, a pt-wiki vem perdendo muitos bons editores. Não tenho, nunca tive, interesse em fazer propaganda de ninguém naquele projeto; e ver apagarem artigos referenciados e importantes como este, lá, é uma das muitas decepções que assistimos, com ataques que usam o sistema para continuarem impunes. Peço, assim, que repensem sobre o apagamento. Grato. André Koehne (talk) 01:02, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- First of all, excuse me for speaking in Portuguese and bring the translation by google translation. I was one of the creators of this page in Lusophone wikipedia and still did not understand their deletion there; I am a former ex-administrator in pt-wiki, and I am from Bahia - the state of the biographed, here, received the highest honor an assembly made up of 63 deputies (history of the article that motivated the creation of this and all other cited below). Also I biography in pt-wiki others who have received this honor (like this and this) and, interestingly, did not have their deleted items. My guess about the erasure in pt-wiki is that there is ongoing harassment of editors who can rise against the misconduct that there happen and go unpunished. For deletions like this, patently persecutory, the pt-wiki is losing many good editors. I don't have, and I never had, interest in doing propaganda that nobody in that project; and see erase referenced and important articles like this, there is one of the many disappointments we have experienced with attacks that use the system to continue unpunished. I ask, therefore, to rethink about this deletion. Grateful to all. André Koehne (talk) 01:02, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

André Koehne, you said that "(...)still did not understand their deletion there...". Can you read Portuguese? Follow the link HERE, and you are going to be able to understand that the honorable Taurino Araujo is using the Wiki as "self-promotion page" and the pt-wiki community agreed that "The additions made in the article, are all made by IPs of Salvador, Bahia, for editors who do not speak the Dutch language..." (like you), "...and a user who communicates in German. Salvador, not coincidentally, is the residence of the prestigious and illustrious Mr. Araujo". Additionally, pt-wiki decided that it was "an organized attempt to place a promotional article.". Hope I was able to help you understand the reason for "deletion there". Dr. Loo^{Talk to me} 02:54, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Prezado, após a criação do artigo (por mim) outros inseriram conteúdo tendencioso. A solução deveria ser a reversão ao conteúdo imparcial, e nunca o apagamento. Quem criou o artigo fui eu, e o desafio a apontar que eu tenha feito "autopromoção" (posto que eu não sou o Taurino, obviamente). Obrigado por considerar nossas ponderações - mas elas não respondem aquilo que falei. André Koehne (talk) 03:04, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Dear Luizpuodzius, after the creation of the article (by me) other insert biased content. The solution should be a reversion to the neutral content, and never deletion. Who created the article was me, and challenge the point that I have made "self-promotion" (since I'm not the Taurino, obviously). Thank you for considering our weights - but they do not answer what I said. André Koehne (talk) 03:04, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
PS: E, sim, eu vivo a 757 km de Salvador e jamais editei naquela cidade. Portanto, não pode nunca afirmar "like you" neste caso! Confira o meu IP, posso editar aqui deslogado, caso queira ver com seus próprios olhos... André Koehne (talk) 03:11, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- PS: And, yes, I live 757 km from Salvador and never edited in that city. Therefore, you can never say "like you" in this case! Check out my IP, edit here offline, if you want to see with your own eyes... André Koehne (talk) 03:11, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The sources here are not reliable or notability-conferring ones — right across the board, they're all primary ones, such as press releases and passing namechecks on the websites of directly-affiliated organizations. This is not how a person gets a Wikipedia article — regardless of how much notability the article claims, the article still does not pass our inclusion standards until reliable source coverage properly supports it. I'm not an expert on Brazilian figures by any stretch of the imagination, so I'm not in a position to make any sort of pronouncement one way or the other about whether better sources than this exist or not — I can only evaluate this on the basis of the sources that are in front of me, and the sources that are in front of me don't cut it. No prejudice against possible recreation in the future if, and only if, it can be sourced properly. Bearcat (talk) 03:49, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Disagree - Error other wikis should not be copied. André Koehne (talk) 09:45, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. MBisanz ^talk 02:34, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Paradise Run

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

No references, hasn't even started yet. Fails WP:GNG. Randykitty (talk) 15:04, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. clpo13_(talk) 17:44, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. clpo13_(talk) 17:44, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Look like a case of WP:TOOSOON. Meatsgains (talk) 21:54, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Only sourcing I can find for this is from either Tween mags, or from NICK itself. I can't even confirm the Feb. 1 premiere date (sources only mention "February 2016"). All that said, I'm not sure it makes sense to delete the article roughly two weeks before it's going to premiere on TV... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 06:26, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – and now there's this from The Futon Critic. ~~At the least, it's actually "TOOSOON" to delete – let's revisit this a few months after the show premieres to see if it then passes WP:GNG.~~ --IJBall (contribs • talk) 20:29, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Addendum: The ref shows that this series now clears WP:TVSHOW. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 01:54, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment That's not the way this works. We don't create articles and then wait and see a few months whether they then will pass GNG. We evaluate whether an article passes GNG now. Which it obviously doesn't (even with that brief reference from the Futon Critic) and since my crystal ball is cracked, I really have no idea whether this will change at some point in the future. Wouldn't be the first show to fizzle after one or two episodes and then being cancelled without ever generating any coverage. --Randykitty (talk) 20:46, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You're entitled to that view. I'm letting WP:TVSHOW guide me on this – it now has an official premiere date on NICK, which is probably enough to keep the article (see: Figure It Out for an article about a similar NICK gameshow). So I'll strike the part of my vote that offends. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 01:54, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

An essay, not a guideline. --Randykitty (talk) 09:56, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have now cleaned up the article, added details, and added the article's first sourcing, including this mention in Variety. And, again, it is likely that more independent coverage of this series will happen closer to the time that the series premieres – I would suggest relisting this one tomorrow (Jan. 23), so we can see where we are around Jan. 30–Feb. 1 (the series' premiere date). --IJBall (contribs • talk) 17:53, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 03:10, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

So far, not much to add – there's definitely enough now to clear WP:TVSHOW pretty clearly (I now have sourcing for the first 10 episodes' titles and airing dates). But, so far, no more pre-premiere articles on this one have turned up... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 08:13, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:49, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I think I've done all I can with this one. I've done several searches before and since the premiere, and the only other sources out there are teen/tween websites and such. It clearly passes WP:TVSHOW. Whether it passes WP:GNG? The closer will have to decide that one for themselves... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 02:21, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as the show has now aired since this AfD nomination and the article is now sourced. SwisterTwister talk 03:08, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Linguist111 (talk) 19:15, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Rosalinde Kikstra

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

This article is about a person who may not meet notability guidelines. Linguist111 (talk) 13:20, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Musa^Talk ☻ 15:50, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. Musa^Talk ☻ 15:50, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. Musa^Talk ☻ 15:50, 31 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 keep. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 18:27, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Opinion polling for the next Polish general election

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

Polling data is not an enduring encyclopedic topic. Per WP:NOTNEWS and WP:NOTSTATS. - Mr X 13:14, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree when it's done correctly. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 17:39, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep Deletion rationale doesn't hold water when you consider the contents of Category:Opinion polling by country. Number 5 7 20:40, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep; seems reasonable to include given existence of other polling articles for future elections. Oversteek (talk) 23:22, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:13, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:13, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Opinion polling data for most democracies is included in Wikipedia. It is not clear why just this one article was nominated for deletion. Ed88 (talk) 15:28, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Standard type of articles for this subject. Notable and verifiable. Staszek Lem (talk) 03:07, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Linguist111 (talk) 19:04, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Lydia Nnenna Obute

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

Article is about a person who may not meet notability guidelines Linguist111 (talk) 12:01, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as there appears to be significant coverage. --Rubbish computer (HALP!: I dropped the bass?) 23:19, 31 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. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Linguist111 (talk) 19:18, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jessica Amornkuldilok

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

Article is about a person who may not meet notability guidelines. Linguist111 (talk) 11:56, 31 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. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Linguist111 (talk) 19:19, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ayu Gani

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

Article is about a person who may not meet notability guidelines Linguist111 (talk) 11:53, 31 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. KTC (talk) 02:07, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Kasaragod Malayalam

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

Largely unreferenced, unverifiable original research. At best it's a dialect of Malayalam with some local features which could be summarized in that article (if sources discuss it in eough detail). There is not enough coverage for a stand-alone article, with one of the references not even mentioning it (I cannot access the relevant pages of the two books, but it's clear that the Concise encyclopedia of languages of the world treats it as part of Malayalam if at all, not separately). Huon (talk) 11:41, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable dialect. The only RS discussing it calls it a dialect which got its first translation from Tulu of a novel in 2014. Not enough coverage for a standalone article and nothing well-sourced enough to merge. Opencooper (talk) 01:34, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as hardly comprehensible, restart later if better formatted and available. SwisterTwister talk 03:16, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. KTC (talk) 02:07, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Rozanne Diasz

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

I could find some coverage in non-reliable sources, but couldn't establish that she meets WP:BIO or WP:GNG Boleyn (talk) 11:22, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete doesn't satisfy WP:BIO or WP:GNG. Dan arndt (talk) 01:18, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as questionably better for WP:CREATIVE. SwisterTwister talk 03:17, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. KTC (talk) 02:07, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sageby

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

Non-notable article that is written like an advertisement. Fails Google Search test; the only independent coverage that I can find is a brief few paragraphs in TechInAsia as part of a conference coverage, so also appears to fail Wikipedia:GNG --The one that forgot (talk) 10:24, 31 January 2016 (UTC)}}[reply]

Delete per nominator. Note that I've never heard of this and the "article" doesn't contain advert-like material, it appears just to be one and nothing else.--Awesomewiki64 (talk) 11:50, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as currently questionable for the applicable notability. SwisterTwister talk 03:18, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. KTC (talk) 02:08, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Kazuyuki Kurashima

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

Japanese illustrator with a handful of video game credits, but he isn't even the main artist/art director on most of those games. I can't find a single reference establishing his notability, other than the fact that he exists; the only reference currently in the article is circularly cited from Wikipedia itself. Axem Titanium (talk) 09:54, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. czar 05:44, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Can always revisit later if the artist gains individual notability, but if no reliable sources are forthcoming, delete. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 21:10, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - credit list with no proof of notability; only source in article is non-RS. --Pres N 16:20, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Was able to find sources showing some of the credits are correct, but zero in-depth coverage to show notability. -- ferret (talk) 20:38, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No signs of even minimally better satisfying the applicable notability. SwisterTwister talk 05:31, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus to delete, default to keep. There are many differing opinions here, but the main reason that this article is retained is this specific phrasing in WP:CRYSTAL: "... are not appropriate article topics if nothing can be said about them that is verifiable and not original research." As there is verifiable, non-OR content in the article regarding the subject, there is no pre-established consensus that an administrator would normally be able to rely upon to put more weight towards one side of this debate or the other. Therefore, there is no way for a clear consensus to be determined from this debate. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 07:31, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Further note due to requests for more information: There were policy based reasons argued here for both keeping and deleting the article; and in their most quintessential manner those arguments manifested as a differentiation of one's personal understanding of WP:CRYSTAL. And, neither side was able to produce an unquestionable delineation of that policy, yet there were over 28 days of continuous discussion allowed between the two sides. This, to any reasonable man, would appear to identify two things: 1. that there is a much bigger issue at hand, and 2. in light of this, an unambiguous comprehension of the community's consensus cannot possibly be ascertained justly by this isolated, unannounced - at least to the scale necessary in this case - inquiry, (as is noted in our deletion policy: "Outcomes should reflect the rough consensus reached in the deletion discussion and community consensus on a wider scale. (While consensus can change, consensus among a limited group of editors, at one place and time, cannot override community consensus on a wider scale.)")... but instead must be found by a larger examination of the matter by the whole community via a discussion (recommended action would be a RFC) of WP:CRYSTAL. After such a discussion is held, and a clear determination is made as to what is precisely seen as "too far into the future" to be retained on the encyclopedia, an administrator would potentially be able to place more weight to one side of this debate over the other. Until then, it would be a "supervote" for an administrator to make a dichotomized judgement on this AFD. - Now I'm sure this decision (or, more accurately, non-decision) does not make everyone happy, as it's not a solution to everyone's concerns. But, I feel that it would be completely unjust, and rash, of me to instead act in a supposititious manner on what is currently quite a contentious topic. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 16:09, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

United States presidential election, 2024

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

Per the consensuses found at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/U.S. presidential election, 2012, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/United States presidential election, 2012, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/United States presidential election, 2012 (2nd nomination), and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/United States presidential election, 2016 (2nd nomination), only the next election for a position will have substantial or meaningful information that is not speculation that may violate WP:CRYSTAL. The material currently in the article is generic information about a United States presidential election (to which future election pages had previously been redirected and protected) and general trends about future demographics of the country rather than concrete details about the election in 2024. Reywas92^Talk 03:12, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

keep - the article clearly explains its notability. "Future trends of demographics" are discussed in the context of election, hence relevant. "WP:CRYSTALBALL" applies to wikipedians, not to politologists. Therefore your statement "only the next election for a position will have substantial or meaningful information" shows that the previous consensus missed something. Staszek Lem (talk) 03:26, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - notable future event that has been covered significantly in reliable sources. --William S. Saturn (talk) 18:50, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

None of the article's sources discuss the 2024 election at all, rather a couple mention the demographics by the year 2024. "Significantly" and "cover" are inaccurate. Reywas92^Talk 20:09, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

keep - for the same reasons as William Saturn and Staszek Lem state. Ratemonth (talk) 20:20, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Reywas92. The current sources provide only general demographic data that includes election year 2024, but no significant coverage or specific details regarding the 2024 election per se. A case of WP:TOOSOON.--4scoreN7 (talk) 05:27, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:13, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:15, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: WP:TOOSOON. Per nomination rationale and comments of 4scoreN7, no significant coverage of the 2024 election per se.--NextUSprez (talk) 14:48, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - this is not a placeholder election page that would otherwise merit deletion but a notable future event that has been covered significantly in reliable sources. The precedents cited by the nom ("only the next election will be covered") were recently overturned in a SNOW consensus at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/United States presidential election, 2020. CRYSTALBALL does not apply, as per that discussion, as the sources are engaging in speculation, not Wikipedia editors. CRYSTALBALL does not preclude us from covering speculation, only engaging in it. LavaBaron (talk) 04:45, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As pointed out previously in this discussion, the sources do not significantly cover the election itself. Rather, they only provide demographic info that merely alludes to the 2024 election year. If you can find reliable sources that discuss the actual 2024 election in detail, please add them to the article. Otherwise, the article presently fails WP:GNG and should be deleted.--4scoreN7 (talk) 15:31, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This assertion is completely and patently false. The sources directly refer to the 2024 election by name and date. Your continued schilling of this falsehood leads one to believe you haven't actually read any of the sources you're opining on, or are lying about their content in an attempt to obfuscate the AfD to achieve a desired result. LavaBaron (talk) 22:18, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have read the sources, thank you. And there is no lying or "shilling" going on here. I stand by the assertion. Mere references, direct or otherwise, to the election do not constitute significant coverage. Of the article's half dozen references, this one has the most extensive coverage of the 2024 election, and it consists of demographics, not detailed discussion of the election itself. I reiterate that the subject presently lacks significant coverage in reliable sources.--4scoreN7 (talk) 02:53, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You, very clearly, have not read the sources if this is the conclusion you're doubling-down on. LavaBaron (talk) 05:37, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have read the sources, and no, none of them discuss the election. Refer to it, yes, but substantive information about it, no. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Reywas92 (talk • contribs) 23:01, 23 January 2016‎ (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 00:03, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Most of this article is a speculative psephological and demographical analysis of a change that will happen in 2024, and in my view the page is presently being used as a WP:COATRACK for that analysis. That elector redistribution should have its own article if that is deemed a notable subject (after all, the effects of that redistribution will affect subsequent elections as well). I think that this demographical content is plumping what is otherwise a very bare-bones article. Nevertheless, if it were stripped back to that bare-bones article, I'd be on the fence about whether it was too soon or not. Aspirex (talk) 00:27, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The elector redistribution will only effect the 2024 and 2028 elections, at which point a new redistribution will occur. To, therefore, split all that off into a standalone article would really be a very silly thing to do. LavaBaron (talk) 04:52, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Why would that be silly? If it affects two elections, why would it be any more appropriate to push all of the content into the page of just one of those two? Aspirex (talk) 06:18, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Because the redistribution of electors has occurred 21 times in history and we don't have any standalone articles about any of those 21 occasions, the relevant material instead being incorporated into the appropriate articles for the related elections, where it exists. To create a standalone article for this one reallotment would prompt an immediate - and most certainly successful - merge proposal back into this article. Your proposal, as a bureaucratic exercise, would simply occupy a few hours of everyone's time before circuitously ending-up back at the status quo. It is, really, a very, very silly proposal. Let's not discuss it any further. LavaBaron (talk) 13:42, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

2010 United States Census and 2000 United States Census discuss the electoral redistribution, there's no reason we couldn't start 2020 United States Census, along with info about preparations being made for it. You're being very rude to call User:Aspirex's good suggestion silly. Reywas92 ^Talk 23:01, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

So, you want us to create a brand-new article called 2020 United States Census to which we'd move the content from this article, allowing this article to then be deleted. This is really a renaming proposal then, and not an AfD. Honestly, there are so many caveats and corollaries to your proposal it's become almost indecipherable. So, for that reason, it's objectively silly. Making a fact-based observation is never rude. LavaBaron (talk) 23:24, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep WP:CRYSTALBALL, event has been discussed in many sources.--Prisencolin (talk) 00:28, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mind providing which sources are discussing the event? I see sources that discuss demographics in the year 2024, but none that discuss the election. Reywas92 ^Talk 23:01, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, no prob. Source 1 is named "2016 Might Look Safe to Democrats. But 2024?" and then describes probabilities and possibilities of the 2024 election. Source 2 is referenced to a section titled "the 2024 Election and Beyond." Source 5 begins a section on the 2024 election by noting "This would result in minor changes to the Electoral College in 2024 ..." before delving into a detailed analysis of the 2024 election; I could go on listing every single source, but essentially I'd just be copy-pasting the entire article into this ridiculous AfD. LavaBaron (talk) 23:31, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:CRYSTALBALL. MB298 (talk) 20:42, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment We pray Reywas92 realizes now that this was an ill-conceived AfD proposal and, recognizing it will soon be SNOW closed as Keep, chooses to withdraw it. LavaBaron (talk) 22:05, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Give me an effing break. You 'pray' for this? Four keeps with actual comments and three deletes does not make a snowball close. Multiple previous consensuses does not make this ill-conceived. This can run its course and an admin can close it as usual. Reywas92 ^Talk 23:01, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

We've got six Keeps. When it reaches SNOW proportions, editors - understandably - don't want to spend time pounding away the same common sense case that's already been made. Anyway, it's unfortunate you've decided to be obstinate and obstruct progress in building the encyclopedia. LavaBaron (talk) 23:19, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - my goodness folks. What's the big hurry, anyways? The 2016 election is over 9 months away & already we've an article on the 2024 election? Even the existance of the 2020 election article, is too soon. GoodDay (talk) 23:10, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

So, delete because WP:WHATSTHEBIGHURRY? You deserve a barnstar for sheer novelty of argument. LavaBaron (talk) 23:21, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This article's creation (in Jan 2015) was/is too early. Atleast wait until after the 2016 election is held, if not the 2020. This article should be moved to your (LavaBaron's) sandbox, where you can make any changes to it, when necessary. Then re-create it, but only after the 2021 inauguration. GoodDay (talk) 23:30, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm ... I keep looking for our policies WP:ATLEASTWAIT and WP:WHATSTHEBIGHURRY? but just can't seem to find them. Maybe I'm looking in the wrong place. C'est la vie. LavaBaron (talk) 23:35, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps. But, I still recommend this article be deleted. PS: We shall have to agree to disagree. :) GoodDay (talk) 23:47, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your canvassed recommendation is based on an actual policy, or on WP:IDONTLIKEIT? If a policy, which one? LavaBaron (talk) 23:49, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't canvassed. I was invited to this Afd. Since you've asked about policies? I believe WP:TOOSOON & WP:CRYSTAL would fit this situation. Anyways, I'm still supporting delete. GoodDay (talk) 23:55, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Canvassing Alert Closing admin, please note that Reywas92 has - within the last hour - started aggressively WP:CANVASSING delete !votes by selectively notifying editors who !voted delete in previous U.S. election AfDs. For example: [10], [11], etc. Some of these have already started to appear to register Delete !votes in this thread. I recommend the AfD be immediately closed to protect the encyclopedia and avoid a Keep !voter beginning retaliatory canvassing. I'll separately file a report at ANI. LavaBaron (talk) 23:42, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The message I got, was worded neutrally. I see no breach of WP:CANVASS. GoodDay (talk)

Canvassing includes any "attempt to sway consensus by selectively notifying editors who have or are thought to have a predetermined point of view or opinion." LavaBaron (talk) 00:02, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Who's to say, I wouldn't have chosen to 'keep' this article. Anyways, I'll let others weigh in on your ANI report. PS: I appreciate that you've put alot of effort & sweat into this article. This is the reason why I suggested you move it to your sandbox. GoodDay (talk) 00:06, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Our WP:VOTESTACKING policy is to say. That's who. LavaBaron (talk) 00:08, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's in the hands of the Wiki-community (via ANI) now. GoodDay (talk) 00:14, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – On further consideration, I am formally going to vote for deletion. This is on the grounds of a) the article being used as a coatrack for a generic demographical discussion and having little other verifiable content and b) for consistency with the WP:TOOSOON/WP:CRYSTAL precedent consensuses cited by the nominator. I do not believe that the case of the 2020 Election page cited by LavaBaron as a precedent-breaker is applicable in this AfD, as the former took place five years in advance of its election and the latter is taking place 8¾ years in advance of its election, almost a full cycle earlier. Aspirex (talk) 23:54, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as way too soon. Legacypac (talk) 00:01, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete We don't know who will be running or even how the electoral votes will be allotted. p b p 00:16, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not a policy-based argument. WP:DONTKNOWWHOSERUNNING is not a policy guideline. LavaBaron (talk) 00:22, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

WP:CRYSTAL is, as is "I got nothin'". --Calton | Talk 02:19, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Far too soon. As mentioned above by User:Purplebackpack89, we don't know who will be running, nor how the electoral votes will be allocated as well. SQL ^{Query me!} 00:18, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not a policy-based argument. WP:DONTKNOWWHOSERUNNING is not a policy guideline. LavaBaron (talk) 00:22, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I would caution you not to mock people's arguments. SQL ^{Query me!} 00:47, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Heaven forbid, we actually use COMMON SENSE in our AfD voting...Also, it was heavily implied that the relevant policy here was WP:CRYSTAL. BTW, LavaBaron, thanks for telling me about this AfD thread with your ANI notice! Your AfD thread will probably garner 8-10 more delete votes than if you'd just sat on your hands. p b p 00:26, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a common sense based argument. RS have covered the 2024 election. This is not a placeholder article like 2028 election would be. Also, please dial it back a little, this is a AfD discussion, not a playground. LavaBaron (talk) 00:27, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You have a lot of nerve telling somebody to "dial it back" after you've attempted to bludgeon every single voter who's disagreed with you. Also, nobody is contesting the notability of the topic. What we are saying is that the article, and frankly the sources that are in the article, are something Wikipedia is not, namely groundless speculation about the future. p b p 04:17, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting perspective, Purplebackpack89! Thanks so much for your input - I hope you have a great evening! LavaBaron (talk) 06:56, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. 100% based on speculation. Guy (Help!) 00:31, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

WP:100%BASEDONSPECULATION not a policy based argument. As noted by the pre-canvassing editors, we can report on RS speculating, the proscription on speculation is against editors themselves. LavaBaron (talk) 00:43, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

WP:100%BASEDONSPECULATION not a policy based argument Yes it is. --Calton | Talk 02:19, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your link takes me to a sentence that reads "Individual scheduled or expected future events should be included only if the event is notable and almost certain to take place." I'm "almost certain" the 2024 U.S. presidential election will take place. Of course, it is true anything could happen between now and then, a coup, asteroid hit, whatever. I think we'll have to agree to disagree on this. Thanks again for your input! LavaBaron (talk) 07:16, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your Wikilawyering and your ability to read only what you want to read is truly impressive. "... If preparation for the event is not already in progress, speculation about it must be well documented" is the very next sentence, and your desperate attempts to pretend anything has been documented notwithstanding, you've failed here.

And you missed the sentences after that:

By comparison, the 2032 U.S. presidential election and 2040 Summer Olympics or events surrounding the 250th anniversary of the United States of America in 2026 are not appropriate article topics if nothing can be said about them that is verifiable and not original research.

So, do you need new reading glasses? I can recommend some places. --Calton | Talk 07:56, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Calton, no I didn't miss it. There is nothing in the article that is OR and everything is RS. Also, I'd appreciate it so much if you didn't attack my physical abilities. While you're correct that my eyesight is, unfortunately, something I've had to deal with since my injury and is a battle I'm losing it does make me feel bad to have people tease me about the struggle I'm on. Thank you! LavaBaron (talk) 08:05, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:CRYSTAL. Even with sources, the article is purely speculation. No one can know what will happen in the next eight years. The article can always be recreated in 2020 or so. clpo13_(talk) 00:32, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

WP:100%BASEDONSPECULATION not a policy based argument. As noted by the pre-canvassing editors, we can report on RS speculating, the proscription on speculation is against editors themselves. LavaBaron (talk) 00:43, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

WP:IAR is a policy. Are you going to harass everyone who !votes delete? clpo13_(talk) 00:45, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If you feel a discussion is "harassment" maybe WP isn't right for you? LavaBaron (talk) 01:01, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If you don't actually know the difference between harassment and discussion, maybe Wikipedia isn't right for you. You need to get a grip. --Calton | Talk 02:14, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It sounds like we disagree on this content question, Calton. But I still respect your opinion and appreciate you taking the time to weigh-in here. Thank you for your contributions! LavaBaron (talk) 06:56, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

So no, you don't understand the difference between discussion and [[WP:BLUDGEON}harassment]], nor the difference between content issues and behavior issues, then. Got it. --Calton | Talk 08:01, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There is no deadline, WP is a work in progress, WP is not a newspaper. Speculation 8 years ahead of the event is plain daft. (And before you respond to this, LavaBaron, go read Wikipedia:Don't bludgeon the process) Keri (talk) 01:05, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There is not much substantive that can be said about this election at this time, nor is it likely that anything substantive will be available to be said for a quite a while. For comparison, United States presidential election, 2012 was deleted seven times, and the article was only accepted in November 2008 when the election was only four years ahead. This election is more than eight years away. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 01:13, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Mostly per Aspirex. Also, after looking at the sources I do not believe that there is enough in depth discussion of this topic to make it pass WP:GNG at this point in time. --Majora (talk) 01:13, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not just speculation, really empty speculation. You might just as well have an article on the weather in London during the 10th week of 2021. --Calton | Talk 02:14, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If there were peer-reviewed articles and RS sources discussing the weather in London during the 10th week of 2021 then, yes, we could have such an article. But did you even read this article? Your comments seem to indicate, like your predecssors, you didn't. LavaBaron (talk) 02:41, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

And your comments indicate an inability to recognize actual reliable sources, and an almost solipsistic worldview when it comes to discussion. You've been corrected -- multiple times -- about your empty and bad-faith claims that everyone but you fails to understand things, but yet you persist in this behavior. Why is that? --Calton | Talk 08:01, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This editor's inability to AGF with every editor here to protect something they wrote is not attractive. Legacypac (talk) 04:23, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize without reservation if you feel I have not extended GF. Thanks for bringing your concerns to my attention. LavaBaron (talk) 06:58, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment to closing Admin LavaBaron started an ANi thread, which brought extra attention here, then suggested that all votes beyond a certain point be discarded. That thread should be considered with the close here. [12] Legacypac (talk) 03:06, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Legacypac is correct - I agree my suggestion for omitting votes that occurred after the canvassing/stacking was proved should be considered with the close. I understand there's an alternate suggestion that only the three !votes that are a provable result of stacking be omitted from consideration and I'm certainly fine with that, too. With compromise, we all win! LavaBaron (talk) 07:03, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - My inclination after reading the thread on AN/I was to !vote "delete", but after reading the article, I think there is sufficient valuable information there to justify keeping it, primarily because of the potential adjustment of Electoral Votes following the 2020 census. Had it not been for this factor, I would have followed through and !voted "delkte", but given that factor, I believe it should be kept. Under normal circumstances, however, only the immediately following election should have a placeholder article. BMK (talk) 05:23, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - If I understand correctly, speculation and analyses of trends in state populations and the political inclinations of those populations are giving some news figures a bit of material to talk about the 2024 election on the basis of electoral college gains or losses. As far as I can see, other than throwaway speculation about who might run, the only good sources are about those figures. Why could this not be covered in one of the articles about the electoral college, congressional appointments, or the census? Changes brought by the census, by the way, are not unique to 2024. This 2012 Washington Post article is titled "Think 2012 was bad for Republicans? Just wait until 2032". 2032! I'd be willing to bet we can find some for 2044 (and beyond), too. (The 2032 election is, by the way, is one of the examples given of an inappropriate article at WP:CRYSTALBALL). I wouldn't be opposed to a merge but find it unlikely that it'll make sense to keep this as a redirect. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 15:47, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Too many assumptions about the future. Not needed, even as a "place holder". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:57, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per Beyond My Ken. There is traction and notability. Don't throw the baby out with the bathwater! --MurderByDeletionism^"bang!" 17:29, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per WP:CRYSTAL. I find it odd that people are citing the same policy as a reason to keep. I suggest anyone unfamiliar with the policy read it. The longer, relevant name of the policy is actually, "Wikipedia is not a crystal ball." (emphasis added) - CorbieV ^☊ ☼ 19:43, 24 January 2016 (UTC) P.S. - I was not canvassed, nor have I seen the discussion at AN/I. I was unaware of any canvassing till I saw it mentioned while reading the discussion here. - CorbieV ^☊ ☼ 19:48, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I believe they are pointing to the section of CRYSTAL which says "It is appropriate to report discussion and arguments about the prospects for success of future proposals and projects or whether some development will occur, if discussion is properly referenced." Keri (talk) 20:02, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and userfy if requested, per WP:CRYSTAL: If preparation for the event is not already in progress, speculation about it must be well documented, which is not in this case. It's damn too soon. Cavarrone 20:01, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Move (incubate) to Draft:Early attention given to the 2024 United States presidential election, Delete, and salt until 6 November 2024. This is not an article currently suitable for mainspace. Confounded here are the topic that will be in mainspace in December 2024, and the suggested move target. Unscintillating (talk) 22:14, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Should we also delete and salt United States presidential election, 2016 until November 9, 2016? --William S. Saturn (talk) 22:02, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - Ask yourself, if United States presidential election, 2016 had been salted in 2008, what topics would be getting development today? The article as written today cannot survive into December of this year. Wikipedia is not a newspaper, and why write things for the purpose of re-writing them? Do the work, identify the real topics being covered today (a November presidential election from the viewpoint of January 2016), and then frame it in terms that will still serve the encyclopedia readers of 2030. Unscintillating (talk) 02:01, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The article has had major improvements in the removal of future tense since my !vote to incubate. I support Move to Early attention given to the 2024 United States presidential election and leave the redirect. Unscintillating (talk) 18:35, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as too soon for an article. The page seems to consist of only the fact that it will occur after the next census and speculation about how the census will affect electors; other than this speculation few if any RS seem to be discussing this vote that is not even for the next president, but for the one after that. 331dot (talk) 00:30, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete far too soon when we don't even know who will be running and there isn't (yet) much coverage on the 2024 election itself Snuggums (talk / edits) 16:07, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I deleted one section containing ideal speculation by a political commentator on potential candidates for an election 9 years from now. Must have been a slow news day when that guy drug out his crystal ball. Obama was a newly elected first term State Senator 8 years out. Ronald Reagan was busy running California 8 years out. Bush I was representing the US in China 8 years before becoming VP. Ford was in the House. It would have been crazy to write about any of these men as potential POTUS 8 years out on Wikipedia. It is not encyclopedic to speculate like this. Legacypac (talk) 18:42, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- They won't even be talking about 2020 until 2016 is decided, never mind 2024. For all we know, the electoral college could have been revamped by then. And even for 2016, did anyone a year ago predict that Trump would be the front-runner, or that Sanders would be approaching neck-and-neck with Hillary? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:25, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - Since the 2016 page existed a year ago, I'm not sure what point you're trying to make. --William S. Saturn (talk) 22:02, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    - Creating the 2024 page in 2023 would make sense. Creating it now, does not. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:14, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Twelve months advance creation is an atypically high standard. The 2016 page was created in 2012. [13]. LavaBaron (talk) 04:19, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If I was setting a date to create this article, that date would be January 1, 2021. p b p 14:39, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

So you're willing to base that decision on an arbitrary date rather than when reliable sources become available (now)? --William S. Saturn (talk) 01:20, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep meets GNG, adequate RS BlueSalix (talk) 19:29, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep - the topic meets GNG, but more importantly, most of the delete votes above are misquoting WP:Crystal. The reality of US politics today, is that these election plans occur up to a decade in advance, and there are very real people talking about very real things here. Jeremy112233 ^{(Lettuce-jibber-jabber?)} 20:36, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Who, 10 years ago, predicted Trump would be the front runner this year? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:08, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep already significant analysis of the election, so it's notable. (For full disclosure, I was asked to comment here) --Jakob (talk) aka Jakec 21:16, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- There can't possibly be any "analysis" of an election that's 8 years away. Guesswork by people paid to do guesswork is still just guesswork. You could make a prediction yourself and it would be just as valid. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:21, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - And if I got that prediction published in a reliable source, it would contribute to GNG. --Jakob (talk) aka Jakec 21:21, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    - Yes. 8 years from now. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:24, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      - No. Now. --Jakob (talk) aka Jakec 21:34, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        Neither you nor anyone else knows what's going to happen in 2024. If you can find a "reliable" source from 2008 that accurately predicts what's to happen in 2016, then you'd be onto something. Otherwise, no. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:36, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        Are you trying to suggest that it would be inaccurate to claim "So-and-so said such-and-such would happen in 2024"? --Jakob (talk) aka Jakec 21:38, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        What would be the point? This is supposed to be an encyclopedia, not a horoscope. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:44, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        This is supposed to be the sum of all human knowledge. --Jakob (talk) aka Jakec 21:48, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        Knowledge, not speculation. We should not include predictions by the Grand Warlock or Colbert either. [14] Legacypac (talk) 21:53, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:CRYSTAL. For those who haven't bothered to read the policy, it states "All articles about anticipated events must be verifiable, and the subject matter must be of sufficiently wide interest that it would merit an article if the event had already occurred. It is appropriate to report discussion and arguments about the prospects for success of future proposals and projects or whether some development will occur, if discussion is properly referenced." It's clear that a US presidential election is of sufficient wide interest. It's also clear that their are significant and reliable sources already discussing the prospects of the 2024 election. The article is clearly acceptable and in allignement with wikipedia policy on covering future events. Best.4meter4 (talk) 22:10, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- There is nothing verifiable about the 2024 election with the possible exception of the date on which it will occur. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:24, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- I'd also contest that it is even of "wide interest" right now...people are concerned about the general topic, and specifically the 2016 election, but they aren't actively thinking about 2024. p b p 22:55, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - Where is the "discussion and arguments about the prospects for success of future proposals" when no one has clue one what the issues or platforms are? Legacypac (talk) 01:23, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to United States Census. The info that is notable is the effect of changing censuses and we have a suitable article for that. 2020 United States Census does not exist yet, but would be also a viable article to move this to, as it will take place in only 4 years, and could have some speculation on future elections. L.tak (talk) 23:02, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Way too soon for a standalone article on the 2024 election. As noted by several other participants in this discussion, the article in its present form consists entirely of speculation rather than substantial coverage or discussion of the election itself. As Baseball Bugs pointed out, the only thing verifiable about the election at this point is the date on which is to be held. That said, would not object to merging the content as suggested by L.tak.--Ddcm8991 (talk) 23:26, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: As the contents of the article make evident, it's clearly too soon for a standalone article; a collection of contradictory speculation does not meet WP:CRYSTAL. Past precedent with the 2012 and 2016 articles being deleted twice as premature (last time in 2008 and 2009 respectively) is also indicative that this article is premature. BlueMoonset (talk) 00:27, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment "Speculation" is not a synonym for "analysis." There seems to be some confusion on this point. If it is, we should also go ahead and delete List of supernova candidates and hundreds of other articles. LavaBaron (talk) 01:37, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Has anyone else looked at the edit history?

Unscintillating (talk) 01:51, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, those were my fault. I was editing in my sandbox and mainspace at the same time in different tabs. The second article ended up in mainspace as President's Guest House (P.S. I'm soliciting GAN-reviews for that if anyone's interested), I didn't move forward with the first one. Good reminder, though, I should finish that up. Gracias! LavaBaron (talk) 01:54, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the reply. These other articles in the edit history should be revdeleted ASAP. Unscintillating (talk) 01:43, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Why? I am sure it was unintended and it surely is harmless. Revdel is for serious problems.... L.tak (talk) 20:29, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

These old revisions are not edit history for this article. One problem is that it makes it harder to identify the real edit history, and this won't get better with time. Your comment has led me to realize that there is an admin involved whom I can ping. @CambridgeBayWeather: I believe that this is non-controversial, but if not, where should the question be reviewed? Thanks, Unscintillating (talk) 23:25, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, that was every edit from creation to 30 October 2015. I deleted them all and restored only the election material. LavaBaron do you require the deleted history of you sandbox? CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 23:49, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment about Enough With 44 edits representing 1/3 of the page edits here [15] the article creator has bludgeoned the other editors enough now and a Topic Ban would be appropriate if they post here one more time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.78.41.231 (talk) 05:54, 2016 January 26 (UTC)

You're right Anonymous Editor - apologies. My last comment I thought was important to answer the confusing edit question Unscintillating inquired about as I was the only person here who could reasonably be expected to answer that question. But I'll self-impose a TBAN on this AfD from this post forward for all but questions directed to me by username specifically. LavaBaron (talk) 06:06, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Move to 2020 United States Census, as the sourced material is more about the census than the election. Since LavaBaron requires arguments beginning with WP:, I'll say WP:TOOSOON, WP:CRYSTAL, WP:NORUSH, WP:COMMONSENSE, and, most importantly, WP:DOSPAGWYA. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 17:00, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support Merge with 2020 United States Census as an alternative to delete (my vote if this great merge idea is not accepted), this allows the material to be preserved while avoiding an article about an event 8 years out. This should make everyone voting happier as a compromise. While 2020 US Census is also a future event, it is the next one in the series. Legacypac (talk) 21:24, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Beyond My Ken. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 21:56, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep We have pages for French presidential election, 2017, Pakistani Senate election, 2018, United States presidential election, 2020, European Parliament election, 2019 (United Kingdom), United States Senate elections, 2020, and the Next Turkish general election, which have not even been given a specific year. If we have articles on future elections, we should have an article for this. Maybe there should be a set policy on how far in advance we look. I don't see why there is no stub for the 2030 presidential election. Curro2 (talk) 02:51, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Several of the articles you mention are about the next election for those respective offices. The United States Senate elections, 2020 are three elections away, but senators serve six-year terms, so at least the incumbents for those offices are already known (unless they die or resign). But the article under discussion is about the third-to-next presidential election. We don't even know who will be the incumbent president going into the 2020 election, much less the 2024 election. (Also, we will never have an article about the U.S. presidential election in 2030, because that's not a presidential election year.) If people want to write articles about future elections, I'm sure they can find upcoming elections even in 2016 that haven't been written about yet. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 05:58, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - Note on United States Senate elections, 2020. The Senate is broken up into three classes. The 2020 election is the next election for those in class 2. 2016 is next for class 3, and 2018 is next for class 1. --Majora (talk) 06:01, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    - Does Wikipedia have a specific policy on this - only the next election gets a page? The Turkish election does not even have a set date. It's at some point in the next four years after which the article will have to be completely rewritten. Curro2 (talk) 07:05, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      - The next Turkish general election, is still the next Turkish general election, so it's alright. See 43rd Canadian federal election, for example. GoodDay (talk) 15:51, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete, primarily per nom and Aspirex's comment. This isn't even a particularly close call. There is tons of precedent that these types of "articles" are basically proscribed. Additionally, every single "per WP:CRYSTALBALL keep should be discarded as frivolous, since that page explicitly states that such articles as this one shouldn't exist. This is little more than a coatrack for various theories and viewpoints. As someone mentioned above there might be a small amount of content that could be assimilated into the 2020 Census article, but that's it. Hallward's Ghost ^(Kevin) ^{(My talkpage)} 20:19, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: There is very little anyone can specifically say about the 2024 election at this point. One can mention long-term political and demographic trends, but those aren't really specific to the 2024 election (they are an ongoing reality/process which affects many other things too), so discussion of them really belongs somewhere else, somewhere broader than this. SJK (talk) 21:03, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to 2020 United States Census per Ahecht. Most of the information in the article is about predicted demographic changes in the United States rather than the specific presidential election, so it would be more properly covered in the census article. I oppose a straight deletion since there is information cited to some pretty reliable sources, and think that the proper outcome would preserve the information out of article space. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 06:01, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is not too soon. The results of the 2016 election will have predictable consequence 8 years later as well as 4 years later, and discussion of the possibilities in reliable sources starts very early. DGG ( talk ) 00:39, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for now at best as this seems convincing to keep separately instead of deleting or merging elsewhere. SwisterTwister talk 01:13, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Closing this AFD right now, would result in an extremely borderline no consensus close. I'm interested to see if we can get a little clearer consensus over the next 7 days, specifically on whether or not the current speculation sourced in the article is enough to fulfill the "If preparation for the event is not already in progress, speculation about it must be well documented" clause of WP:CRYSTAL. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 09:31, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 09:31, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep For a speculative article, this is already getting some decent coverage by sources. I see no reason for deletion. Dimadick (talk) 16:29, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as WP:NOTNEWS and WP:CRYSTAL. Far too soon. Fiddle Faddle 13:30, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - As a matter of common sense, there is virtually nothing meaningful that may be said about a U.S. presidential election three presidential cycles into the future (2016, 2020, 2024), five national election cycles into the future (2016, 2018, 2020, 2022, 2014), and one U.S. census and national reapportionment of the Electoral College into the future. Barring a nuclear war, the zombie apocalypse, or the second coming, the election will be held on Tuesday after the first Monday in November 2024. That's it. As for details, you would have more luck predicting the weather on February 5, 2024 based on historic weather patterns. Nothing is known about the likely candidates, the state of war and peace, the economy, etc. This article serves no valid encyclopedic purpose. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 12:48, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the well-stated rationale of Dirtlawyer1 above. Not enough meaningful information/data about this election yet to justify having an article on it this early.--Cojovo (talk) 22:39, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as there is already some analysis of the election, enough to forge a sufficiently unspeculative article, as long as WP:NPOV is followed. As soon as we present speculation as speculation, and it would not be harmful to present the speculation (a good indicator of this is speculation by otherwise acknowledged people), I see no harm in speculation. This also allows readers to gain knowledge of the circumstances and viewpoints behind the 2024 US presidential election, and supports other content such as the 2020 census; it belongs on Wikipedia and an encyclopedia. WP:CRYSTAL exists to bar harmful or superstitious speculation; however, the number of reputable political experts speculating means that it does not apply. Esquivalience ^t 02:27, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I read WP:CRYSTAL as specifically proscribing this very article. In its text, it mentions the 2020 election as notable, and later elections as not. Hallward's Ghost ^(Kevin) ^{(My talkpage)} 02:47, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment in Response to Coffees Specific Request: I read WP:CRYSTAL as specifically permitting articles of this very type. First - Criterion #1 reminds us that "Individual scheduled or expected future events should be included only if the event is notable and almost certain to take place." The 2024 U.S. presidential election could be canceled, but the circumstances under which that would occur is a situation of a catastrophic exigency (this is 2024 we're talking about, not 3016). U.S. presidential elections are inherently notable as they are the method for selection of the control official for the world's largest nuclear arsenal, which is clearly significant. Ergo, the two provisions of criterion 1 (notability and certainty) are met. Second - CRYSTAL reminds us that 2024 Summer Olympics is a permitted article. The 2024 Olympics article does not even have a location or date scheduled, in contrast to 2024 U.S. Presidential election which has both a location and date. If 2024 Summer Olympics is absolutely permitted by CRYSTAL, how can 2024 U.S. presidential election not be? LavaBaron (talk) 05:37, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You're basically just completely ignoring the plain text of CRYSTAL that makes future U.S. presidential elections other than the one 4 years away explicitly prohibited. Hallward's Ghost ^(Kevin) ^{(My talkpage)} 05:41, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I see no text in WP:CRYSTAL that says anything remotely resembling that. If you can quote it I'll change my !vote right now to Delete. If you can't, you post "LavaBaron is the Greatest" on your userpage for one week. Coffee will judge the winner. Deal? LavaBaron (talk) 05:44, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"Examples of appropriate topics include the 2020 U.S. presidential election and 2024 Summer Olympics. By comparison, the 2032 U.S. presidential election and 2040 Summer Olympics or events surrounding the 250th anniversary of the United States of America in 2026 are not appropriate article topics if nothing can be said about them that is verifiable and not original research." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hallward's Ghost (talk • contribs)

Uhhh ... that doesn't say anything about "future U.S. presidential elections other than the one 4 years away [are] explicitly prohibited." LavaBaron (talk) 08:21, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oh stop. It specifically cites the presidential election 4 years from now as an appropriate topic, and lists a presidential election beyond that as a topic that is not appropriate. That you just completely left that out of your supposed response to Coffee's request is quite telling. Hallward's Ghost ^(Kevin) ^{(My talkpage)} 08:43, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"and lists a presidential election beyond that as a topic that is not appropriate" - Yes, it lists the 2032 presidential election as a topic that is not appropriate. In this AfD we're discussing the 2024 election. Not trying to harass or embarrass you, but your claim was that "plain text of CRYSTAL ~~that~~ makes future U.S. presidential elections other than the one 4 years away explicitly prohibited" (2032-2016 = 16 years | 2032-2016 ≠ 4 years) Best - LavaBaron (talk) 09:19, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note that it only excludes those topics if nothing can be said about them that is verifiable and not original research. This does not apply. Attacking the 2024 election with policy that deems the 2032 election as inappropriate is attacking a straw man. Nowhere does it "explicitly" state that the 2024 or even the 2028 are suddenly inappropriate. Questionable logic. Esquivalience ^t 14:02, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's not "questionable logic" at all, when CRYSTAL specifically cites the election 4 years from now as an appropriate topic. It seems fairly clear that's where the "line" is drawn unless extraordinary specific information exists about a presidential election cycle to make it notable for some reason--outside of the fact that it is likely to happen, of course. There is nothing particularly notable about 2024 versus 2028, 2032, etc., that would allow it to jump over the bar CRYSTAL sets. Hallward's Ghost ^(Kevin) ^{(My talkpage)} 15:03, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Um, there is already coverage about the 2024 election, meaning that the main issue here is not notability. It does not say that only the 2020 election is appropriate. In fact, it only states that they are examples, far from the "specifically" premise that the argument stands on, because a policy should not advocate unclear community consensus. Esquivalience ^t 15:28, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Esquivalience is correct. An example of something that is permitted, is not an "explicit prohibition" [sic] on the existence of any article other than the example. If it were, Wikipedia would consist of about 12 articles instead of 5 million. LavaBaron (talk) 17:50, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This article has nothing of any real specificity regarding 2024. And as CRYSTAL clearly delineates that the election 4 years hence is appropriate, and cites examples beyond that as specifically being not appropriate, the burden is on those who wish to keep this article as it is to explain why an exception should be made to the plain language of CRYSTAL. Hallward's Ghost ^(Kevin) ^{(My talkpage)} 19:27, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No, that's not how Wikipedia works. The burden of proof is on editors who propose the destruction of knowledge, not those who propose its preservation. LavaBaron (talk) 20:34, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment about recentism and WP:Deletion policy WP:CRYSTAL states, "...the subject matter must be of sufficiently wide interest that it would merit an article if the event had already occurred." This doesn't mean unverifiable speculation regarding the coverage expected in December 2024. The applicable event notability guideline is WP:NEVENTS. WP:NEVENTS says, "Editors should bear in mind recentism, the tendency for new and current matters to seem more important than they might seem in a few years time. Many events receive coverage in the news and yet are not of historic or lasting importance." I believe that there is consensus here that this topic as it is being handled today will not be in this article in December 2024. Recentism is shown. But WP:Deletion policy#Alternatives to deletion states, "If editing can improve the page, this should be done rather than deleting the page." Merging to US Census doesn't directly address the questions of how will we cover this topic before December 2024, and how will the material in the current article be covered in 2030. Unscintillating (talk) 16:58, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Linguist111 (talk) 19:23, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Aylin Kösetürk

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

Article is about a person who does not meet notability guidelines. Linguist111 (talk) 09:28, 31 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. KTC (talk) 02:08, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Réka Nagy (model)

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

Article is about a person who does not meet notability guidelines. Linguist111 (talk) 09:23, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as there appears, through the above links, to be a lack of coverage in reliable sources. --Rubbish computer (HALP!: I dropped the bass?) 23:22, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as unlikely better for WP:CREATIVE. SwisterTwister talk 03:22, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was withdrawn. (non-admin closure) clpo13_(talk) 23:15, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

2017 ATP World Tour

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

~~WP:TOOEARLY, the calender's reference is a dead link, WP:404. 333 -blue 09:01, 31 January 2016 (UTC)~~ [reply]

Speedy Keep and Close we just closed this one week ago as "keep" and nothing has changed. Fyunck(click) (talk) 09:50, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The most important source is a dead link. 333 -blue 10:37, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's not dead for me. Fyunck(click) (talk) 11:09, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

OK, though. 333 -blue 11:16, 31 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 Withdrawn. (non-admin closure) clpo13_(talk) 23:14, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

2018 ATP World Tour

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

~~WP:TOOEARLY, the calender's reference is a dead link, WP:404. 333 -blue 08:59, 31 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 02:35, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Lithuanian - English dictionary

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

Appears to not meet WP:GNG. Rubbish computer (HALP!: I dropped the bass?) 16:39, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails Wikipedia:Notability (books) Theroadislong (talk) 16:49, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. sst ✈ 16:52, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Let me ask you, for what to delete, because I'm in your specific pages I have not found the answer? Sorry.

--Lukaslt13 --Talk 17:01, 23 January 2016 (UTC)Lukaslt13[reply]

To be notable enough for an article the book needs to meet one of the 5 criteria listed here Wikipedia:Notability (books) Theroadislong (talk) 17:06, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lithuania-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:32, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete there are multitudes of Lith-Eng dictionaries. - üser:Altenmann >t 23:07, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I understood.--Lukaslt13 --Talk 13:12, 24 January 2016 (UTC)Lukaslt13[reply]

Or maybe I can move this article to wikibooks? Because, this not book, this dictionary, so as I found not a single vocabulary dictionary.--Lukaslt13 --Talk 13:17, 24 January 2016 (UTC)Lukaslt13[reply]

Keep. This seems actually to be a major dictionary. There is more than one editing, but the 2nd ed. of 1995 is in 358 libraries, according to WorldCat. A search on the subject heading "Lithuanian language Dictionaries English." show it to be the most widely held title in the subject. [16] Victoria Martsinkyavitshute's 1993 dictionary is 2nd, in 193 libraries. I added this information to the article. Furthr rewritin is of course needed to improve the article, but the subject is notable. DGG ( talk ) 00:33, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep also as not to mention the WorldCat status would make it known and thus keepable. SwisterTwister talk 01:08, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 08:02, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No real basis for an encyclopedia article, and the article really has nothing to say about it other than the obvious. I don't find the number of libraries that have it a convincing argument on its own. --Michig (talk) 08:58, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Weak keep. MBisanz ^talk 02:35, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Evdokimos Tsolakidis

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

All sources in the article don't establish the subject's notability per WP:GNG. All I can see is trivial mentioning of his name as a director or an actor in theatrical plays. I searched on google (in Greek), and all I got were trivial mentions as well. Hansi667 (Neighbor Of The Beast) ^{a penny for your thoughts?} 16:36, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Hansi667 (Neighbor Of The Beast) ^{a penny for your thoughts?} 16:36, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Hansi667 (Neighbor Of The Beast) ^{a penny for your thoughts?} 16:36, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. Hansi667 (Neighbor Of The Beast) ^{a penny for your thoughts?} 16:37, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions. Hansi667 (Neighbor Of The Beast) ^{a penny for your thoughts?} 16:38, 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} 16:59, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This is currently questionable for WP:CREATIVE and I see nothing obviously better from this current article. Notifying the only still active AfDer Carrite. SwisterTwister talk 06:48, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I'm still unswayed that deletion is the best path forward here. THIS is a substantial interview with Tsolakidis in an e-magazine. There are enough Greek sources perking in the stew to indicate that this is a borderline GNG pass, in my opinion. Carrite (talk) 07:05, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - @SwisterTwister and Carrite: I'm Greek and I've never heard of this guy, nor seen any articles on him on the internet. Of course that's not a proof that he lacks notability, but it's an indication. I don't think that this interview establishes notability, since it doesn't support any of the article's material; it merely present Tsolakidis' views on theater. Apart from this it's just one source. All other sources on Tsolakidis (at least those I was able to track) only trivially mention him. It needs more than one source to establish WP:GNG. Hansi667 (Neighbor Of The Beast) ^{a penny for your thoughts?} 10:39, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - Simply to note, it was Carrite that linked the interview above, not me. SwisterTwister talk 18:58, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 18:14, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 07:59, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I hope relisting a third time can be considered for better consensus but if not, I'm willing to change to weak keep for now. SwisterTwister talk 03:21, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. KTC (talk) 02:08, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Bunty Monani

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

No indication of notability per WP:NACTOR. Appeared in a music video once, for which he won an award of questionable notability at the "Festival of Globe" in Silicon Valley. No significant coverage online from WP:Reliable sources. NeemNarduni2 (talk) 07:36, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. NeemNarduni2 (talk) 07:37, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. NeemNarduni2 (talk) 07:37, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nothing suggests better for WP:CREATIVE. SwisterTwister talk 07:55, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete appearing in a music video is not enough to make someone notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:46, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. KTC (talk) 02:08, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

White pixelization

AfDs for this article:

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

White pixelization is a fringe notion that fails WP:GNG. The article has existed for two and a half years now but there have been found no reliable sources where white pixelization is the main topic, and in most of the sources it's only given about one paragraph. (Nordfront and Metapedia, of course, aren't WP:RS.) For what it's worth, the Swedish article was deleted as non-notable. Sjö (talk) 07:22, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete due to the lack of significant coverage in reliable sources: some of the few search results are talking about "black and white pixelization" and so are not relevant to this. --Rubbish computer (HALP!: I dropped the bass?) 23:32, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a few years have gone by, and still no reliable source that states that this was ever wide spread. The conspiracy that this is something that is ongoing has not gather enough coverage either. GameOn (talk) 07:29, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete at best and draft and userfy because this is imaginably better but delete for now. SwisterTwister talk 03:26, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. A7/G11/WP:TOOSOON The Bushranger _{One ping only} 12:03, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jasper P. Logan

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

Fails WP:NPOL. No coverage found whatsoever. Speedy deletion tag for spam (G11) repeatedly removed, so I'm listing it here. schetm (talk) 06:56, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete Non-notable self-promotion. Article contributors all since blocked for vandalism and sockpuppetry. sixtynine ^{• speak up •} 07:08, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk) 07:09, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk) 07:09, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete. It's exciting to see young people with political aspirations, but this individual is simply not notable. If the article is not a simple self-promotional page, it is at the very least entirely original research (citing a Facebook post and a Youtube video - without links), and it just doesn't belong. --Azure Anteater (talk) 07:15, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per A7. The only thing even resembling a claim of importance is self-announced candidacy for Congress in 2024. —teb728 t c 07:29, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

... and that's not just WP:TOOSOON, but WP:CRYSTAL. ^~~Hydronium^~Hydroxide^~(Talk)~~ 07:45, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete because this article is no source.--Shwangtianyuan (talk) 07:41, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per G11 & probably A7. I've restored the speedy tag that had been repeatedly removed by socks. --Nick⁠—⁠^Contact/_Contribs 08:43, 31 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. Overwhelming and well-argued support to keep the article even though it needs work. Subject has been shown to meet notability requirements. The article's POV regarding the subject is not a sufficient reason for deletion, as this can be fixed and the article salvaged. (non-admin closure) | Uncle Milty | talk | 00:36, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Stephanie Seneff

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

Fails notability; only criticisms from blogs are included in body. No neutral coverage could be found in RS. petrarchan47 คุ ก 06:13, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The article has 7 references. One is a primary source for her employment details. The remainder are non-notable blogs criticizing her glyphosate study (note that glyphosate is the base for Monsanto's main product, RoundUp herbicide). The final reference, from Keith Kloor for Nature is perhaps not as reliable as it may appear, given that recent FOIA records landed him in this article: Journalists Failed to Disclose Sources’ Funding from Monsanto. petrarchan47 คุ ก 06:27, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Per comments below and WP:BLPSPS, I've trimmed the criticsm, leaving what I believe is a questionable source for the criticism, but wanted to satisfy DGG and NPOV. At this point, I would withdraw this deletion request, and hope folks put this article on their watch list, lest it become an attack page again. Thanks, petrarchan47 คุ ก 09:48, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments to keep this BLP all note that the criticism needs to be cut down. I attempted to do that last night, but was reverted by an IP and KingofAces43. Votes to keep article based on a caveat don't hold water if the work isn't done to keep the criticism under control. I remain in favor of deletion, and still see no RS to support this BLP. petrarchan47 คุ ก 05:04, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 14:46, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Since I created the article, a fair amount of additional negative material has been added cited to questionable sources (e.g. the blogs above). Nevertheless, there actually is one reliable independent source in the article now: the Washington Post (reference 3). Other reliable sources include Chicago Tribune, The Atlantic, and this admittedly brief article in the Pacific Standard: [17]. I think, though, that the strongest argument for Seneff's notability comes from her h-index, which, according to Google Scholar, is 48. [18] (Note that I used this tool on Chrome to calculate her h-index.) I think an h-index this high is enough to meet WP:PROF#C1 in almost any field, including computer science (her actual area of expertise). Given all this, I think the article should be kept, but having created it I do not consider myself unbiased enough to vote as to whether it should be deleted or not. Everymorning (talk) 17:42, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The sourcing you've uncovered seems promising, however you've not added it to the article that I can see, instead you added Alternet and cherry picked criticsm from it. Can you explain? IMO, it doesn't make sense to ignore the Chicago Tribune piece whic gives detailed, unbiased coverage of her work, and instead choose a quote from Alternet.petrarchan47 คุ ก 14:58, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about not adding the other sources I brought up above. However, I originally added the Pacific Standard source and Snopes when I first created the article, but they were both later removed by someone else. In any case, I have since added the sources I cited above (and the Snopes article) to this article. Everymorning (talk) 16:05, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No need for sorry. Snopes is not RS, and Alternet is usually not allowed in our articles. The point about adding the neutral reliable source Chicago Tribune is that it covers what our article promises, but fails, to: Seneff's research. The section that used to be titled "criticism", now "research" does not give the reader any idea about her work, but gives extensive rebuttal of it. We have a serious problem with using proper sourcing, cherry picking from them instead of neutrally summarizing their contents, and using the page to attack a living person even after the problem has been explained. I believe a non-involved editor or admin should oversee the rewrite of this article - which shouldn't be difficult as this person is only notable for one or two papers, if indeed she is notable at all. petrarchan47 คุ ก 22:04, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. She clearly passes WP:PROF#C1 for her computer science publications but the problem is that that's mostly not what the article is about. Instead, it's focused on her recent fringe bandwagon anti-vaccine anti-GMO anti-acetaminophen autism scare pieces. There's enough coverage of that part that she might be notable under WP:GNG, and the self-published sources look like they pass the recognized expert test, but that's why my keep is weak. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:55, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. but rewrite to eliminate the use of the negative adjectives. Saying what she supports is sufficient indication. DGG ( talk ) 03:34, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- shift balance to fairly represent CS work as well as the paper. ~~I disagree that all negative adjectives should be removed -- it's part of the reception of her work. But it's undue weight here.~~ -- remove criticism section; no non-self-published sources supporting it.-- Michael Scott Cuthbert (talk) 02:06, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Article is appropriately sourced for a WP:FRINGEBLP. We can't violate WP:BLP and remove the fact that most of the subject's notability comes from controversial publications. Sources such as blogs.discovermagazine.com are not WP:SPS sources even though they have the term blog in the name. They are selected contributors for the website as opposed to an open blog anyone can post. www.sciencebasedmedicine.org is a recognized reputable source for dealing with fringe subjects and is also appropriate per WP:BLPSPS. Both BLP and WP:PSCI policies are at play here, so editors need to take care in upholding both. Kingofaces43 (talk) 05:50, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Kingofaces43, I haven't looked at the article and don't want to get involved here, but I want to respond to your post that sciencebasedmedicine.org is appropriate for BLPs. As I understand it, it's a group blog, and no self-published material is allowed in BLPs, unless authored by the subject. There are no exceptions to that. We do allow a general exception for self-published experts on occasion, but that exception does not apply to BLPs. See WP:BLPSPS:

Never use self-published sources – including but not limited to books, zines, websites, blogs, and tweets – as sources of material about a living person, unless written or published by the subject (see below). "Self-published blogs" in this context refers to personal and group blogs. Some news organizations host online columns that they call blogs, and these may be acceptable as sources so long as the writers are professionals and the blog is subject to the newspaper's full editorial control. Posts left by readers are never acceptable as sources.

SarahSV ^(talk) 06:14, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That's exactly the same BLPSPS I was commenting on. The distinguishing factor is that we're not dealing with unfettered blogs from the general public, but experts with a professional standing. That takes it beyond just a group blog. Kingofaces43 (talk) 06:39, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Kingofaces43, as I said, there are no exceptions for experts.

WP:BLPSPS says: "Never use self-published sources ... as sources of material about a living person, unless written or published by the subject ..."

And WP:SPS says: "Never use self-published sources as third-party sources about living people, even if the author is an expert, well-known professional researcher, or writer (emphasis in the original)."

SarahSV ^(talk) 06:53, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Just to elaborate on this, it's an important part of the policy to uphold, because if you let in the self-published experts you like, you're going to have to let in the ones you don't like. And soon BLPs will be full of whatever any expert wants to say about other people on their blog, with no professional publisher standing between that author and publication. The policy is there to make sure that doesn't happen. SarahSV ^(talk) 07:15, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There's a difference when a source goes from being published by an individual to instead using the medium to publish under editorial control, as WP:BLPSPS points out. If for instance the editor of a magazine, newspaper, etc. wrote a piece themselves, that still wouldn't be self-published in the sense we're looking out for here. We assign different situations varying degrees of weight of course. SBM brings itself beyond being a self-published source as it has multiple editors overseeing the process, is the product of the Society for Science-Based Medicine, etc. We're not talking about just a personal website anymore. I for one wouldn't be able to distinguish it from other society "news blogs" that are run in an official fashion. We can't call it self-published like an individual blog or just a random group of people that got together at this point. Remember we also can't be violating WP:PSCI here, so we do need to include criticism of the studies related to the subject while not unduly focusing on the person. That's where the balance between the two policies lies. Kingofaces43 (talk) 07:58, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Kingofaces43, the question is always whether anyone stands between the writer and the act of publication. (The society you mention consists of the people who run the website.) What is needed is a professional staff – editors, managers, lawyers – who decide whether something will be published, and who can say no.

Without editorial oversight, individuals can publish with no one else involved. This gives people a platform to make any claims they wish to make about other people. That's why two of the content policies, WP:V (WP:SPS) and WP:BLP (WP:BLPSPS), say those sources are never allowed in BLPs, no matter how much expertise the writer has.

The only exception is for the BLP subject, so long as the material isn't contentious and isn't about other living people; the exception is mostly to allow date of birth, cv and similar. SarahSV ^(talk) 20:16, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)Just a comment on this. There is a vocal group of editors who are in love with this blog, and insist it has editorial standards. I have never found any evidence of the sort; it seems like the "editors" are simply blog authors. The site also accepts outside submissions from absolutely anyone, and reviews those, which apparently has given rise to idea that its main authors are subject to editorial oversight. The submission guidelines for outside authors are here. I have never heard anyone argue that this site meets the standards of WP:SCHOLARSHIP, which it clearly does not. In extensive conversation wherein I've brought up this issue, editors repeatedly affirmed that it is "good" without saying how it is a scientific RS. In the context of a libel case against it, the Washington Post described it as "a nonprofit opinionated education and advocacy group".[19] --Sammy1339 (talk) 20:19, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's worth noting that it might be an appropriate source for other articles. The question for BLPs is only whether it's self-published by the group of bloggers who run it. Quality is not the issue. The articles could be of a very high quality, but still allow self-publication about living people.

Re: submissions from others, bloggers can always review and decline outside submissions, so that doesn't help to decide the issue either. The question is whether anyone other than the group bloggers reviews the group's submissions, and to what extent an editorial staff can decline to publish those submissions or insist on changes. SarahSV ^(talk) 21:01, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

To return to this particular case -- I think we need to be absolutely secure on these blogs/sites being reviewed/non-SP before using them. Even though the guidelines don't make a distinction about whether a BLP-SPS (not by the subject) is used for confirming birthdates/favorite-color or for potentially libelous purposes, to me common-sense would say that the strictest of scrutiny (on whether a source is SP or not) should pertain to the latter cases. Here was have a whole section about controversies that appears at this point to be entirely based on sciencebasedmedicine and publications with "blog" in their titles. Is any of this something that WP needs to cover? (My vote above was for keep for the CS papers; the article can stand w/o this section.) -- Michael Scott Cuthbert (talk) 15:46, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Because this article is a BLP, it needs to be neutral NOW. Better no article than a hack job focusing almost entirely on her anti-GMO/glyphosate activism with scant attention paid to her computer science/AI work. DavidLeighEllis (talk) 03:05, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep perhaps and I would've closed as such as this seems convincing enough for a current article. SwisterTwister talk 03:27, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Not sure what Petrarchan means by Snopes not being a RS, it scrutinizes everything it talks about in detail, is widely recognized as one of the best fact-checking sites on the Internet, and here's a RSN discussion about the website where the consensus seems to be that Snopes is reliable. [20] Everymorning (talk) 22:08, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. sufficient consensus DGG ( talk ) 00:57, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relevant space

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

The topic of this article does not meet WP:GNG. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 05:40, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Comes off as promotional more than informative. sixtynine ^{• speak up •} 22:42, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete at best for now I suppose and draft and userfy for further improvements. SwisterTwister talk 03:28, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) sst✈^(conjugate) 14:57, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Neil Cohn

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

This individual is an excellent scientist but does not yet meet WP's criteria for notability; neither the general notability guideline nor the specific guidelines for academics. There are a couple independent news sources covering his work (this is not uncommon in science news, given the influence of university press releases, although admittedly the two sources cited in the current version of the article do focus more on Cohn himself than is typical in these kinds of articles) but they are not enough to constitute significant coverage or to meet any of the WP:NACADEMICS criteria. The rest of the sources are his own scholarly papers, which don't constitute independent demonstration of notability of the author himself. The article was created by a single-purpose account which I suspect was a research assistant or lab manager assigned to create this page, which would explain why it reads like an advertisement. (Also note that this nomination is not related to a previous nomination which was started, but never completed, in 2014 [21]). GermanJoe (talk) 05:26, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note - completing this nomination on behalf of IP user 80.4.164.166, nomination statement copied from article talkpage (no own stance on the article). GermanJoe (talk) 05:21, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk) 07:16, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk) 07:17, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: If the article's tone, contents, or references are poor, then that's an argument for improvement rather than deletion unless better sources don't exist. They do. Books which reference him and his work include this, this, and this. Articles which reference him and his work include this, this, and this. GScholar (acknowledging issues, and noting that this is a small field) has a few somewhat cited works. Meets WP:NACADEMIC#1 and WP:ANYBIO#2. ^~~Hydronium^~Hydroxide^~(Talk)~~ 09:47, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as this seems currently convincing for an article. SwisterTwister talk 07:16, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Berenstain Bears. MBisanz ^talk 02:35, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Berenstain Bears (video game)

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

Delete. A full source review:

Coleco (1983). The Berenstain Bears (Atari 2600). Coleco. – primary source: not counted towards significant external coverage
Slaton, Derek (2015). The Atari 2600 Encyclopedia Volume 1. The VGA. p. 117-120. ISBN 978-0985480578. – unreliable source: self-published
Sittnick, Mike (December 1983). Sharpe, Roger C.; Canole, Patricia; Greenberg, Perry (eds.). "Coleco's Gemini: The Dual Purpose Game System". Video Games. Vol. 2, no. 03. Pumpkin Press. – more about the Kid Vid Voice Module (and the Coleco Gemini) than the Bears game, which I don't even see mentioned in the article
Gander, Matt (19 July 2013). "Smurf me! It's a history of Smurf games". Games Asylum. Retrieved 24 January 2016. – unreliable source: no reputation for editorial quality
"Smurfs 2600 Page". Atari Gaming Headquarters. Retrieved 24 January 2016. – quality is okay but coverage is a single sentence (passing mention)
The Berenstain Bears Talking Video Game Instructions. Coleco. 1983. – primary source: not counted towards significant external coverage
The Strong Museum of Play, "The Berenstain Bears Video Game Soundscript", 1983, Stan and Jan Berenstain Papers, The Strong Museum of Play; accessed January 28, 2016. – primary source in an archive: not counted towards significant external coverage
Weiss, Brett (2007). Classic Home Video Games, 1972-1984: A Complete Reference Guide. McFarland & Company. p. 36. ISBN 978-0-7864-3226-4. – game has a small paragraph listing in this catalog but so does every other game from the era—source looks okay, but there is no review-like depth in this broad overview
Herman, Leonard (1997). Phoenix: The Fall & Rise of Videogames, 2nd Edition. Rolenta Press. p. 86. ISBN 978-0964384828. – used as a supplemental text for a claim about "Kid Vid Voice Module" and not the subject: not counted towards significant external coverage of the Berenstain Bears game
Baer, Ralph. Videogames: In the Beginning. Rolenta Press. ISBN 978-0964384811. – used as a supplemental text for a claim about "Kid Vid Voice Module" and not the subject: not counted towards significant external coverage of the Bears game
The Strong Museum of Play, "Kid Vid: A Applications Study", August 1990, Ralph H. Baer Papers, The Strong Museum of Play; accessed January 30, 2016. – primary source in an archive: not counted towards significant external coverage
"Coleco Follows Atari Example". Ottawa Citizen. 15 Nov 1983. – this source is better for the Coleco article than for Bears—the game is only mentioned in passing: source not counted towards significant external coverage

In all we're left with a refcrater and not a single in-depth source. I've asked for copies of the offline sources but haven't received any (this would only matter if seeing them would conflict with my interpretation above anyway). This article topic lacks significant coverage from reliable, independent sources (?), as previously discussed on the article's talk page. It had no meaningful hits in a video game reliable sources custom Google search. The game does not appear in any notable game indices or directories of the era, nor does it have any reviews listed at MobyGames. Article creator appears to be affiliated with a Berenstain Bears fansite, but hasn't disclosed any greater COI. I could support a redirect/merge to Berenstain_Bears#Software_and_video_games, where the game is mentioned. As mentioned on the article talk page, the sources appear to cover Coleco products better than the game, so I'd sooner see the the Kid Vid Voice Module section preserved within the company's article (it can always split out summary style if need be). czar 05:14, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. czar 05:20, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Despite potential copyright infractions, I have offered to share screenshots of select pages of multiple sources. To these offers I have received no response. Additionally, I disclose in my user talk page that I am a fan of the Berenstain Bears. This expertise is what drove me to create this article and I have not tried disclose that fact. There are literally thousands of pieces of Berenstain Bears books and memorabilia and this video game is clearly important both in the history of video games and the Berenstain Bears franchise. There is no COI, rather my discernment as a Berenstain Bears fan is an asset ensuring that that article will be well-sourced, well-researched, and more than worthy of inclusion on Wikipedia. Darb02 (talk) 05:44, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I asked multiple times on the talk page. If you think it would clarify my understanding above, please do share your sources. czar 05:52, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge or Redirect to Berenstain Bears if such notability problems are the case. edtiorEهեইдအီးËეεઈדוארई電子ಇអ៊ី전자ഇī😎😎😎😎😎😎😎😎😎😎😎😎 06:42, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Might be worthwhile moving it to focus on the Kid Vid Voice Module. As per the nomination, the best sources seem to cover the module. - hahnch e n 11:46, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That seems an invalid argument for keep. The article can't be about another topic. Starting Kid Vid Voice Module would be separate, or are you proposing it be moved? -- ferret (talk) 15:07, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Berenstain Bears at best because this is unlikely independently notable. SwisterTwister talk 03:25, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Berenstain Bears per Nom. No independent indepth coverage. -- ferret (talk) 15:24, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Merge as this seems obvious (NAC). SwisterTwister talk 03:31, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

List of neighbourhoods in Guntur

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

WP:Unreferenced, looks like a category than an article. Vin09 (talk) 05:09, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. clpo13_(talk) 23:19, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. clpo13_(talk) 23:19, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as fails WP:NLIST. --Rubbish computer (HALP!: I dropped the bass?) 23:26, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Guntur Municipal Corporation; this should have been a no-brainer, and should have been done without wasting time at AFD. Note also that neither comment by the nominator is a valid deletion argument. postdlf (talk) 00:01, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. KTC (talk) 02:09, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ziddi Parminder

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

Highly fails WP:NFF. The article was created on 22 October 2014, and still the content in the article says "un upcoming Bollywood drama film". The source in the article is also not reliable. ЖunalForYou ^☎️^📝 04:47, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk) 07:13, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk) 07:13, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Per WP:INDAFD: "Ziddi Parminder" "Sunny Deol" "ज़िद्दी परमिंदर"

Delete this one-sentence stub per at kindest being far TOO SOON. One might suppose that a project of Sunny Deol would get a lot more coverage, but all this gets is hints and no-content mentions that it is "upcoming". If and or when it ever meets inclusion criteria, a far better article can be created. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 16:19, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as obviously too soon. SwisterTwister talk 03:33, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. KTC (talk) 02:09, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mount Ambarcho

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

Personal essay on the subject of religious beliefs surrounding this mountain. No sources, no neutral or factual content whatsoever. The mountain may be notable as a geographical feature but right now this is a clear case of wp:TNT. Happy Squirrel (talk) 04:33, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:TNT, per nom. If someone wants to write an article about this mountain in a competent fashion at some later date, great. And while we're at it, while not as thoroughly bad, Kambaata people is a bit of a mess, too. I've tagged it for tone. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:13, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethiopia-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:15, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Clearly no signs of an encyclopedia article, delete and restart at best. SwisterTwister talk 08:18, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I think this is about a mythological mountain, part of the traditional knowledge of the Oromo people , or of one particular part of that people. but I'm not quite sure of even that. It is either a personal essay or a copyvio , or some combination. If there is actually published information, it should be re-written under a more geneal title. DGG ( talk ) 00:55, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. KTC (talk) 02:09, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Alan Tafoya

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

Fails WP:NACTOR with just minor roles. Clarityfiend (talk) 03:30, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk) 07:18, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk) 07:18, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk) 07:18, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as not convincingly better for WP:CREATIVE. SwisterTwister talk 07:55, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It is not even evident that he has ever been in a notable film.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:23, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sarahj2107 (talk) 15:18, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jordan Schweitzer

(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) 02:40, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 02:40, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging Qed237 as he is interested in football-related AfDs. Dat Guy^Talk_Contribs 09:18, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 10:07, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails NFOOTY as has not played senior international football nor played in a fully professional league. No indication of any collage award to satisfy NCOLLATH. No indication that subject has garnered significant reliable coverage for any other achievements to satisfy either NHSPHSATH or widerGNG. Fenix down (talk) 13:08, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as questionable for the applicable notability. SwisterTwister talk 03:35, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Move to Draftspace There's no policy or consensus-based reason for this article to be kept. However, as he is signed to Seattle Sounders short of a life-threatening injury, it's inconceivable that he won't either be playing there, or in their fully-professional reserve squad Seattle Sounders FC 2 shortly, and then we'd just have to recreate the article. It's really a waste of everyone's time to be trying to delete players during pre-season, when we are only going to have to recreate them shortly. Nfitz (talk) 19:21, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Its not a waste of time to delete players whom you yourself accept meet no notability guideline. It is no effort whatsoever to restore the article if he meets any criterion in the future, with no history or effort lost. Fenix down (talk) 10:39, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- atleast for now, fails notability. Amitbanerji26 (talk) 15:16, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 02:36, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sesquipedalophobia

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

This article is about a word not an actual medical condition, and it belongs on wiktionary not in an encyclopedia. Looking through google scholar there is no existing literature about the medical phenomenon it supposedly describes. The only mention I have found in a psychological context is in this review of the Oxford medical dictionary [22]. Here the article only describes the word and uses it as an example of a word that is so exotic that it is surprising to find even in a medical dictionary. Clearly if the word is not even one one might expect o find in a medical dictionary it is not notable as an encyclopedic topic. Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Wiktionary is. There is no significant third party coverage of the supposed condition and only tangential coverage of the word (there are some instances of the word being used, and one or two of it being described - but this is the case for literally every word in the English language) - hence it does not pass WP:GNG.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 02:29, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This review is actually of the Oxford Dictionary of Psychology. In the 3rd edition, sesquipedalophobia appears as an entry in the list of phobias in the appendix, which includes only "phobias that have been discussed in serious publications or catalogued in general or specialist reference works"[23]. I'm not wikicompetent enough to judge whether this justifies inclusion in wikipedia rather than just wiktionary. However, there is also an encyclopedia with an entry on this phobia, and it's the The encyclopedia of phobias, fears, and anxieties.^[1] I should be able to have a look at it in a couple of days. Sesquipedalophobia is also included in a list of "50 medically acknowledged phobias" in an editorial entitled "MDD's Fun Facts" in Medical Devices Daily.^[2] It's apparently a serious publication but, given the title of the editorial, I'm not sure to what extent we can rely on it. Uanfala (talk) 03:28, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that is evidence the word exists, not that it is an actual or notable condition. I have not been able to find a single source that actually discusses the condition, only sources that mention or briefly discuss the word. ·maunus · snunɐɯ· 03:37, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

One of the sources says it's medically acknowledged and the other one implies it might be. But you're otherwise right: I haven't been able to find yet any medical sources that deal specifically with it. On a side note, this is the kind of phobia that I'd expect to have received some treatment outside of proper medical/psychological context. Also, it might be worth searching its synonym: Hellenologophobia. Well, I'll be off now, will rejoin the discussion in a couple of days. Uanfala (talk) 03:53, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ Doctor, Ronald M.; Kahn, Ada P. (2000). The encyclopedia of phobias, fears, and anxieties. Facts on File library of health and living (2nd ed.). New York: Facts on File. ISBN 978-0-8160-3989-0.
^ "MDD's Fun Facts". Medical Device Daily. 2012-02-27. ISSN 1541-0617. Retrieved 2016-01-31.

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:20, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Maybe it's real, maybe it's not. But if all we can do is a dictionary definition based off of trivial mentions, we're simply duplicating Wiktionary. Either do a soft redirect there or delete it. Or maybe make a dumping ground for these questionable phobias. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 20:56, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (WP:DICDEF with no reasonable prospect of expansion). This article was created for lulz, right? Even if the subject is serious. Tigraan (talk) 12:49, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I'm trying to see if I can find any relevant information and if I do I will expand the article. Uanfala (talk) 14:16, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete at best and mention elsewhere. SwisterTwister talk 03:35, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I suspect the sources given have simply be copying the entry on the basis of one or more of the other sources, just as various places have copied misleading things because they find them in Wikipedia. DGG ( talk ) 23:32, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 02:31, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Alin Suciu

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

No independent sources attest notability or indicate this individual may pass WP:PROF. What we have right now is the following: directory entry, directory entry, page that doesn't even mention the subject, likewise, search result. That simply isn't enough. - Biruitorul ^Talk 01:27, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·C) 05:35, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·C) 05:35, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. Appears to be a distinguished gnostic scholar [24]. Cites are generally very low in theology (and Coptic theology a fortiori) Xxanthippe (talk) 05:49, 31 January 2016 (UTC).[reply]
weak Keep. I would bemore confident about it, except that all of his publications seem to be very minor. DGG ( talk ) 03:59, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep per Xxanthippe. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 20:54, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Passes WP:Prof for reasons very clearly expressed above. Moreover, this is one of a series of Romanian language WP:PRODs which points out a systemic bias. A lot of serious Romanian scholarship is not translated into English. So they are underrepresented in various search engines. in fact, the change in lettering and names creates a GIGO conundrum for searchers, even though they may be diligent and seemingly thorough. Finally, this motion fails because of WP:Before. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 02:15, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. there seems to be consensus DGG ( talk ) 23:29, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

List of Major League Baseball players from Brazil

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

Only three players. This article is not necessary. JDDJS (talk) 00:51, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 15:48, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 15:48, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 15:48, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Three entries is not a viable list topic, assuming the list topic even satisfies the notability criteria of WP:LISTN and WP:GNG. Convert topic to a category, and call it a day. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 16:58, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I'm surprised to find myself going this way, but here we are :) First of all, I'll say that I don't know of any policy/guideline that places a minimum number on stand-alone lists. If someone can point me in the direction of something that says otherwise, I'll certainly come back to !vote delete. What we do have is WP:NOPAGE and related guidelines about when something should be a stand-alone page or covered as part of another. In this case, I figured the latter was going to be the logical way to go, if it wasn't covered already. But I don't see a logical merge target. There's no obvious article and also no list of Major League Baseball players by nationality -- only a list of current players, which removes the historical significance that this kind of article can provide. As far as establishing notability for the list, that the country's first three players have recently joined the MLB has received significant press attention, including many sources that talk about them as a group (note that some of these only mention one or two from the current list because that was the whole list at the time of publication). See New York Times, FOX Sports, USA Today, The Star, Kansas City Star, MiLB.com, USA Today, Fox Sports, Reuters, Kansas City Star, Fox Sports, Orange county Register, Orange County Register... So there's precedent for this kind of article (see navbox), there are sources to satisfy WP:LISTN or even WP:GNG, and while a category does exist they aren't in competition. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 17:32, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Due to what appears to be an increased scouting presence in Brazil, this list will probably grow a bit in the next couple years. Alex (talk) 22:36, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- That sounds a lot like a crystall ball. JDDJS (talk) 04:48, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - Wikipedia has a lot of stupid rules. Alex (talk) 06:33, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as conceivably keepable and improvable. SwisterTwister talk 03:36, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 11:05, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Myra Greene

AfDs for this article:

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

Only three refs and on is her own web-site. The other two are simply reviews of one exhibition. Nothing here suggests any significant notability. Fails WP:GNG Velella ^{Velella Talk} 19:22, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

keep Nominator did not excersise due diligence, which requires to look beyond the article text. Google quickly shows independent coverage. I added a ref from Museum of Contemporary Photography. - üser:Altenmann >t 23:05, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

And what about assumption of good faith? Is a resumé from your employer on your employer's website truly an independent and reputable source ? Velella ^{Velella Talk} 04:54, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What about multiple coverage in press, easily found? And museum is not her employer. - üser:Altenmann >t 07:54, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: further discussion seems needed DGG ( talk ) 00:25, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, DGG ( talk ) 00:25, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete at best as my searches found nothing better and this is currently not better for WP:CREATIVE. Notifying the only still active AfDers Timtrent and MichaelQSchmidt. SwisterTwister talk 01:16, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (again) per meeting WP:CREATIVE through due diligence finding she and her works having significant coverage and thus meeting WP:GNG. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 01:37, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:16, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Clearly enough coverage exists to demonstrate notability. The nominator should have a read of WP:BEFORE. I don't understand the other Delete !vote. --Michig (talk) 08:46, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in reliable sources.
1. Gonzalez, David (2012-05-22). "Some of Her Best Friends Are White". The New York Times. Archived from the original on 2016-01-08. Retrieved 2016-01-08.
  The article notes:
  Myra Greene grew up in New York, where she was used to being around people of different races. But as she embarked on her photographic career, her work and travels took her to places where she was the only African-American.
  ...
  “My White Friends” is a series of some 50 portraits of — you guessed it — Ms. Greene’s white friends. Shot in color, and posed to the point of performance in some cases, the images delve into questions of race and self-perception. She did them hoping to spur a conversation on these issues, which have been part of her work for a while now.
  In fact, the project had its roots in “Character Recognition,” a series Ms. Greene had done shortly after Hurricane Katrina. She had been aghast at how some of New Orleans’s black residents were left to fend for themselves or worse and made a series of black-glass ambrotypes, taking glistening close-ups of her facial features.
  “How do we look at black people and recognize their character?” said Ms. Greene, 36, who teaches photography at Columbia College in Chicago. “Do we recognize character just by looking at the shape of a nose or the color of skin?”
2. Teicher, Jordan G. (2014-05-01). "Exploring Race With Photos of White Friends". Slate. Archived from the original on 2016-01-08. Retrieved 2016-01-08.
  The article notes:
  When Myra Greene asked her white friends to be a part of her photographic exploration of whiteness, their first question was usually, “Why?” Their second: “What should I wear?”
  As Greene traveled the country making collaborative portraits for her book My White Friends, the answers were often ambiguous. But the conversations they spawned were fruitful, if slightly foreign, to her subjects. “Being asked to be in a photograph because of race has happened many times in my life,” Greene said, who is African-American. “I don't think a lot of white people have been asked to do something because of their racial identity. It changes the way they think of that experience of being photographed.”
  Greene, an associate professor of photography at Columbia College Chicago, has frequently used photography as a means to explore questions of race and its representation. In her series “Character Recognition,” she made photographs of her own body in an effort to explore the ways in which she’s perceived by others for the color of her skin. When it came to photographing her white friends, the questions were similar, but the process was less clear-cut. “In the beginning we really didn't know what was going on,” she said. “I'd go with them to work or to their home and talk about what I wanted to do and why I wanted to photograph them,” she said. “As the project continued, we had a conversation about types and stereotypes. In the later photographs, I’d say, ‘Here's the person I think you'll be in the photograph, even if that's not the majority of who I think you are as a person.’ ”
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Myra Greene to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 06:06, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep all. sufficient consensus -- . DGG ( talk ) 20:04, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

List of names in English with counterintuitive pronunciations

AfDs for this article:

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

No clear inclusion criteria, rules are way too nebuluous. What makes "moore" as "more" counter intuitive, or "Schenectady" not? Every entry on here is totally subjective and unverifiable, and there is no way to objectify this list. Previous AFD in 2010 kept on supposed sources, but apparently everyone thinks these sources will magically add themselves or something. All other particiapation in other AFDs was mainly WP:ITSUSEFUL or WP:PERNOM. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 00:09, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I do not particularly like this page, but it has come under attack three times before and has survived. This indicates that there are people who consider that it has value. I agree that there should be clear inclusion criteria. LynwoodF (talk) 09:42, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@LynwoodF: So are you expecting the sources to just magically appear on the article themselves? If you think it can be fixed, do it; if not, then don't bother saying anything. There's no point in sitting on your hands, just randomly expecting everyone else to do the work. That's a good way to get nothing done, and have the article continue to be a giant pile of shit. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 04:52, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@TenPoundHammer: I have been too busy dealing with serious vandalism, which I consider to be more important than improving a less than perfect page. As I said, I am not keen on this page, and so I would not mourn its disappearance, but each time it is challenged, it survives. So why not do something more useful, for example, improve this page? LynwoodF (talk) 19:49, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It's easy to find sources for this such as Funk and Wagnall's What's the Name, Please?: A guide to the correct pronunciation of current prominent names and 20,000 words Often Mispronounced: a complete handbook of difficulties in English pronunciation. The topic therefore passes WP:LISTN and the rest is a matter of ordinary editing not deletion. Andrew D. (talk) 13:34, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Andrew Davidson: So are you expecting the sources to just magically appear on the article themselves? If you think it can be fixed, do it; if not, then don't bother saying anything. There's no point in sitting on your hands, just randomly expecting everyone else to do the work. That's a good way to get nothing done, and have the article continue to be a giant pile of shit. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 04:52, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:04, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:04, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as there appears to be significant coverage in reliable sources; while these sources should have been added to the articles, this does not mean they do not exist. --Rubbish computer (HALP!: I dropped the bass?) 23:16, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Rubbish computer: So are you expecting the sources to just magically appear on the article themselves? If you think it can be fixed, do it; if not, then don't bother saying anything. There's no point in sitting on your hands, just randomly expecting everyone else to do the work. That's a good way to get nothing done, and have the article continue to be a giant pile of shit. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 04:52, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I was going to, but I certainly shan't be helping people who are going to insult me. Rubbish computer (HALP!: I dropped the bass?) 10:19, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Good for you. Ten Pound Hammer's been around forever and he's been acting like an immature punk for about as long, it seems. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:12, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – this is a trivial WP:INDISCRIMINATE list. Inclusion based solely on pronunciation is trivial. Inclusion is subjective since it relies on individual editors' opinions on what is 'intuitive'; e.g. I don't think any reasonable person could argue that "Summerland, British Columbia – /ˈsʌmərlænd/ (not /ˈsʌmərlənd/)" is objectively counterintuitive. Similarly, it's badly Anglocentric – e.g. there are a couple of Welsh or French based names which would be entirely intuitive to a Welsh or French speaker. Aspirex (talk) 08:16, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – @TenPoundHammer: When you believe an article needs improvement, please feel free to make those changes, rather than expecting others to do so. Wikipedia is a wiki, so anyone can edit almost any article by simply following the "edit this page" link at the top. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:33, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

[1] Doctor, Ronald M.; Kahn, Ada P. (2000). The encyclopedia of phobias, fears, and anxieties. Facts on File library of health and living (2nd ed.). New York: Facts on File. ISBN 978-0-8160-3989-0.

[2] "MDD's Fun Facts". Medical Device Daily. 2012-02-27. ISSN 1541-0617. Retrieved 2016-01-31.

[1]

[2]