Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2016 May 9

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< 8 May 10 May >

Purge server cache

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

The result was keep. Sarahj2107 (talk) 13:14, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Murad Mirzayev

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

Clearly fails WP:SOLDIER, nothing of notability detailed in the article, subject was of no military or public note, died in no unusual or notable circumstances, and was just one of the several hundred soldiers killed during the 2016 Armenian–Azerbaijani clashes; his death is not even worthy of a mention on the main article. The article itself seems to be a bad faith creation made in response to the existence of the Kyaram Sloyan article. The creator of the Murad Mirzayev article has stated in an AfD that the Sloyan article should be deleted [1] yet (after making that opinion) created this article, despite its subject's lack of notability compared to the events detailed in the Sloyan one. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 01:17, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The nominator made a mistake claiming that Mirzayev fails WP:SOLDIER. Actually, he is notable according to this rule, because he was awarded his nation's highest award for valour. Murad Mirzayev is a National Hero of Azerbaijan that is the highest award of Azerbaijan. Comparison with article about Sloyan is unacceptable according to WP:OTHERSTUFF. Sloyan is not notable as military person. He was just a soldier whose death is used in propaganda against Azerbaijan. But Mirzayev is notable as military person due to his award of National Hero of Azerbaijan. --Interfase (talk) 03:18, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There is not such a rule. WP:Soldier just assumes that " individuals will almost always have sufficient coverage to qualify if they: Were awarded their nation's highest award for valour". It looks like Mirzayev is the exception as he has no sufficient coverage in independent reliable sources. OptimusView (talk) 06:37, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see any reason to make Murad Mirzayev an exception. There are enough verifiable independent, reliable sources about Murad Mirzayev covered his biography. If you don't agree with them because of your personal opinion it is not a problem of Wikipedia.--Interfase (talk) 07:08, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Azerbaijan is a Family dictatorship and the award was due to propagandist purposes. The Mirzayev has no notability, it is even unknown, for what he was awarded. we have only few Azeri propagandist sources on him. no neutral reliable sources about Mirzayev. OptimusView (talk) 05:40, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • I recommend to ignore such arguments due to Wikipedia:Content disclaimer. If you don't like Azerbaijan (that is republic btw, not dictatorship as you think) and its heroes it's your problem, not Wikipeida's that has clear rule that military people awarded their nation's highest award for valour are notable. For what directly he was awarded cannot make an effect on his notability. It's discussion about the content. --Interfase (talk) 05:57, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It is not just my personal opinion but a fact [2]. Azerbaijan is also not a democracy [3]. Compare with North Korea. OptimusView (talk) 06:13, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
We don't discuss the issues around human rights in Azerbaijan. As a fact Azerbaijan is republic and exactly as a republic Azerbaijan is member of United Nations. That is fact. The accusations on violation of democracy in some country cannot make an affect on the notability of that country's people. --Interfase (talk) 06:19, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
As it is a dictatorship it affects on awarding. A hero in a dictatorship is not the same a hero in a democratic country. Per WP:Soldier, "individual is presumed to be notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple verifiable independent, reliable sources." No even one independent reliable source writes about Mirzayev. That's all! OptimusView (talk) 06:37, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Firstly, what you quoted, is "in general". Secondly, there are enough verifiable independent (Azerbaijan press not depends on Mirzayev), reliable sources about Murad Mirzayev covered his biography. There presence in article is enough to have an article about the hero. And I cannot agree with the opinion that a hero in Azerbaijan cannot be notable because some issues about democracy. Try to change a guide, because in this link I see National Hero of Azerbaijan, which means that they are notable for Wikipedia. --Interfase (talk) 06:49, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Being a "National Hero of Azerbaijan" is not notable, it is a propaganda award not connected to actual military valor. The article does not even detail how or when or where this individual died or what actions he did to deserve any award. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 13:53, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
We know that he died during April 2016 clashes in Nagorno Karabakh. That is enough. Details are the topic of another discussion and their absence (for now) cannot be a reason for deletion. As a fact in Wikipedia National Heroes of Azerbaijan are notable. You may agree with this or not. You may call this "propaganda award" but it is personal and not reliable opinion of Wikipedia user that should be ignored. As I see this nomination is typical example of Wikipedia:Content disclaimer. Users who want to delete the article are known for their pro-Armenian edits in Wikipedia and they don't want to see here an article about National Heroes of Azerbaijan because of Armenian-Azerbaijani conflict. But such behavior is against our rules and not acceptable. --Interfase (talk) 14:08, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep He won his country's highest military honor and the references in the article say so, and therefore meets WP:SOLDIER. We do not limit our coverage of notable soldiers only to those who fought for liberal western democracies. We have plenty of biographies of soldiers from countries widely considered by many to be dictatorships. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 21:28, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete(Removing vote on the basis that Sloyan article was kept with no consensus.) : I am using the same rational as the one on the article about Sloyan. Also, notability should be earned by more than the importance a head of state give to one of his personals. Azerbaijan main export is its culture, and there are Azerbaijani artists more notable because of earned popularity (not standing on a head of state given importance) but no such coverage. While this qualifies in paper to WP:Soldiers, it sure does not in spirit. Yaḥyā ‎ (talk) 16:54, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • We don't speak about artists, but military people. If they earned their state's highest award it means that they did something very notable for their state and nation, for its defence. That's why we make tham notable for Wikipedia, espessialy those who are officialy heroes. That's why Murad Mitzayev is notable. --Interfase (talk) 20:39, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
What did "officially heroic" Mirzayev do that was "very notable for their state and nation"? Wikipedia should not be a propaganda outlet for Azerbaijan - the status of military awards when deciding on notability should be based on common sense and real military valor or achievement, they should not be hijacked by dictatorships who hand them out for purely propaganda purposes. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 12:54, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
If he received his nation's highest award it means that he did something special during the clashes that was a reason for his awarding. Detalis as I said is a topic of another discussion about the improvement of the article. The absense of the details, which may even be classified information, are not a reason for such nomination. If you don't like this award also could not be a reason. --Interfase (talk) 19:26, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment While WP:Soldier to access notability is used, what is missed, is that policies like these in real life, are not static they change to correspond in letter to what they were intended for but will never be able to fully word (limitations of axiomic systems [4], and to prevent people from exploiting weaknesses often without such intentions). In spirit this article plainly fails the very principles which motivates to even develop something such as WP:Soldier. The same rational should be used to delete this article as those here [5], for another article from your opponents, which you voted to delete. You rightly claimed in Sloyan case that he did not receive the highest honour to meet WP:Soldier, what if the Armenian president grants it? Do you see where I am going? What if it is later uncovered that Alyiev granted such honours to fabricate a notability in response to Sloyan coverage in the media (he, afteral, received this honour the same day Saloyan article was created on Wikipedia)? It is obvious that members of the community will have no choice but to do what computer scientists do, by patching policies (same way software are updated) to prevent such cases. The hierarchic tree if added on pages like WP:Soldier, would be such a patch. Since his entire notability is ensured by one single honour received for yet obscure reasons, and nothing higher in the hierarchic feeds it (above categories), it (notability) will starve. This is different than Azerbaijani artists notability which is won by popular acclaim and not standing on one man decisions. Would be a nice thing to see both sides changing their vote to have both articles deleted. Yaḥyā ‎ (talk) 23:11, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Reply If the other fellow named Sloyan receives his country's highest military honor, then of course, I will support keeping an article about him. This is not a game of nationalistic tit-for-tat, and I wish that these two countries would stop their futile battling. But until then, we should accept biographies of the soldiers on either side who are granted their country's highest military honors. As for artists of any nationality, we have a notability guideline for them, which should be applied in an even-handed fashion. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 04:35, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
"Futile battling". How condescending of you. It will be worth a week's ban to call you a cretin. This issue has nothing to do with "sides" as you claim. We have many articles on Wikipedia about individuals who fought for, and received honors from, regimes that most would consider abominations. That is not this AfD issue - those individuals have details about what they did to receive their awards, they will have a proper military biography, the awards they got had military justification. There is nothing here like that. No details about what Mirzayev did, no detail even on why, how, where, or when he died. There is no suggestion he was doing anything covert that required his actions to be kept secret. All he did was die - not an insignificant thing, but no more significant that that of the several hundred others who also died in the same short conflict. Using the award issue as a way to keep this article is an abuse of the guidance, and I think an abuse of all the genuine acts of military valor that resulted in genuine awards. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 13:18, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
We know what Mirzayev did. He distinguished himself in the battle to protect the territorial integrity of his country and protect the civilian population of neighbouring districts. It is for this medal of National Hero is awarded. If we don't know any special details it is not a reason for deletion. The details may even be classified information. Why we should know this. This arguments could be significant if we nominate this article for Featured article. For now the fact about awarding him with his state's highest wawrd is enough to call Mirzayev notable. You maynot like him and his award, but it is Wikipedia and it may contain information that you don't like and cannot accept. --Interfase (talk) 19:26, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Interfase, I was wondering if you were also replying me. I am not questioning the factuality of what you wrote, never actually did. What I wrote, I also found it from an article titled: The rules are principles:The rules are principles, not laws, on Wikipedia. Policies and guidelines exist only as rough approximations of their underlying principles. They are not intended to provide an exact or complete definition of the principles in all circumstances. They must be understood in context, using some sense and discretion. [6] I strongly suggest you read the rest of the article. The underlying principles assessing notability (like I mentioned above) are here discarded by simply using wp:soldier. Also WP:FATRAT might be helpful in this situation. I do understand your frustration, because neither article would logically qualify. Notability will justify something being said in a main article, but this alone does not justify either of them to have their articles standalone because of what was raised here. [7] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yahya Talatin (talk • contribs) 20:44, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy delete. Speedy deleted, CSD G7: One author who has requested deletion. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 19:57, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jay Shurey

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

PROD removed from page's creator. Subject lacks notability and coverage in reliable sources. Meatsgains (talk) 23:50, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Why has a page been created about me, I want no reference of myself on Wikipedia now or in the future. remove all references. JayShurey (talk) 10:27, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

GET RID OF THIS NOW! I EXPECT IT GONE BY THE END OF THE DAY. END OF DISCUSSION!!! JayShurey (talk) 14:26, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry User:JayShurey, I was only trying to help as I saw you were a producer the 'Young Hunters' film. No offence meant. TomJohnson107 (talk) 17:34, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, fine. Please make sure my name doesn't appear on any article at all and a block is put in place so my name can't be added at all. I don't want to have to wait again for an article to be deleted! JayShurey (talk) 17:43, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User:JayShurey I dont think Wiki can do such a 'block' as you request, all new submissions have to go through the same process, User:Meatsgains correct me if I'm wrong? TomJohnson107 (talk) 17:51, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, this can be done by an administrator and is known as "creation protection". As both(?) of you, Jay and Tom, are in agreement here then maybe this will be done. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 18:43, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. MBisanz talk 23:49, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Osamu Fujita

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

No coverage outside primary sources Prisencolin (talk) 23:49, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - It's been quite a while since this issue was meaningfully addressed at AfD. With overwhelming agreement across seven deletion discussions (see discussions on Brian Selden, Tommi Hovi, Darwin Kastle, Kai Budde, Mike Long, and Jon Finkel, twice), it's fairly clear that there is a consensus that the top Magic: The Gathering players are notable. On that basis, WP:MTG established some guidelines as to when an MTG player is notable, which Fujita meets. Sir Sputnik (talk) 15:55, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • The WP:MTG guidelines allow for pages that don't otherwise meet GNG requirements. Many of these pro players articles just lack reliable, secondary sources, plain and simple and so shouldn't exist on WP as standalone articles. Note that per WP:LOCALCONCENSUS "... unless they can convince the broader community that such action is right, participants in a WikiProject cannot decide that some generally accepted policy or guideline does not apply to articles within its scope. " Also note that an WP:ALTERNATIVE, a fan wiki that covers the MTG pro scene, exists. So its not like this information would be lost if not for wikipedia.--Prisencolin (talk) 03:46, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Those prior discussions were all from September 2006 absent one from November 2005 and one was closed on a bad-faith nomination. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Roy St. Clair (4th nomination) was also in 2006 and has remained deleted for close to a decade. It's been a decade and consensus can change. Here, I think that there must be more evidence of notability beyond what the group's local consensus has determined. In a decade, there's been literally nothing on any of those pages more than permanent stubs about a 2-3 year period of their lives based entirely on primary sources with no independence to the subject matter. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 22:14, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete at best as still questionable for notably better, the current article is simply not convincing. SwisterTwister talk 22:35, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Sarahj2107 (talk) 13:09, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Aaron Forsythe

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

no coverage outside primary sources Prisencolin (talk) 23:48, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor Talk! 07:27, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor Talk! 07:27, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor Talk! 07:27, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Consensus states that this should not be on Wikipedia; if anyone wants the information that will be deleted. please contact me. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 04:27, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Parvum opus

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

A dicdef for a fairly obscure and little used latinismus. Staszek Lem (talk) 23:39, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Transwiki to Wiktionary, as suggested in the article. I could find no coverage beyond a few usage examples. But if Strunk and White use it, that seems enough for Wiktionary. There is a Parvum Opus company, but it appears to not be notable, either. --Mark viking (talk) 00:41, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Transwiki also as this is not yet convincing for its own notable Wikipedia article. SwisterTwister talk 22:44, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Transwiki - No evidence of notability to warrant an article however shoving it to WT is better than deleting forever where it'd probably be forgotten. –Davey2010Talk 23:18, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I agree that this is an ephemeral bit of Latin trivia. I don't have a particular opinion either way as to wanting to put the information somewhere off of Wikipedia, though I should note that I'm not opposed to the idea. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 00:05, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. MBisanz talk 23:49, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Prettiots

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

NN indie band. The only sources were commercial links and a "namedrop" ref that didn't make sense (because said person is never mentioned). There's interview coverage in the Guardian prior to their debut album, but frankly, the article is a rambling mess and adds no information of real value to the article. MSJapan (talk) 23:18, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak delete: In absence of any additional sourcing, not sure we have established notability, though the Guardian interview is why I am willing to reconsider this !vote if someone cares enough to improve the article and demonstrate notability. Montanabw(talk) 18:31, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete instead as I managed to find a few several news links at News, but nothing noticeably convincing of a better article, there's simply nothing available for better at this time. SwisterTwister talk 22:45, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 22:45, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 22:45, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. J04n(talk page) 15:26, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Erand Hoxha (actor)

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

Fails WP:BASIC with no secondary sources beyond IMDb, does not appear to meet any criteria of WP:NACTOR with what looks like only two named roles in non-notable films.

Some dubious news-search sources appear to link an actor of this name with Fast & Furious 8, appearing as "Racer", but this isn't mentioned in IMDb or this article. McGeddon (talk) 22:56, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment: Just wanted to point out this edit, with an apparent legal threat in the edit summary, possibly by the subject of the article. I have warned, but think they may have misunderstood what 'orphan' meant in this context. 220 of Borg 06:26, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Keep due to the lack of calls for deletions beyond the nominator and thanks to the extraordinary work of Megalibrarygirl in bringing the article up to grade through professional editing and sourcing. A non-admin closure. And Adoil Descended (talk) 11:14, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jennifer Lines

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

The subject is not notable enough to be on Wikipedia. There hasn't been enough evidence to justify their notability and likely won't be enough content for this page to ever reach such a level, even with the addition of more sources. NikolaiHo 21:10, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia criteria for entertainers includes "Has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions" as a criteria. Per the article, the subject has starred in multiple notable stage productions. How does this not meet the notability requirement? Dbarefoot (talk) 21:19, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Just looking at the article content, it states that "She has starred in productions at the Arts Club Theatre, Bard on the Beach, Vancouver Playhouse and the Belfry Theatre,..." all of which are simply theatres or organizations. It doesn't once mention a specific show which she was involved in, which is because none were notable enough to be on Wikipedia either. The organizations aforementioned are relatively small scale local enterprises, so none of their productions are considered notable per Wikipedia's policies. So no, she has not been in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions, or at least the article doesn't state it. Well, after doing some Google querying, I didn't find any notable results either. NikolaiHo 23:24, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The article's content doesn't always determine notability. In this case, it's a lot harder to source stage actors. I've started putting together her body of work and added critical receptions to her performance. She passes as WP:NACTOR, #1, as she has had several major roles in different productions. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 00:48, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I've added a considerable body of work to her article which illustrates that she has major roles in several different important plays. Many times, she is the female lead. I've also added critical receptions to her work (all of which were positive so far). Please take a look at the article. :) Megalibrarygirl (talk) 21:36, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. North America1000 07:45, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. North America1000 07:45, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd be more convinced by the arguments for notability if it could be shown that Lines had performed in major roles in major productions in more than one city. Vancouver is an important regional centre, and by all accounts that I have heard a lovely place, but in theatre terms it's not New York or London, where a stage actor can make a notable career without performing elsewhere. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 17:46, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the form in which this existed before Megalibrarygirl took it on, I would have agreed with the deletion. But now it's quite solid, and cites a range of reliable newspaper sources not limited to Vancouver alone — in fact, the referencing even gets all the way over to Toronto and Ottawa a couple of times, which is fairly rare for a Vancouver-based stage actress. I'll grant that Vancouver's not NYC or London in terms of theatre, but it's not Palookaville either — it's on the same High-Beta tier of theatre notability as Toronto and Chicago. Certainly not every working stage actor in Vancouver would get a free pass over WP:NACTOR just for working, but that's true of working stage actors in London and NYC too (they aren't all Audra McDonald, after all) — and when it comes to stage acting, having to move around from one city to another to take roles wherever you can get 'em actually tends to work against notability rather than bolstering it as 86 suggests, because the less established actors are the ones who tend to have to move around on the "touring production of Anne of Green Gables" circuit, while the ones who are already making good coin at home tend to stay put. But at any rate, when there's this much sourcing, and you can bring Jessies into it, then that does put her above the waterline. Keep, and barnstar to Megalibrarygirl. Bearcat (talk) 00:48, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedy Keep as nomination was withdrawn. (Non-admin closure) --Non-Dropframe talk 02:57, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Victoria Coates

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:BIO for lack of "significant coverage". Two sources, one of which may not even be about the subject (it's behind a paywall) does not fulfill this requirement. Yoninah (talk) 21:00, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep There seems to be plenty of coverage ([8], [9], [10], [11], [12], [13]). The article could definitely benefit from addition of more sources but the subject herself seems to pass WP:GNG. --Non-Dropframe talk 21:59, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Silly under-researched nom - the first page of ghits has interviews with Esquire, the Nation Review, something we can't read on the WSJ & other significant coverage. Please don't waste everyone's time, Yoninah! You are supposed to look beyond what the article itself has before launching an AFD. And in this case you don't need to look far. You could have added plenty of sources in the time it has taken you to do this. Johnbod (talk) 03:37, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Ladies' Code, preferable to deletion.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:21, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Lee So-jung

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

Singer with questionable notability. I am finding some pages that have the same name, but not sure if it is the same person (on another note-I think this has been afd before under another name, but not 100% sure) Wgolf (talk) 20:46, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 20:54, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. Random86 (talk) 21:33, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Sam Sailor Talk! 00:16, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ten Meritorious Deeds

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

Just another obscure Buddhist schema VictoriaGraysonTalk 20:29, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not following the policy reason for delete. The phrase appears in several books I've easily found, which suggests to me it is notable as per the WP:GNG. JMWt (talk) 21:09, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment It most probably deserves an article as it does have good notability, yet, the page needs some serious edits to make it up to par with the standards. NikolaiHo 21:17, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and request expert attention Nobody would try to delete Seven virtues - Though I admit the latter had more impact in general. There appeared to be plenty of references to go around, which would appear to make it a fairly notable part of Buddhism theology. Also the article definitely needed some cleanup and maybe a good lot more references. JWNoctistalk to me 02:26, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Buddhism-related deletion discussions. North America1000 07:46, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The Google Books search automatically linked by the nomination process appears, prima facie, to find several independent reliable sources with significant coverage, so we really need a better reason for deletion than "just another obscure Buddhist schema". I would note that it would be helpful, as Buddhism is a very diverse religion, if the article could explain which branch(es) of Buddhism accept this concept. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 18:23, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Obviously a notable article, as this list of books mention this subject. However, tag the stub article: these references may need to be added. —Prhartcom♥ 05:08, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to List of Naruto characters#Sarada Uchiha. Sockpuppet comments discounted (non-admin closure) Satellizer el Bridget (Talk) 00:21, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sarada Uchiha

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

Contested redirect by article creator, White-Black-Kitten. The subject has not received significant coverage by reliable, third party sources, thereby does not pass WP:NOTE. The article does not even cite a single third party source, but is derived entirely on primary source. It is also nothing more than a plot summary and provides no real world context or commentary, which violates WP:NOTPLOT. —Farix (t | c) 20:29, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. --—Farix (t | c) 20:30, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to List of Naruto characters#Sarada Uchiha Non-notable character to warrant a separate article. That she is listed in List of Naruto characters with a decent paragraph is sufficient. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 20:35, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect per AngusWOOF and Farix; non-notable fictional character. Opencooper (talk) 20:44, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep; this character was important enough to have an entire sequel for herself and is the daughter of two of the main characters. Also, the article needs, indeed, some improvement, but this is why we're here - to help. --Onyx-Soul (talk) 21:27, 9 May 2016 (UTC) — Onyx-Soul (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. User has been confirmed as a sockpuppetet of White-Black-Kitten. -—Farix (t | c) 18:06, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect Sadly the article fails WP:Notability Onyx, However, the manga doesn't count Onyx but instead the use of third party. In some years, if the Boruto manga is reviewed and Sarada is variously referenced in some of them I would gladly help to make it.Tintor2 (talk) 21:44, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep => Sarada is actually a notable character and, considering that smaller characters such as Shikamaru or Lee do have Wikipedia pages, she should have one, too. Unlike Shikamaru and Lee, she was the protagonist of an entire story and still is one of the main characters of a movie and of another series (the Boruto one). --Loladin9 (talk) 21:54, 9 May 2016 (UTC) — Loladin9 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. User has been confirmed as a sockpuppetet of White-Black-Kitten. -—Farix (t | c) 18:06, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Fictional characters aren't considered notable based on their importance in the work of fiction, but based on the real world relevance which can be cited through reliable, third-party sources. If you actually look at the articles on Shikamaru Nara or Rock Lee, you will see that their notability is backed up by such source and their articles aren't mere plot summaries. But this article doesn't have a single one and is nothing but a plot summary. —Farix (t | c) 22:01, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment This obviously is a new article and yes, it, indeed, does need improvements. But this is what Wikipedia is for. We are all here to help and contribute to articles in order to make them better. And I think the starting of this particular page is quite promising. --Loladin9 (talk) 22:08, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It's not promising, it's just a very long plot summary. That doesn't make for a good article.SephyTheThird (talk) 22:57, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed with Sephy, the problem with a long plot is that it can to the point that unless you have seen the show you will not understand it. Keep the plot simple for starters, and let the reader have their own experience with the character. In order for potential to be at hand, you need to provide some sources that show how this character has been received outside of the fan-base. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 13:30, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Creation from WP:reliable sources to add realworld information is good but what is more important is creating a reception section to pass WP:Notability.Tintor2 (talk) 22:50, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect Too soon. Article notability is not determined by fans views on notability or importance but coverage in reliable third party sources. There is certainly coverage about the character, but there isn't sufficient commentary by accepted experts. As the article stands it is just excessive plot summary.SephyTheThird (talk) 22:57, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect I encourage the creator to look at Sakura Haruno, or Gaara then at the "Reception" sections. This is what this article needs that it doesn't have. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 00:31, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note to closing admin I this is made into a redirect it may need to be protected, Naruto does have a large fan-base. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 00:33, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment If it has a slight chance of having some decent notability, should it be moved to Draft? That will give folks a chance to work on it until it meets standards. This means finding some decent sources that talk about the character. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 01:30, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
What interviews? AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 05:44, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Masashi Kishimoto has given several interviews about Sarada Uchiha, which could be very useful for the Creation field. For example, there is an interview in which he stated that he had intially wanted to make Sarada just like a girl version of Sasuke, but had then thought that she would have been too scary like this, so he had eventually decided to add some of Sakura's elements to her, too. There is also another interview in which he stated that he had decided to add glasses to Sarada's design in order to make her look intellectual. He also stated that he aimed to make Sarada look pretty even when she has her glasses on. The links to the sources for these interviews could easily be found. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chokolane (talk • contribs) 10:47, 10 May 2016 (UTC) — Chokolane (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
You didn't answer the question. What interviews and where are they published? But they are still not third-party sources, which an article like this requires to meet Wikipedia's baseline for inclusion. —Farix (t | c) 12:04, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I've went ahead and struck the !votes of all but the first sock. —Farix (t | c) 18:06, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Satellizer el Bridget (Talk) 10:29, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. MBisanz talk 23:50, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Street Pharmacy

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

Advertorially-toned article about a band with no strong claim to passing WP:NMUSIC, and no reliable source coverage to support it. Right across the board the sourcing here is to primary sources and YouTube videos that cannot assist notability at all, with the exception of a small smattering of local newspaper coverage in their own hometown. Being non-winning contestants in a music competition series is not an automatic inclusion freebie in and of itself, and nothing else here is strong enough to grant them a presumption of notability in the absence of better sourcing than this. As always, Wikipedia is not a free public relations platform where a band automatically gets to keep an article just because they exist -- real reliable source coverage, supporting a credible claim of notability, must be present. And on a ProQuest search, I found just two WP:ROUTINE local concert listings for them, with no evidence of enough substantive coverage to satisfy WP:GNG. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 18:56, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. North America1000 20:22, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. North America1000 20:22, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedy delete under A7, and quite possibly other criteria as well. Hut 8.5 21:34, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mandyland

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

It doesn't seem like it belongs in an encyclopedia. Peter Sam Fan 18:49, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. MBisanz talk 23:50, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Matt Greenwood

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

Actor, has had two more minor roles since the first AfD discussion in 2010, fails the basic notability guideline for people and is not notable under the additional criteria for entertainers. Sam Sailor Talk! 18:35, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. MBisanz talk 23:50, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Akash Thosar

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

Contested prod. Actor who has had only one role so far. He falls under too soon as of now, now maybe he will get bigger, but for now this is a delete. (or a redirect to the film) Wgolf (talk) 18:20, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:58, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:58, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy delete. WP:CSD#G5 see WP:Sockpuppet investigations/Dao2k JohnCD (talk) 13:05, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yung Trace (actor)

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

Not a notable person. Yung Trace has been salted, which is why this page is under the title that it is. Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Yung_Trace_(Rap_artist) closed 9 months ago as a speedy delete because it was made by a banned user. JDDJS (talk) 17:38, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep sources take time to find but I know this artist is notable — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:C7D:727:CC00:41DF:1D64:9CB1:4198 (talk) 18:27, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep he has been awarded in by a high running awards company which makes him important to public — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:C7D:727:CC00:F56E:C94A:798B:D010 (talk) 19:28, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
— 2A02:C7D:727:CC00:F56E:C94A:798B:D010 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

The above vote may be a case of duplicate voting. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 06:05, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk) 19:30, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk) 19:31, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Why? @User:Uncle Milty — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:C7D:727:CC00:F56E:C94A:798B:D010 (talk) 23:11, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Is the reason not obvious?. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 20:42, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

— 2A02:C7D:727:CC00:74D9:B1A2:E781:5C39 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Note: The IP addresses in this AFD thread appear to be single-purpose contributors. This IP removed the AFD template from the article before voting here. ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 00:52, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Consensus states that this should not be on Wikipedia; if anyone wants the information that will be deleted. please contact me. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 04:27, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Pastoralia

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

This should be on Wiktionary, not Wikipedia. Kabahaly (talk) 17:12, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. North America1000 20:25, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Procedural close. Already Speedy Deleted at 15:56 on 10 May 2016 by RHaworth (talk · contribs): (G7: One author who has requested deletion or blanked the page) (non-admin closure) | Uncle Milty | talk | 12:43, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Elaine Ivans

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

Doesn't meet WP:ENT or WP:GNG Boleyn (talk) 16:58, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. MBisanz talk 23:50, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sardar Sher Ali Khan Mazari

[edit]
Sardar Sher Ali Khan Mazari (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I can see no assertion of notability nor can I locate any coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject of this BLP. J04n(talk page) 16:24, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. J04n(talk page) 16:24, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. J04n(talk page) 16:24, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. J04n(talk page) 16:24, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I'm struggling to find any sources that aren't clearly mirrors of this article, and the article itself doesn't claim that he has held any sort of elected office, so he doesn't pass WP:POLITICIAN. At most I'd suggest a mention in the article about his father, who is much more prominent. Hut 8.5 21:50, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The article claims that he's a prominent political figure, but fails to contain or source any content about what would make him a prominent political figure — such as holding a specific political office that would clear the WP:NPOL bar, or being a political organizer or activist who's covered by the media widely enough to satisfy WP:GNG. As always, a Wikipedia article is not kept just because the subject is claimed to have unsubstantiated prominence or notability — an article lives or dies on the volume and quality of reliable sourcing that can be provided to support their prominence or notability. But all the way back to its original creation, this has never had more sourcing or substance to it than it does now. Bearcat (talk) 16:59, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I suspect that the subject's name is not actually "Sardar Sher Ali Khan Mazari" but is in fact some subset of that. If people creating articles want others to be able to find reliable sources then a good starting point would be not to surround the subject's name with honorifics that get in the way of searching. This problem seems to be especially apparent in articles about South Asian subjects. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 20:52, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as nothing at all for any applicable notability. SwisterTwister talk 04:30, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Rock Hill, Missouri. MBisanz talk 23:50, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel DiPlacido

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

Non-notable politician. DiPlacido's role as mayor of Rock Hill, Missouri, a town of ~4,600 people, and his lack of coverage that goes beyond the ordinary for the mayor of such a small town, do not merit inclusion. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 15:58, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 04:32, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 04:32, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. J04n(talk page) 15:07, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Eleasha chew

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

This is mostly a gossip page about the subject made by her high school friends. The only claim Chew has to any notability is that she was admitted to Harvard University, which is apparently rare among Malaysians. But the fact that her local press was impressed by her accomplishment does not make her globally notable. Her other "accomplishments" amount to being a somewhat talented teen who appeared in her school's talent show and released some youtube videos. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 15:54, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. This article is written mostly tongue in cheek, with sentences such as "Eleasha was also democratically elected as TCSH’s Prom Queen in 2013, extending her peaceful rule from little rodent colonies and mammal kingdoms to the larger student population as a whole." The article is filled with links to YouTube videos with no actual connection to the subject but which are apparently intended to portray ideas mentioned in the article humorously. Rather than wasting time removing all those links, I think we would be better off deleting the article altogether. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:47, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete. Not remotely notable. I tried to speedy in the first instance and triggered an apparent international kerfuffle by a bunch of SPAs. Julietdeltalima (talk) 17:14, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. MBisanz talk 23:50, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jared Knabenbauer

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

Declined PROD. Article's creator noted when declining the PROD that "it is next to impossible to provide more third-party sources" meaning that I'm not alone in not being able to find any third-party sources. There's not a single third-party reliable source that is independent of the subject in the article. Article fails WP:GNG and WP:BIO. Aoidh (talk) 15:47, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • What is the real need for third party sources when all sources included are Verified/Legitimate information? Jared Knabenbauer is a highly recognized Internet personality. I believe he deserves to have a place on "The Free Encyclopedia". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnny Tempest (talk • contribs) 19:18, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
See WP:N for a detailed answer, WP:WHYN specifically. Wikipedia is not a not a collection of indiscriminate information, third-party sources show that the content is notable and that there should be an article on the topic. - Aoidh (talk) 19:28, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. MBisanz talk 23:51, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel Bear

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

Non-notable individual lacking non-trivial support. No actual evidence of be a professor at Humber College. The college has no listing for him. reddogsix (talk) 15:26, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. MBisanz talk 23:51, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Miss Diamond Australia

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

fails WP:GNG. has only run once, non notable winners and the only sources provided are its own website LibStar (talk) 15:16, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Grahame (talk) 02:45, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Promotional model.  Sandstein  16:26, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Race queen

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

There is only one reference in the whole article. The topic doesn't even qualify for WP:NOT Coderzombie (talk) 14:36, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I thought that there would be some better sources than the ones in the article available, but if there are I can't find them between the Urban dictionary definitions and the pornography. I'm not sure which part of WP:NOT the nominator thinks the article breaks, but it doesn't seem to be notable... Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 10:51, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Promotional model where race queens are mentioned. A search shows that his is a real profession that modeling agencies advertise for and that the practice of having race queens is controversial. But I haven't been able to find any in depth RS about race queens or race models in particular. A race queen is a type of promotional model, and Promotional model mentions the topic with what seems like due weight for that article. Because this is a plausible search term, a redirect is warranted. --Mark viking (talk) 18:48, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect as this seems sufficiently connected. SwisterTwister talk 04:51, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. J04n(talk page) 15:08, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Cristian Milea

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

Non-notable kickboxer, does not meet WP:KICK or WP:GNG Peter Rehse (talk) 14:11, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 14:11, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. J04n(talk page) 15:08, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The lost European countries in the 20th century

[edit]
The lost European countries in the 20th century (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Essentially an essay. TheLongTone (talk) 14:01, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Nakon 18:09, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Eggel (Egg Bagel)

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

Not every sandwich or portmanteau word merits a WP article; in fact few do. This is no exception.TheLongTone (talk) 13:56, 9 May 2016 (UTC) TheLongTone (talk) 13:56, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Chris Troutman (talk) 15:07, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Possibly merge to list of sandwiches?TheLongTone (talk) 13:47, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nore: The inclusion criterion for that list article is "notable" sandwiches, so I doubt that would be a stable result. --joe deckertalk 00:59, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. MBisanz talk 23:51, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hannah V

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

No evidence of notability. "References" are a list of this person's credits, rather than anything that implies notability either per WP:MUSICBIO or the GNG. All biographical material in this article apart from this list of works is unreferenced. LukeSurl t c 13:13, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. MBisanz talk 23:51, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Democracy First

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

Non-notable minor political party. Ran one candidate, the party leader, in the 2014 local elections, who finished last with 2% of the vote. The same candidate stood in the 2016 Assembly elections, finishing last with 0.3%. Coverage is local, mainly focusing on the creation of the party and fails WP:CORPDEPTH. Valenciano (talk) 13:11, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. North America1000 07:49, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Northern Ireland-related deletion discussions. North America1000 07:49, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. MBisanz talk 23:51, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Louden Swain (band)

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

I sppedied tis a long time ago, but the speedy was declined on the grounds that a song by the band features in a major movie release. Actually that seems like a claim of notability for the song rather than the band: note that pretty well all the references are self-published, you tube or Amazon. Additionally the lead singer Rob Benedict has a biog (he acts). I really don't think this article is necessary...I've just given it a feew edits; one thing was removing gross overlinking to the singers biog, the kind of crapola that makes me think a snecking publicist has been involved.TheLongTone (talk) 12:54, 9 May 2016 (UTC) TheLongTone (talk) 12:54, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Furthering nom's comments, the article is severely unreferenced and contains extreme puffery. I could find no coverage attesting to its notability apart from a few scant mentions about the actor and his role in Supernatural. Band clearly fails WP:MUSIC and WP:GNG. Best, FoCuS contribs; talk to me! 13:04, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Chris Troutman (talk) 15:05, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. It was declined for a reason that does not stand up under scrutiny. The information about a single song can be included in the singer's biog. Essentially this band is a vanity project.TheLongTone (talk) 13:29, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I am, incidentally, a tad suspicious of new editors who throw around wiki jargon in the way that Caspera y does. Even if they are ludicrously off-beam. It's obvious that this article has been overgroomed by some drone probably doing so for moolah; the article will not get acquire new content because there is seemingly nothing about these dull rawk merchants, probably because they are terminally dull. Any possible improvement lies in the area of ruthlesslessly eradicating spam and fluff.TheLongTone (talk) 13:38, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You are correct that I am new and this is the first page I stumbled upon with delete notice. I figured this is small enough article for my first try. Jargons are specifically listed in the list of Wikipedia deletion guide to use in these discussions, I just followed their rules. I was not aware or had no intention of being offensive for using them. I see the point that a single song may be a better representation of the article than the band based on the previous version of the page. However now there are some new citations (that I haven't yet reviewed), which brings to my original point of no effort/potential on the article. It was mentioned that the page was "overgroomed" as "vanity project", but the impression from history was that not much effort was made to clean up or bring it up to standard. Comment about "the article will not acquire new content" is pure speculation. So I guess now it's up to the administrator to judge if the article warrants deletion. I will most likely not follow up on this further. Thank you for your time. Caspera y (talk) 18:44, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. MBisanz talk 23:51, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Bluewater (company)

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

Fails WP:CORPDEPTH. Current sourcing includes 2 links to the company's own website, the announcement of a non-notable award, and a press release. Most likely since that is about all that is out there on this company. Due to the commonality of the name it was difficult to research, but adding "water purifier" to the search returned very little. There's a piece in a trade magazine, but it is unattributed, and reads like a press release. Other than that you have a press release, and some trivial mentions. That's it. I would have prodded it, but there was no point, as the article's creator continues to remove the notability tag I added when I reviewed the page, without any additional notability sources, so the prod was sure to be contested. Onel5969 TT me 12:53, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 TT me 12:55, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. MBisanz talk 23:52, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Crater, Mendocino County, California

[edit]
Crater, Mendocino County, California (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No evidence that this is or has been a populated place; no evidence for notability. The county website at http://www.co.mendocino.ca.us/ has no mention of it. PamD 12:44, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: while hesitant to delete place names generally, this one certainly seems to be too obscure to carry on Wikipedia. There doesn't seem to be any indication this place actually exists, even. If we cannot prove this place exists, it shouldn't have an article. FoCuS contribs; talk to me! 12:52, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The GNIS entry for this place (the first reference) describes it as a locale; locales are officially defined as a "place at which there is or was human activity", and while this occasionally can mean a community, we'd need references to back that up since it's more likely to mean something else. The only other reference we have suggests that this place was some sort of stop or waypoint along a railroad, though it's unclear from the source whether it was a station or something else. (Our article on the railroad suggests it's the site of a horseshoe curve, though it's unsourced; this source suggests it was a station.) I can't find any other sources about this place, and "possible location of a closed railway station" isn't enough evidence to show this place was a community at any point. TheCatalyst31 Reaction•Creation 12:36, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, the GNIS (Geographic names information system) definition for "locale" says "Place at which there is or was human activity; it does not include populated places..." (My emphasis.) That does not appear to support the statement that "this occasionally can mean a community". The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 15:23, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
While that is true, I've seen enough misclassifications to know that definition's not always accurate in practice (e.g. places listed as locales when they were marked as communities on state highway maps and had an active post office). TheCatalyst31 Reaction•Creation 23:17, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:30, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:30, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 19:59, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ITDM

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

Non-notable organization, inadequately sourced. Draft:Integrated Talent Development Mission is already in draft space in AFC (and has been declined). This submission to mainspace looks like an effort to try two different routes into mainspace at the same time. Robert McClenon (talk) 12:38, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - In my opinion, no, this AFD does not apply to the draft, because GNG does not apply to the draft. I agree with suspending or declining review of the draft, because GNG does apply to accepting the draft, and the two are the same (which is a gaming of the system). That is, if this article is deleted, it does not imply that the draft should be MFD'd, but it does mean that the draft should not be accepted unless it can be made much better than the subject article. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:10, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. MBisanz talk 23:52, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jenny Flood

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

Fails WP:GNG. The Order of Australia Medal (the lowest class of the Order of Australia) is awarded to hundreds (averaging "around 450") of people each year, and does not guarantee notability. Flood's work does not appear to have received any coverage in independent sources. IgnorantArmies (talk) 11:04, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The article's creator hasn't edited since August 2014, and the article itself was created ten years ago. IgnorantArmies (talk) 12:35, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Grahame (talk) 02:46, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. J04n(talk page) 15:22, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Khurmi (surname)

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

Fails WP:GNG. Wikipedia currently doesn't have a single article about a person bearing this name, the sources are mirrors of the previous PROD etc and are unreliable. It appears possibly to be yet another non-notable clan of a larger caste group but even this is not verifiable using reliable sources. Basically, as per the previous PROD, this is "just another surname". Sitush (talk) 10:39, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. J04n(talk page) 15:23, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

London Buses route 254

[edit]
London Buses route 254 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Another bus route with zero evidence of notability. Jeni (talk) 10:20, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This route has over 11 million journeys a year. That makes it in the top 20 bus routes in London. There are currently over 130 London bus route articles. Doesn't make sense to delete this one. --Kafuffle (talk) 10:37, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS Jeni (talk) 10:47, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. North America1000 11:50, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. North America1000 11:50, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. MBisanz talk 23:52, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

London Buses route W7

[edit]
London Buses route W7 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Another bus route with zero evidence of notability. Jeni (talk) 10:20, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Bus route with over 5 million journeys per year. Subject of a large local campaign to move it's start. The Argus, Haringey Tottenham Journal. Subject of other news stories BBC, and features 1 --Kafuffle (talk) 10:37, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That is all trivial coverage! Jeni (talk) 10:46, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. North America1000 11:51, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. North America1000 11:51, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Whilst Redirect is plausible not every single service number in London needs to be redirected and very few people would be searching for the actual number anyway. –Davey2010Talk 23:23, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Prism (Katy Perry album). MBisanz talk 23:53, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It Takes Two (Katy Perry song)

[edit]
It Takes Two (Katy Perry song) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This page was previously part of a bundled AfD nomination of several Perry songs which finished without consensus (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Legendary Lovers). Regardless, taking this apge as single entity, I fail to see how a song that only reached #180 in the UK and #141 in South Korea and received, as the article says, "mixed reviews" (and that's charitable) can possibly be regarded as notable. Emeraude (talk) 09:52, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. J04n(talk page) 18:54, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ERONET

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

Non-notable company. No reliable sources I could find to improve this article or establish notability. Xaxing (talk) 17:09, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 23:41, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 23:41, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bosnia and Herzegovina-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 23:41, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • When you wrote that there were several sentences in the article in the right language. The fact that there were some more sentences in the wrong language doesn't create any sort of anti-notability. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 19:02, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Music1201 talk 23:02, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 09:21, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Consensus is for deletion. North America1000 18:40, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Kelli Smith

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

fails WP:NFOOTBALL Joeykai (talk) 09:19, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete As she has not played in WP:FPL Seasider91 (talk) 21:01, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:NFOOTBALL may or may not be a credible guideline for men's football (and I would argue that it's not), but for women's football it is certainly not. What does the professional (or otherwise) status of other players in other teams of a league possibly have to do with the notability of one particular player? 86.17.222.157 (talk) 21:29, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The WP:NFOOTBALL policy concerns the notability of association football players regardless of age, race or gender, when creating an article on Wikipedia the guidelines for notability have to be met otherwise any Tom, Dick or Harry could have a Wikipedia article made about them and that would take up a lot of space Seasider91 (talk) 13:46, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • The problem is precisely that players are being judged by a one-size-fits-all guideline that is not appropriate for all of them. A guideline that works well for male players in England in the modern era, for whom the boundaries between the professional, semi-professional and amateur levels of the game are pretty clearly defined, is being applied to female players and to male players in countries where there is not such a clear-cut distinction. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 13:01, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 05:58, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 00:32, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. MBisanz talk 23:53, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Annie Sittauer

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

fails WP:NFOOTBALL Joeykai (talk) 09:18, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 05:58, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 00:32, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy deleted by User:RHaworth per WP:G11, "Unambiguous advertising or promotion". North America1000 20:19, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

IRIS (Annual Management and Cultural Fest)

[edit]
IRIS (Annual Management and Cultural Fest) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No wiki links, not stylish article. In my opinion, this is a test page. ... Lhealt (talk) 14:01, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • It doesn't seem like a test page, which usually consist of "testing" of "trying to create a page" or something similar, but it does seem like someone promoting an event they are associated with and unless they can provide RS this should be deleted on those grounds. 331dot (talk) 14:03, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • No wiki links and a lack of style is not really a grounds for deletion; AFD is not cleanup. Notability, promotion, etc. are what ought to be considered. GABHello! 14:27, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
And what do you propose?--... Lhealt (talk) 14:37, 2 May 2016 (UTC)Lhealt[reply]
If you believe it fails Wp:GNG, that would be a good rationale. Are there sufficient, independent and in-depth reliable sources covering the subject? I'll start looking. I mean, I'm not saying "keep," even if I do disagree with the rationale. GABHello! 14:44, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I got it. Do as you continue. Because I do not know much everything perfectly with the deletion. Thanks.--... Lhealt (talk) 15:06, 2 May 2016 (UTC)Lhealt[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 09:05, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. North America1000 11:54, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. North America1000 11:54, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. North America1000 11:54, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Can merge content with Miss Universe 2016 if necessary. Nakon 18:12, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Miss Universe 2016 - Confirmed Candidates

[edit]
Miss Universe 2016 - Confirmed Candidates (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Another version of an earlier removed article (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Miss Universe 2015 (2nd nomination) with a clear intention to circumvent the protection of Miss Universe 2016. Still a crystal ball with no date and venue. The pageant itself is completely unsourced (all given sources are about the contestants and feeder pageants) with many of the given sources failintg WP:RS The Banner talk 10:19, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well, this is not a recreation of the deleted page of Miss Universe 2015. This page is only taking all the information that is being received while all the candidates are being selected. This is not the main page of Miss Universe 2016, it is just all the candidates that have been selected up to day. This page is relevant and it has reliable sources, it doesn't contain fake information, it is not a recreation of any other page. It's just a pre-pageant information compilation. Thank You. --Cesaro2012 (talk) 00:32, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It is just a creative way to circumvent the protection on "Miss Universe 2016". The Banner talk 11:21, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The page you are trying to delete is just where all the information of the candidates that are being selected is being taken. The competition begins when the first candidate gets selected. We need to have information of all of the candidates ready, because this page is not just for the Wikipedia users, is too for the people who want to be informed about how is the pageant going, which ones are the candidates or when is going to be held other national pageants. Cesaro2012 (talk) 21:44, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
First you need a pageant with date and venue. As long as you have no proper sourced pageant, the list of potential participants is utterly useless. Even so, the article needs sources conform WP:RS. In the present state I estimate that 80% of all sources fail on that point. The Banner talk 23:57, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think we need date and venue because while date and venue are not being revealed, other important facts are being revealed as the number of contestants (that are the 95% of the page). I checked all the sources and they are from official pages in Facebook and Instagram, or in different pageant related pages that are 100% reliable. I can tell you that 90% of the sources of this page are 100% reliable. Cesaro2012 (talk) 10:49, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please do me a favour and start reading WP:RS. Social media, like Instagram and Facebook, are NOT reliable sources. And related sources also fail WP:RS. The Banner talk 13:59, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Only a 15% of sources in this page are from Facebook of Instagram. The rest of the sources come from reliable pages that are known in the pageantry world and other sources were given by news reporters or national news. That 15% of social media sources have been taken from the official pages of the respective country pageants (Making counts 85% of the sources of this page are completely reliable and just 15% of those sources can be proven by yourself). I have read WP:RS and it says that social media pages are banned to be used as reliable sources, those not-reliable sources would be deleted or replaced by another source on Internet.Cesaro2012 (talk) 19:09, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
What about the "related sources" that you so nicely ignore... The Banner talk 21:43, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Can you tell me what are the related sources in the page? Cesaro2012 (talk) 13:54, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
PageantsNews.com, Česká Miss, Česká Miss, The Great Pageant Community, Global Beauties, Carolyn Carteren Instagram, Angelopedia.com, Miss Universe Canada, Miss Universe Canada, Miss Universo Bolivia -Official (Facebook), Missosology (Facebook), Missosology (Facebook), MissNorway.org, Miss British Virgin Islands 2015/16 - Adorya R. Baly en Facebook, Miss Universe Thailand (Facebook), Miss Universe-Sweden.com, Miss Universe Guam en Facebook, nextmissnz.com, Miss Universe Malta (Facebook), Pageanthology 101 (Facebook), MissUSVirginIslands2016.com, Miss Universe Guam (Facebook), http://miss-modelky.blog.cz/en/1009/miss-us-virgin-islands-carolyn-whitney-carter, http://www.globalbeauties.com/blog/2011/08/miss-supranational-us-virgin-islands-2011/...
And I assume that I have missed a few! The Banner talk 17:45, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You are showing me the Facebook and Instagram sources that still in the page (These sources will be replaced with pageant-related pages information). I don't understand what do you mean with "related sources". --Cesaro2012 (talk) 02:14, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
If you don't know the difference between independent sources (not in any way linked to pageants or contestants) and related sources (related to pageants and/or contestants) you better stop editing Wikipedia. Wikipedia:Competence is required, and when you are unable to distinguish between the two, there is simply no competence. The Banner talk 13:48, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:14, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:14, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:14, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 09:02, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I would love that this page wouldn't exist an that the 2016 Miss Universe Pageant page is unlocked to be edited regularly with reliable sources and all the information that is being saved about the pageant before it finish, but some people think that to create that page we should have a date and a host, and it gets revealed when the pageant is about to begin and it doesn't give us the enough time to edit it and publish it with reliable sources. Cesaro2012 (talk) 00:21, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Cesaro2012 - Many many events have unconfirmed stuff at the beginning but as time goes on more reliable sources come and it's updated regularly so I don't see how that shouldn't be the case here ?, I get the "fans" will come along and fuck it all up by adding unreliable sources etc but adding Pending Changes to the article would solve any issues ......, To me adding PC to the article is better than simply locking it and thus having this pointless article ..... Welcome to Wikipedia! , –Davey2010Talk 02:09, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
To make it worse, we have also Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Colombiabeauty hanging in the air. The sockpuppet investigation mentions several editors of this article. The Banner talk 10:14, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oh lovely just what the article needs! –Davey2010Talk 12:30, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. J04n(talk page) 18:55, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Megan Kufeld

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

fails WP:NFOOTBALL and WP:GNG Joeykai (talk) 21:52, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - meets WP:GNG criteria. Article could use expansion per WP:ATD. Hmlarson (talk) 20:34, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Fails NFOOTY as has not played senior international football nor played in a fully professional league. No indication that subject has garnered significant reliable coverage for any other achievements to satisfy GNG, the comment above that GNG is met is erroneous as it ignores the fundamental element of GNG that sources must be independent of the subject. Though there are multiple sources in the article, there is very little presented out side of primary sources (e.g. University of Washington, Seattle Sounders, US Soccer websites, organisations with which the player was inherently related). Those third party sources present are brief in the extreme. Only this comes even close to being a source that could be used to justify GNG. Would need to see much more like this to be satisfied that GNG is met. Fenix down (talk) 08:20, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Fenix down (talk) 08:26, 28 April 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 // 06:56, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 08:59, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. North America1000 11:55, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. North America1000 11:55, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America1000 11:55, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Sarahj2107 (talk) 13:07, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Scott Weinberg

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

I'd come across this as a G4 speedy, but it didn't entirely qualify since the article was deleted per author request rather than through the AfD. The current version also has a slightly larger amount of info than the prior version did, so I'm taking this back to AfD since it doesn't fit cleanly under G4.

There's really no coverage out there for Weinberg and neither his time served in office or his sports career meet the requirements of WP:NFOOTY or WP:NPOLITICIAN. None of his writings seem to have gained coverage in places Wikipedia would consider reliable, so he would not qualify for WP:CREATIVE either.

I don't think you should delete this entry, Weinberg is an important voice in Jewish-Canadian literature and politics. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.136.223.160 (talk) 00:22, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I need to note that this is not the same Scott Weinberg who works as a reviewer and is active in film. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 08:53, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 17:45, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

He has received notable coverage for his writing in Catholic News Service and The Boston Pilot. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.136.223.160 (talk) 01:57, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Catholic News Service, and the Boston Pilot are very reliable sources. The article includes citations for these including a review by theologian Eugene Fisher, a peer-reviewed scholar. The citations make it self evident that the author has been covered. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.175.185.58 (talk • contribs) 00:43, 14 May 2016‎

  • Whoah. Please be careful on how you write things. The way you wrote this gave off the impression that I wrote this and I didn't. This might have been unintentional, but be careful since this can be seen as tampering with comments. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:07, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User:Sweinberg8 is not creating an autobiography. Same last name but no relation. —Preceding undated comment added 19:01, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Snow Keep. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010Talk 22:34, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Robert N. Clinton

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

Non-notable academic, member of non-notable minor court (all due respect to the Ho-Chunk Nation). Orange Mike | Talk 05:08, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 08:40, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. J04n(talk page) 18:56, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I Come Prepared

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

No references, no claim of notability, fails WP:NSONG and WP:GNG. Prodded and prod removed. Richhoncho (talk) 08:34, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. North America1000 11:57, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, non-notable song.TheLongTone (talk) 13:27, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. J04n(talk page) 18:56, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Tyler Ruegsegger

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

fails WP:NHOCKEY Joeykai (talk) 07:27, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. North America1000 11:57, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. North America1000 11:57, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America1000 11:57, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. J04n(talk page) 18:57, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Tony Romano (ice hockey)

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

fails WP:NHOCKEY Joeykai (talk) 07:21, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. North America1000 11:58, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. North America1000 11:58, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America1000 11:59, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. North America1000 12:00, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. J04n(talk page) 18:57, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Billy Sauer

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

fails WP:NHOCKEY Joeykai (talk) 07:08, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. North America1000 11:58, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. North America1000 11:59, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America1000 11:59, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Another stub in the many hundreds of NN stubs Dolovis churned out, this one of a player with a fleeting and undistinguished career. Even by Dolovis' standards this one is pretty brazen; the subject's professional career was in the mid-minors as an itinerant backup goaltender, playing for nine separate clubs in only three seasons, and the highest honor he achieved in college was being named his conference's "goaltender of the week," twice. Fails NHOCKEY, no evidence that he meets the GNG; both the sources listed in the article are fleeting mentions and sports coverage explicitly debarred by WP:ROUTINE. Ravenswing 16:24, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete if it fails WP:NHOCKEY, we must delete.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 01:32, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010Talk 22:36, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ralph Sall

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

Still questionable overall and my searches are only finding expected links at Books, News and Highbeam. SwisterTwister talk 05:42, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 05:45, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 05:45, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. North America1000 12:01, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America1000 12:02, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. North America1000 12:02, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. North America1000 12:02, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. North America1000 12:03, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
in looking beyond "present state":
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. J04n(talk page) 18:57, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

John Paul Bullock III

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

I nearly almost PRODed considering there's barely anything here and certainly nothing for notability, searches unsurprisingly found nothing better, longest work was only for Desperate Housewives, simply nothing convincing of notability and improvements. SwisterTwister talk 05:42, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 05:44, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America1000 12:08, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. North America1000 12:08, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010Talk 22:37, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Zoe Tapper

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

Still questionable for solid independent notability at best, my searches and examining have found nothing better than she having 12 episodes of a TV series and also then films. Searches have only found expected news media at News, nothing outstandingly convincing. SwisterTwister talk 05:42, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 05:44, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 05:44, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. J04n(talk page) 18:58, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sergo Tbileli

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

Currently still questionable for WP:CREATIVE and WP:GNG as collections are acceptable but the ones listed are simply the collecting from people and not actual museums, my searches have found nothing better at all. Note this was started in April 2008 and was tagged as A7 by Freshacconci. SwisterTwister talk 05:43, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 05:44, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Georgia (country)-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 05:44, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. North America1000 12:10, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This is a CV with no RS. The "sources" & links that are given are dead and there's not even a claim to notability. Quick web search turns-up some on-line sales sites, but nothing that demonstrates notability. Sees clear-cut. Agricola44 (talk) 16:33, 9 May 2016 (UTC).[reply]
  • Delete. As stated above, both external links in the article are dead. Here are there archives: This is the one reference, where the artist is simply mentioned once in a long list of artists: [18]. This is the external link, which is nearly identical to to this article, making this article a copyright violation: [19] —Prhartcom♥ 12:59, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. Opinions are sharply divided. The "keep" side points to the coverage received by this ... whatever it is; whereas the "delete" side advances attack/slander/libel concerns, and/or considers this to be an ephemeral news topic. These are all valid arguments, but the "delete" opinions are not so compelling as to mandate deletion absent consensus.

While we delete attack pages, we do cover notable attacks, and to distinguish the one from the other is a matter of editorial consensus - as is the question of whether sources reflect routine coverage or are substantial enough to be the basis of an article. Until a possible later discussion reaches consensus on this, perhaps after this whole election thing, the article is kept by default.

There are widely voiced concerns that the title is problematic, but that can be changed editorially and does not need deletion.  Sandstein  17:57, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ted Cruz is the Zodiac Killer

[edit]
Ted Cruz is the Zodiac Killer (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Delete per WP:NEOLOGMEME, WP:NOt your meme, and WP:Memes of living persons. But really, I think this should have at most a mention somewhere. Yea sure it was talked about on some news sites, but it's usage will probably drop out now that Ted Cruz has dropped out. It was a "current event joke" made during the rise of his campaign. Could we apply the principles of WP:NEOLOGISM to this? Wickypedoia (talk) 03:46, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Pepe has been around for alot longer. This was made as a joke during his campaign. If it is truly notable, why not mention it over at Ted Cruz, United States presidential election, 2016, or even Ted Cruz presidential campaign, 2016? Hence "WP:NEOLOGMEME". Just one of many jokes/memes, whatever you want to call it, made during this election. "Jeb is low energy", "Hilary is corrupt", "Trump is racist", "Trump is Islamophobic", "Trump is a sexist"... these all got their fair share of coverage, should we have articles on those too? Oh looky here [20], anybody want to start "Bernie Sanders is a communist"? Wickypedoia (talk) 20:41, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The major difference between this and other insults thrown at politicians across the election season is the fact that those don't qualify as Internet memes. The examples you suggest are all very general feelings or insults about candidates that are not comparable to this kind of Internet meme; better examples would be along the lines of the pejorative "Little Marco", but even that's not really a good analogue. "Ted Cruz is the Zodiac Killer" is not just a random insult hurled at a politican; it's a somewhat bizarre in-joke on the Internet which has been covered well enough in reliable sources to warrant an article. Many have brought concerns about libel, of course, so if that's a concern we could rename the article. But it's important to draw a line between things like this and whatever Donald Trump says on Twitter. —0xF8E8 (talk) 16:32, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
What about Marcobot ("Marco Rubio is a robot") or "Trump is Hitler"? This has a page on Know Your Meme so I'll just say it's a meme but not all will agree. Whether or not it is a "true meme" isn't the main reason why it should get deleted. Many political-related meme-jokes will become popular for short periods of time and may even get coverage in news sites. I just think something like that should have coverage that is much more significant. Like if a historian finds that "This particular meme helped caused the downfall of Ted Cruz's political career and guaranteed a Trump/Clinton/Sanders/3rd party presidency" or something and has a detailed analysis, for example. Wickypedoia (talk) 03:28, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
My point of contention is not whether this is a "true meme" or not. It is true that non-notable subjects get routine coverage for brief periods in the media, but merely looking at the selection of sources on the page demonstrates coverage has hardly been routine, with articles in February, April and May. It bears reiterating that notability is not temporary, and as easy as it is to dismiss this as a meaningless transient political insult, it's not quite that simple. You bring up Rubot (which is a closer example, though it doesn't have the sustained coverage to warrant an article), and "Trump is Hitler", to which I redirect you to my previous comment. It's important to distinguish the hyperbole that comes with general feelings from the phenomenon of "Ted Cruz is the Zodiac Killer". One is an in-joke, and the other is not, which is arguably what's contributed to its coverage in reliable sources. If someone were to poll Florida voters and find 20% thought Trump had ancestry in the Hitler family, and Internet groups popularized the action, then it would be reasonable to compare. But once again, that's not really what I'm arguing—the matter up for debate is whether this subject has been the subject of significant, non-routine coverage in reliable sources. Whether historians are going to be conducting in-depth analyses twenty years from now, while not entirely irrelevant, is not the main issue here. That's why we have articles like All your base are belong to us, and the Leeroy Jenkins; we may consider these subjects trivial matters of the past, but they have received non-routine coverage in reliable sources. —0xF8E8 (talk) 03:10, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Then they could face an AfD and deleted even if this one does not. Wickypedoia (talk) 20:41, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - trivial and libelous. This isn't even really an internet meme, in that (as far as I know) it never spawned any variations or took on a life of its own; it's just a humorous thing said (mostly on the internet) by people who don't like Ted Cruz. In that, it may be comparable to, say, Tricky Dick or His Accidency - but neither of those have an article, despite having at least 1,000 times the notability of this one. As it is, this article, consisting of nothing but examples of people who have used the phrase, ends up giving a soapbox for the irrelevant political opinions of (at the moment) a pro-choice activist/T-shirt seller, a bar owner, and a "Twitter user". Korny O'Near (talk) 14:01, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It's not libel, I don't see how someone would think that. It is notable, although the vandalism is annoying, as User:EvergreenFir said. The libel accusations are probably from Cruz supporters. ThePlatypusofDoom (Talk) 14:08, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Can we please not make political insinuations here? Your !vote or mine shouldn't be taken as evidence of political persuasions. GABHello! 20:10, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: libel would be to call Cruz the Zodiac Killer without explaining that this is a joke that nobody takes seriously. Do we delete the articles on the Obama birth and religion conspiracy theories - that people honestly believe - because they are false? '''tAD''' (talk) 14:30, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • I should have said "potentially libelous", not "libelous". But the reason I think this might cross over into libel is the name of the article specifically - intentionally or not, it carries the direct accusation. If the article were named something like "Ted Cruz Zodiac Killer allegation" instead, it would be a different story. And by the way, accusing someone of lying about their birth country is different from accusing someone of being a serial killer. Korny O'Near (talk) 15:11, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
If this is truly a concern, we can move it to Ted Cruz is the Zodiac Killer (meme). EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 18:30, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
That particular name wouldn't work because it would violate the naming rules (unnecessary disambiguation). But I do think a rename would be an improvement. Though again, deletion is still my first preference. Korny O'Near (talk) 19:58, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Still shouldn't be on Template:Zodiac killer no matter what we call it. Imagine there being an article called "Bernie Sanders is a communist" on Template:Communism... Wickypedoia (talk) 20:41, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: The person above is an obvious vandal, and he has created an inappropriate page. Peter Sam Fan 15:05, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
— Delétionist's high (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • Keep It is well sourced and also notable. It is not libel as it is a joke, simply an internet meme, I don't think the majority of people believe he is the so called "Zodiac Killer" (or maybe he is?). The article of the title should however reflect that this is a meme perhaps adding (meme) at the end of the articles title. JayJayWhat did I do? 00:43, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This is idiotic. People are desperate to keep their epic may may alive long past its expiration date. It was a current affairs-bound thing, people. It's not funny anymore and it doesn't need to be on here. Enough. Scrotebustin (talk) 02:21, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
(MOVED FROM ARTICLE TALK PAGE) This is not notable enough to have its own article. It should be mentioned in the relevant sections under Ted Cruz's article or the article about his campaign. I don't know the exact policy but I imagine Wikipedia wasn't designed to catalogue every second-rate meme that pops up. We have an article on O RLY, for example, and one on Rick Rolling, but those were genuine phenomenons that endured for over a decade. This was a sort-of popular joke that ran for a few months and then lost all relevancy when Cruz dropped out. Scrotebustin (talk) 02:18, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
 Comment: This user is blocked, don't know if to strike vote or not... --Laber□T 20:11, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Wikipedia is not Memebase or something. This definitely fails WP:GNG, and makes the whole project look like a joke. If this page would be newly created now, it would surely be deleted as vandalism. --Laber□T 07:16, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This article is obviously well done, but is it really necessary for this short-lived internet meme to have its very own Wikipedia article? Seriously? Give me a break. This meme only deserves a one-paragraph mention on Cruz's own article, not its very own, separate article. --1990'sguy (talk) 22:36, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Wikipedia does indeed have articles about goofy topics, particularly silly jokes and internet memes. Those topics are almost always, I think, ones that have lasting significance and notable coverage for months upon months, going into years. Pepe the Frog? Widespread thing around for years. Rick rolling? Same story. This joke about Cruz has gotten plenty of attention, I understand, but I still find little to no reason to see this as anything other than a flash-in-the-pan phenomenon. Most of the coverage are from trendy-type publications and blogs that may be notable, yes, but aren't treating this as like actual news. It's not libel in the strict sense, I know, as it's not alleged seriously by basically anyone. That still doesn't make it encyclopedic. I'd also like to point out that redirects and articles for Rubiobot, Little Marco, Short-Fingered Vulgarian, et cetera seem to form a pretty clear precedent. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 06:22, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I understand the desire to get rid of the rampant political cruft that sprouts up during the election season, but the arguments for deletion here largely overlook important aspects of the subject's coverage. When you say "this fails WP:GNG", it would help to be a little more specific. It's not just some flash-in-the-pan meme; the subject has been the subject of articles in NPR, The Daily Dot, The Verge, been mentioned at the White House Correspondents Dinner, and characterized in The Guardian as and example of how "community-generated memes have grown to play a significant role in political discourse", just to give a few examples. Regarding libel, I can only see the title being a concern; we can certainly move, if necessary. But there's a reason we have articles on say, the court case over GlennBeckRapedAndMurderedAYoungGirlIn1990; it's not libel to report people mockingly claimed something, and that the joke gained significant traction in the political sphere. Libel would involve either declaring in Wikipedia's voice, or giving undue weight to the idea that Cruz was the Zodiac Killer. —0xF8E8 (talk) 20:57, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep Eminently notable, with its abundant press and mainstream references. Might be better called "Ted Cruz is the Zodiac Killer meme" rather than "Ted Cruz is the Zodiac Killer" or ""Ted Cruz is the Zodiac Killer (meme)" as suggested above. JesseRafe (talk) 20:44, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Satellizer el Bridget (Talk) 10:34, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Satellizer el Bridget (Talk) 10:35, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 11:16, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 11:16, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. A much briefer acknowledgement of this in the relevant and appropriate articles (i.e. Ted Cruz presidential campaign, 2016) would be fine — but by the same token whereby we don't and rightly shouldn't maintain a separate article about every individual pejorative nickname that one candidate coins to attack another one with, this isn't a thing that should have a full-on article in its own right as a standalone topic. Our role on Wikipedia is not to obsessively document every last bit of cultural flotsam that happens to float into view for a week or two — it's to apply some semblance of the will people still care about this in ten years? test, and I don't see how this passes that. For a comparable example, Evil reptilian kitten-eater from another planet once had a standalone article too — but as our notability standards tightened up, it eventually (and correctly) got cut down and converted into a redirect to, and much shorter subsection of, the article about the election campaign to which it was relevant, on the grounds that even if it was newsy at the time it happened, it wasn't a suitable topic for a permanent standalone article as a separate topic. Bearcat (talk) 17:46, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per User:0xF8E8 given notability conveyed via reliable third-party sources.--DrWho42 (talk) 00:35, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

*delete An egregious example of problem: WP:RECENTISM. If ever there was an article "created on flimsy, transient merits." This is about a joke, not a movement, an idea or or thing - or a meme. Just a joke that spread online. A joke would have to have some pretty extensive sourcing, something beyond a few weeks worth of people telling jokes about this joke to be notable. E.M.Gregory (talk) 00:30, 16 May 2016 (UTC) rethinkingE.M.Gregory (talk) 23:30, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per WP:RECENTISM and notability arguments above. Kdowns1453 (talk) 00:48, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - this could be included in the main page on Ted Cruz's campaign - or not. The topic is quasi-defamatory (some usernames related to this have been suppressed, for example), and while it may meet GNG, the RECENTISM argument seems meritorious to me. This is somewhat related to the AfD for Bernie Sanders' Dank Meme Stash, though that has a much wider base in pop culture and extends beyond one topic which has happened to gain some notoriety in the media due to shock value. Ajraddatz (talk) 08:27, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    I also do think that the page should be renamed if kept, to something that makes it clear that the page is about a meme. Ajraddatz (talk) 08:28, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete and Salt per WP:CSD G10 the article is an attack page plain and simple. --Cameron11598 (Talk) 16:18, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Don't you understand the difference between a page whose purpose is to attack someone (CSD G10), and a page whose purpose is to document an attack? – Smyth\talk 17:07, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It is not G10, since it [the article!] is 'true'. We might not like e.g school shootings, but they are notable and covered by news etc. This is also covered by media enough, therefore notable and not an attack in itself. The event or topic might be, but the article isn't. (t) Josve05a (c) 16:28, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for now. Once the election cycle is over and meme keeps reappearing in notable media then an article might be appropriate. But for now it doesn't look like something of encyclopedic relevance, not every nonsense shortly hyped on the internet is a notable meme for an encyclopedia.--Kmhkmh (talk) 16:37, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Well-known meme that appeared frequently in mainstream news sites (especially snarky ones) throughout the 2016 election season. OhNoitsJamie Talk 16:48, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Extremely strong keep as per reasons above. Tessaract2 (talk) 21:23, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep changing my iVote as I take a closer look at the impact of internet memes on this campaign.E.M.Gregory (talk) 23:31, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
2 articles that offer more than mere mentions - or jokes - in The Guardian [27], [28]. Also, I could use some help writing with Social media in the 2016 U.S. Presidential campaign.E.M.Gregory (talk) 01:44, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I may be wrong, but it looks like there's absolute consensus without objection that the article's title should be changed, regardless of whether the article ends up being kept or not. That level of agreement points to it being a no-brainier sort of situation. Can we have an admin (or multiple admins) chime in on that? Something like "Ted Cruz is the Zodiac (meme)" has been proposed, but I'm not sure if that wording, precisely, is right. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 20:47, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • At least, move the article into something such as "Ted Cruz Zodiac Killer rumor", "...meme", or the like because, when I have seen "Ted Cruz is [not] the Zodiac Killer" as an autofill suggestion on Wikipedia, I was seriously shocked that the page might have been an attack page, and I do not like how the theme of the article, especially in the lead, seems to make the rumor impossibly actually true, so I think that the first sentence also must start with "The Ted Cruz Zodiac Killer rumor is..." or the like. Gamingforfun365 (talk) 01:52, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Possible suggestions for article title, on a scale of vague/cautious to direct/blunt: Ted Cruz–Zodiac meme, Ted Cruz as the Zodiac Killer (in popular culture?), Cruz-Zodiac conspiracy theory (meme). Merely appending (meme) to the end of the article as it is unnecessarily disambiguates it, and "Ted Cruz is the Zodiac Killer meme" without parentheses is ambiguous; it might be parsed as Ted Cruz is the Zodiac Killer meme, as opposed to the intended Ted Cruz is the Zodiac Killer meme. My concern with phrasings like "rumor" or "allegation" is that it falsely implies to the reader these are serious suggestions. Regarding your concerns about the article's theme, I added a statement in the lede which hopefully addresses your concerns; it now states directly that Cruz is not the Zodiac Killer (which of course, no one is really contesting, just to be clear). —0xF8E8 (talk) 03:09, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Title is misleading if not outright libelous, however, the cultural phenomenon is notable enough that perhaps it deserves mentioning on either the Ted Cruz page or the Ted Cruz presidential campaign, 2016 page. Unlike other memes that people have mentioned as notable, this one should not be read independently of the context in which it occurred, and merely having this separate page lends credibility to the claim, even though it is a joke and was never intended to be a serious accusation. --Nquinn91 (talk) 15:43, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. Michig (talk) 07:42, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sana Javed (actress)

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

The Source Relies on a single unverified Facebook page. No further details are provided. Manoflogan (talk) 02:23, 9 May 2016 (UTC) Creating deletion discussion for Sana Javed (actress)[reply]

  • Delete, Not only is notability not established, but basically nothing is established. Content hasn't been added in over a week, so I can't believe that it's just under construction. Tpdwkouaa (talk) 03:03, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. North America1000 12:11, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. North America1000 12:11, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete and redirect to Silent Night, Deadly Night 5: The Toy Maker. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 19:42, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

William Thorne (actor)

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

Non-notable former actor who's wikipedia page has received so little attention that even the vandalism bots haven't done anything to revert the vandalism that replaced any sort of info about the actor with a "needs help" notice for an autistic boy. Couldn't find any reliable sources editorEهեইдအ😎 02:03, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete and redirect to Silent Night, Deadly Night 5: The Toy Maker. It looks like Thorne's only major role was for the SNDN movie - his role in the Bill & Ted sequel looks to be pretty minor and it wouldn't really be enough to justify being a notable role. Normally I'd say that we should keep the article history in case something happens to establish further notability but it's unlikely at this point that he'll return to acting and more importantly, the article's history has some content that reads like nonsense at best and at worst is just sheer attack content. I've cleaned this out, but to be honest there's not anything currently in the article that couldn't be easily recreated in a few minutes if there is any future notability. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 09:46, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. North America1000 12:11, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge to List of hotels in Spain#Barcelona. MBisanz talk 23:54, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hotel Barcelona Princess

[edit]
Hotel Barcelona Princess (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Try also Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL; Fodor's for example lists it as "Barcelona Princess Hotel".

Fails WP:GEOFEAT. I can't find enough reliable, third-party sources to indicate that this structure has any sort of notability. Is being number 10 on List of tallest buildings in Barcelona enough? clpo13(talk) 17:55, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. clpo13(talk) 17:56, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. clpo13(talk) 17:56, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Nothing resembling a claim of significance as a business (and hotels are primarily businesses), and its only putative assertion of notability is that it's in a not-unusually-tall building. Non nontrivial reliable sourcing -- just a directory entry. I've stayed in taller hotels that don't have articles here. I've worked in taller buildings that don't have articles here. I've got friends who live in taller apartment buildings in Manhattan that don't have articles here. A business shouldn't be able to evade notability standards merely because it's in a building that doesn't really have more than the tiniest whiff of notability about it. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by administrators since 2006. (talk) 18:21, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Working in a taller building in Manhattan is not so remarkable, but this hotel is in Barcelona not Manhattan. I am sure the 10th tallest Manhattan building has an article, doesn't it? Is that 70 Pine Street; I never heard of it. And let's see if there is notability by wp:GNG. --doncram 20:52, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep - User:Hullaballoo Wolfowitz inserted delete-tags [29] only to several articles created by one user, which is in conflict. In Category:Skyscrapers between 100 and 149 meters there are 1,013 articles and most of this articles have the same arguments to leave. Behavior by User:Hullaballoo Wolfowitz is clearly trolling, again. Subtropical-man talk
    (en-2)     18:25, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I can't find any non-trivial RS coverage. — Rwxrwxrwx (talk) 18:42, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge, probably to List of hotels in Spain#Barcelona, if more notability is not established (or to List of hotels in Barcelona, if that is created as a list-article; watch for Draft:List of hotels in Barcelona). Hey, it is nicer and better to keep edit history in a redirect than it is to outright delete an article. The hotel could become notable for future events, or its existing notability may be established by more sources, and there's no need to completely eradicate the contribution. This hotel can be mentioned in the "List of hotels in Spain" list, with more text than is present for other entries there so far. That list is not yet well developed. The mention should use the Emporis reference in the current article, and should include the fact of it being the 10th tallest building in Barcelona. In fact this hotel, from its pic and size, looks like it must be one of the largest and/or "best" hotels in Barcelona, and probably is notable at least as a list-item.
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hotel Kandahar was an AFD which closed "Merge", for merger of material to new List of hotels in Andorra that was created during the AFD. The new list included just hotels in Andorra that were in historic registry buildings or that were significant for other reasons. We don't need an exhaustive list of hotels in Andorra or in Barcelona, but a list of the most significant ones is reasonable. --doncram 21:47, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
(The following was moved from top of page, where I had inserted it, to here, by editor Subtropical-man)
Perhaps this AFD can consider notability of hotels in Spain a bit more generally? Recently there were speedy-delete nominations on:
I am hoping for some centralized discussion of the general issues, but this AFD has proceeded already, and I don't want to require everyone to look at every one of these. Some general comments would be welcome, but the merits of each one are probably different. --doncram 21:30, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Ha ha ha. Subtropical-man talk
(en-2) 22:00, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Huh? I disputed the speedy-deletes, which is probably what Subtropical-man prefers, and asked for discussion here. I don't see what is funny about that. --doncram 22:07, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
....aside from the typical trolling by user Hullaballoo Wolfowitz.... Only Barcelona and Spain? Why? Please read core content policies of Wikipedia, including Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. Please see more articles in Category:Skyscrapers between 100 and 149 meters and apply the same criteria to all, to 1,013 articles in category. Ok? Subtropical-man talk
(en-2) 22:53, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know why HW speedied those hotels in Barcelona, but they're in question now by me too, despite me usually being an "inclusionist". Why did someone else question a hotel in Andorra? Because it's not obvious hotels are notable. So you suggest these are notable because they are taller than 100 meters? There's no guideline or policy that I am aware of that buildings taller than 100 meters are deemed notable. If you can point to some discussion right on that topic, please do. We're not going to analyze all buildings in that category right now, but this AFD will be a precedent that can be cited if others are as minimalist as these here. And the last 3 of 6 in the list are shorter than 100 meters, so what is your theory about why these ones are notable? Please also note I am suggesting merging material to a list-article, where readers get more value because comparisons are possible. If there is very little info in each article why would you oppose having it all covered in one article? --doncram 23:39, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Will accept that, but the La Vanguardia coverage isn't an advert. --Oakshade (talk) 16:45, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
No, but it's more about Desigual than the hotel itself. I'm not against keeping the article if some decent sources can be found but what I've seen so far is quite thin. It needs more to pass WP:GNG. The Catalan wiki article is no help. Vrac (talk) 18:23, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it's actually heavily about the design of the hotel and Desigual's roll in that. That's significant coverage of this hotel.--Oakshade (talk) 20:24, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
So, @Vrac: and @Oakshade:, please add informations + these sources to article. Subtropical-man talk
(en-2) 18:41, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NOTABILITY and WP:AFD are clear that the existence of sources is what counts to notability, not that they're already in the article. --Oakshade (talk) 20:24, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I'm not certain about notability, but I removed the speedies on the other hotels, because obviously they need discussion. I think it unlikely that additional sources could not be found in, for example, Catalan newspapers. I know in NYC the construction of significant hotels is always discussed in the NYT and elsewhere, DGG ( talk ) 09:14, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as nothing yet convincing of solid improvements. SwisterTwister talk 06:43, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Onel5969 TT me 13:32, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:42, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:42, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 01:01, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Keep. Michig (talk) 07:36, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Willcox

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

Greenpeace ship captain. Fails WP:BLP, WP:V. Biographical article about a living person with no references, and it's not up to me to look for them. Very likely notable, though, so should be kept if sources are found for most of the content.  Sandstein  20:41, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oh, Okay. The content has been added to the footnotes section. It is now verifiable to the reader and meets the (archaic) WP:BLP definition. Let's close this AfD and keep the article. CerealKillerYum (talk) 21:19, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:16, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:16, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:16, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 00:59, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. North America1000 12:15, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, Hi Sandstein, your statement as part of the nomination "with no references, and it's not up to me to look for them." may be misleading especially for new editors, as doesn't WP:BEFORE apply to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion ie. B. Carry out these checks 2.If there are verifiability, notability or other sourcing concerns, take reasonable steps to search for reliable sources. (See step D.) D. Search for additional sources, if the main concern is notability .... ? Coolabahapple (talk) 08:35, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry and thanks Sandstein, maybe such a statement/note needs to be made at the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion page under the heading 'Before nominating: checks and alternatives' to make it clear. Coolabahapple (talk) 18:05, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. MBisanz talk 23:56, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

List of nearest terrestrial exoplanet candidates

[edit]
AfDs for this article:
List of nearest terrestrial exoplanet candidates (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I don't see any reason to keep this list as separate from list of exoplanets and list of potentially habitable exoplanets. This would be a list of potentially rocky exoplanets, but determining whether a planet is actually rocky or not is extremely difficult and essentially none of the planets listed here has been confirmed as such. It seems reasonable therefore to just keep the list at one of the main lists on Wikipedia rather than having a third such list. jps (talk) 20:16, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Astronomy-related deletion discussions. North America1000 13:54, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. North America1000 13:54, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. North America1000 13:54, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Hekerui: the entire article or just the speculative entries? Some exoplanets (with mass and radius values already known) are indeed rocky. PS Wouldn't a redirect be better off than a full blown deletion (to preserve years of edit history)? Davidbuddy9 Talk  02:34, 24 April 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 // 09:12, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 00:54, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
A redirect would preserve years of edit history. Davidbuddy9 Talk  05:01, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per original AfD, interesting, and well-referenced. This list is separate from the others nom mentions because it is limited to 50 lightyears, as opposed to the others which have no limit. This list title is also well-constrained and is mutually exclusive from List of exoplanets, which contains confirmed exoplanets. I see no reason to #R or delete, but if the closing decision is to do either, prefer #R to save 5 years of edit history.   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  12:20, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, I have to agree with Tom.Reding on this one, the article has improved since nomination and it is well cited. Also note that the PHL/HEC RfC closed saying that PHL/HEC is not a violation of WP:SELFPUB which allows more citations to be added. As for "determining whether a planet is actually rocky or not is extremely difficult and essentially none of the planets listed here has been confirmed as such." is simply false, all that is needed is a Mass and radius value, or if only a radius value is provided if its under <1.6 R⊕ it is likely rocky.[1] Davidbuddy9 Talk  05:01, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ "Most 1.6 Earth-Radius Planets are not Rocky". Leslie A. Rogers. 3 Mar 2015. Retrieved 2016-05-12.
Valoem, I think you mean Davidbuddy9 instead?   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  20:54, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 04:26, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Tilly Keeper

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

PROD was removed for the 3rd time so I have to now AfD it but it will be removed as well...but anyways, this is an actor that completely fails WP:NACTOR, only 13 episodes of a day time soap, some have not even aired..no other previous work bar as an extra on an episode of another show, no notability before her acting career, no awards, or other meaningful achievements, the article may look well sourced but it does not mean the actor is notable... Stemoc 01:55, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, our rule on that is silly, has been silly for a long time now..if a PROD is removed without a valid reason, is it contested? or just plain vandalism?--Stemoc 02:59, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hardly silly, PROD is only used when it's uncontested, that's what it's for. For everything else, there's AfD. If you think the scope of PROD should be changed, then you're more than welcome to start an RfC at Wikipedia talk:Proposed deletion, but what you used PROD for here is and has always been outside of the scope of its purpose. More to the point, the PROD you restored was not without explanation. You may not think it's a good reason, but that's irrelevant; it was contested, thus you cannot re-PROD the article. - Aoidh (talk) 04:51, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Not entirely sure why I went with redirect seeing as it's the actual BLP & not the character..... Seems kinda pointless, Anyway as per below, above, left and right there's no evidence of notability, fails TOOSOON, NACTOR and last but by no means least GNG. –Davey2010Talk 01:42, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Davey2010, my thought is that in a case like this where the actor is known for one role and won't pass notability requirements for an individual article but still has some likelihood of being searched for, that it's more useful to send searchers to a section for that role (which can integrate quarter of a sentence regarding the actor's past) if possible. ~Hydronium~Hydroxide~(Talk)~ 06:30, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Article fails the criteria of both WP:NACTOR and WP:GNG. Despite the keep arguments above, being "more notable than someone else" and "will be notable soon" are not compelling reasons to keep an article on Wikipedia. The article's subject does not meet any criteria of WP:NACTOR, which requires significant roles in multiple films or programs, and the subject does not meet that criteria. The article's subject also fails to meet WP:GNG, especially when viewed through the lens of WP:AUD. Most of the independent sources discuss the character and the show the character is on, as opposed to the actress portraying the character. - Aoidh (talk) 11:47, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vipinhari || talk 13:44, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Which reasons? Comments adding nothing but a statement of support to a prior comment add little to the discussion. Is it that she "might soon" meet the notability criteria? Or that she's "more notable" than other people might be? - Aoidh (talk) 06:05, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep - She clearly passes WP:GNG, even though she clearly fails WP:ENT, so on balance I would lean slightly towards a keep. anemoneprojectors 21:29, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete - actually having read some of the other comments, I realise she fails WP:GNG as the sources are discussing the character rather than the actress. If she passes GNG and ENT in the future, the article can be written then. anemoneprojectors 09:47, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete as per Aoidh and Nizolan; most of the coverage indeed seems to be focused on the character she portrays, rather than her as a person. Whether she will be notable in the future is just not enough to keep an article. GABHello! 23:59, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, just not notable enough as an actress; can be mentioned in the TV series article as to portrayal of the character (the fourth one to do so). Kierzek (talk) 01:33, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to EastEnders for now as the article is still questionable for solid independent notability, had the character work been longer, I would've considered keeping. Not enough to convince me for deleting but perhaps not for keeping either. SwisterTwister talk 22:39, 27 April 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 // 11:07, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:34, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:34, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:34, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 00:53, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This is an article of an actress in a highly successful TV programme both in its home country and overseas. The actress is currently a regular one and will most likely have additional roles should her main one end. How can she not be notable? Cexycy (talk) 00:25, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Because she doesn't meet any of the notability criteria. "Most likely will" be notable in the future does not create notability for her now, and there are no reliable sources that support this being a standalone article. You ask how can she not be notable, but you haven't said how she could be. What notability criteria does she meet? She doesn't meet WP:NACTOR, so what makes her notable, exactly?' - Aoidh (talk) 01:51, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
She is connected with a very highly popular TV show. How this that not notable? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cexycy (talk • contribs)
The show is popular, the character is popular, the people who played her character before became popular, she is not..I think its a basic idea people who write articles on this are not getting...she may become popular and notable, but not now..we only add biogrpahies of people once they become popular, not before it,,, we are not a crystal ball--Stemoc 05:14, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
There's also the fact that notability is not inherited. Just because she's involved with something notable does not mean she herself is automatically notable. - Aoidh (talk) 13:12, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete – thus far, she has only had a significant role in one show (EastEnders). As notable as that show is, having only one substantial role in one's career thus far is not enough notability for an actor for Wikipedia (the other credit is a single episode guest actor, which counts for very little in notability terms). If she follows the usual career trajectory for someone in her position, she'll likely meet the criteria sooner or later, but as of right now it is WP:TOOSOON. SJK (talk) 07:39, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to the character if WP:TOOSOON , same as previous actress Brittany Papple, keeping useful edit history. But possibly keep, for media coverage and WP:NACTOR #2, "large fan base". In any case, certainly not "delete". -- IamNotU (talk) 18:46, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Are there any sources that show that she has a large fan base? - Aoidh (talk) 21:28, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It depends how you look at it, I suppose, and how you define "fan". One should not underestimate the importance of EastEnders to British culture! It seems there are plenty of sources covering her already. Whether that does or doesn't translate as "notability" for her, is kind of a judgement call. If an actor has a significant role in a hugely popular show, an argument that they don't inherit any notability from that is a bit dubious. I guess one way to look at it is, if they wrote her out of the show tomorrow, and she never worked in the business again, would she be considered to have been a notable actress? Probably not. But if she continues in the role for a while, probably so. Where that threshold is, is somewhat arbitrary. On the other hand, it's not unlikely that quite a large number of people might want to look up information about her, and think it's strange that Wikipedia doesn't have any. I don't have a strong opinion about it, other than to not do a simple delete right now. If the article isn't a keeper at the moment, there's certainly enough notability to redirect and retain the history for future use. -- IamNotU (talk) 23:14, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It's not arbitrary at all; you're arguing that they might soon become notable, not that they are now. Notability is not established by what might happen at some point, nor is notability inherited from some other article's notability, there's nothing dubious about that, that's just a fact on how notability works on Wikipedia. There's nothing arbitrary about the relevant notability guidelines; this individual does not meet any of them. None at all. You're saying that there are plenty of sources covering her, but none of them muster the notability required to meet WP:GNG. Sources about a character that mention the actress in passing are not sufficient. You claimed that she meets WP:NACTOR #2, so again, do you have any sources backing up that claim? If she meets a notability criteria in any way I'd rather that be known than the article deleted because we don't have the full picture, and while I don't think she does meet WP:NACTOR #2, maybe you're aware of some sources that I haven't come across. - Aoidh (talk) 23:27, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please don't put words in my mouth. I didn't make any "claims" or "arguments" to keep the article, did I? I !voted to blank and redirect. But if the consensus somehow goes towards "keep", due to the popularity of the show, I'm not interested in trying to block it. Like it or not, an actor receives a certain amount of notability, for playing a significant role in a notable show. If Tilly Keeper instead of playing the fourth incarnation of Louise Mitchell for thirteen episodes, had played the thirteeth incarnation of The Doctor for four episodes, you can be sure she'd have a Wikipedia article, no matter what the guidelines say. -- IamNotU (talk) 03:20, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't put any words in your mouth, you said "But possibly keep, for media coverage and WP:NACTOR #2" and I asked if you had anything to back up that claim, not as an accusation but because if it does meet WP:NACTOR #2 and nobody has considered it, that needs to be known. Arguing that notability is inherited, that she might soon become notable, and that other actors have articles are not compelling reasons to use in deletion discussions because they ignore the most important fact: this article does not meet any notability standard. You can argue all day that "an actor receives a certain amount of notability, for playing a significant role in a notable show" but if you don't have the sources or any evidence to back up those claims, it obviously isn't true in this instance. - Aoidh (talk) 14:22, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I apologize if I haven't been clear. I don't "claim" that she meets WP:NACTOR #2, nor have I argued that the article should be kept, and I don't understand why you keep insisting that I have. In the case that the subject is found not to have adequate notability for a dedicated article (which is the most likely outcome), I think it should be blanked and redirected to the main article. There are no notability requirements for that, and it seems obvious that it would be in the best interests of Wikipedia in this case - see also the comments from Hydronium Hydroxide and SwisterTwister. Several people have !voted to "keep". It's not impossible for an actor to be considered notable for a single role. If someone can make a reasonable argument based on the fan base, I would not oppose it. AfD outcomes are decided by consensus and common sense, taking the guidelines into consideration. The guidelines are meant to reflect consensus, not to dictate it. I am simply not interested in making arguments either for or against keeping; only against a straight delete of the page and its history, with no redirect. I hope that's not a problem, and we can drop this discussion. Thanks. -- IamNotU (talk) 16:25, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete and redirect to List of video game magazines. Nakon 18:20, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

BioGamer Girl Magazine

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

Even after the massive cleanup this article needs, all that remains are unreliable and primary sources—we need secondary sources that actually discuss the topic in depth. The offline sources aren't used to make more than passing reference to the actual contents of the magazine. The topic lacks significant coverage from reliable, independent sources. (?) It had no meaningful hits in a video game reliable sources custom Google search. There are no worthwhile redirect targets. czar 19:40, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. czar 19:40, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. North America1000 15:37, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. North America1000 15:37, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Mark viking, SwisterTwister, and Soetermans, ping re: redirection czar 15:28, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I've noted your assertion, but the list has many red links, web links, and no links for entries. The talk page, e.g., Talk:List of video game magazines#Should blogs be in here?, shows that "list only contains notable publications" hasn't yet been established. I and NinjaRobotPirate have proposed sources sufficient for verifiability of basic facts in the list entry. Given this, it is safer to redirect to the list, and list inclusion criteria can eventually be decided later. --Mark viking (talk) 16:36, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
But that's how most lists on Wikipedia work—either the entries need to be individually notable for their own articles or have some sourcing to warrant their inclusion (otherwise the list is indiscriminate). The list's lack of maintenance isn't a reason to add more junk without sources to it. I just cleaned up a handful of sources that are clearly recent, non-notable blogs and new magazines without credibility and anyone else is welcome to do the same. The only redlinks that remain are for non-English outlets, which are generally the last to get articles. czar 17:19, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Your list inclusion criteria are thus inconsistent. There is no indication of notability for those red links, the "reference" for, e.g, BGamer is just the link to main site itself. Whereas at least for this magazine, NinjaRobotPirate and I have shown some secondary references. Either the poorly referenced red link crap needs to get properly referenced or deleted or we decide to allow non-notable entries, but with secondary references verifying the list entry information. I'd be happy for the list to conform to WP:SAL so that only entries with articles are on the list and thus delete in this case. But if we want to include "promissory, hopefully an article could be written on this someday but I have no sourcing to back it up" entries, then this magazine has no less claim to a list entry than the redlinked others. --Mark viking (talk) 18:10, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It's not my inclusion criteria and it's not strict. The question is what source are we using to warrant adding this item to the list. I'm fine with removing the redlinks from that list—it's more likely than not that the list just hasn't been maintained. (I would also say that there is a difference between we-looked-but-haven't-found-sourcing and sourcing-might-exist-but-we-haven't-checked.) Anyway, I think we're in agreement. czar 18:38, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I realize my reply came off as a bit aggressive. I think we are in agreement, too. --Mark viking (talk) 18:45, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: To discuss whether to delete or redirect.  Sandstein  15:26, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein  15:26, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 00:51, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 23:59, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to List of video game magazines as it seems like the partial coverage from the likes of HorrorNews.Net and DreadCentral.com is enough to sustain a somewhat brief description of the magazine and its activities without going into details. A full page isn't warranted while a section of a few sentences or such seems like a good idea. I wouldn't object to a straight up deletion, to be honest, but I would prefer retaining the kernel of properly cited information somewhere rather than nowhere. As well, redirects just plain are cheap. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 11:36, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@CoffeeWithMarkets, what do you make of the above discussion about that list's inclusion criteria? czar 14:05, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I agree in general that something shouldn't be on such a list without some kind of solid sourcing to rely on. However, I feel like the aforementioned HorrorNews.Net and DreadCentral.com are both reasonable enough to cite if all that would be on the list is something like two sentences. I've seen both websites used as sources many times on various pages. And like I said, I wouldn't think that outright deletion is inherently a bad idea either. I just would prefer otherwise. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 15:47, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Keep. This has been significantly improved since I nominated it, and I think it's pretty clear now that it meets the notability guidelines. (non-admin closure) Omni Flames let's talk about it 07:11, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

FarEasTone

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

Telecommunications company in Taiwan with rather questionable notability. Only a total of two sources altogether, both of them are from the company's website. A quick search revealed very little reliable, independent coverage. Omni Flames let's talk about it 21:53, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Omni Flames let's talk about it 22:03, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Taiwan-related deletion discussions. Omni Flames let's talk about it 22:03, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
keep article has been saved via editing since AfD opened. Jytdog (talk) 23:32, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
that is a big "if", hence my TNT vote. :) Jytdog (talk) 06:25, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America1000 06:21, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Music1201 talk 19:42, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 00:49, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 20:33, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ted Reilly

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

Completely fails notability, just an extra with no award nominations working on a television soap..Its not about them getting famous "one day" (the reason given for removing PROD), its about them fulfilling "OUR" notability criteria and in this case, its WP:TOOSOON.. Stemoc 17:00, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - He has a few credits under his belt and he is becoming more widely known. It's early, but not too soon. CDRL102 (talk) 18:25, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I thought it was worth mentioning that Reilly is not an extra in EastEnders but one of the ensemble cast, and his role is of a main character. Extras are the non-speaking roles in the background of scenes. Not to mention that EastEnders is one of the biggest TV shows in the UK. Also, there are currently 14,500 Gnews results for "Ted Reilly" (11,500 if you add the word actor). AnemoneProjectors 20:57, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Extra, not background extra..usually extra's appear on episodes with one line or one camera view usually playing a supporting role..all his roles were just that..there is extras and then there is a 'guest role' and then there is a 'recurring' role...again, apart from NACTOR, TOOSOON also applies..give him 2 more seasons on the show and then maybe add him..its sad that we delete articles like this if this guy did the exact same thing on an American cable show but we somehow keep for British shows..--Stemoc 05:25, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    He may have had guest roles in other series but he's still not an extra in EastEnders (Tracey (EastEnders) is an extra, this is a main character, though sadly we don't know how long the contract is that Reilly has signed), and EastEnders doesn't have seasons, it just continues without any breaks, averaging 208 episodes a year. Note that I'm not arguing against deletion, just setting the record straight. AnemoneProjectors 06:53, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to EastEnders as he only joined the show's cast today and thus is still questionable for the necessary solid independent notability. SwisterTwister talk 22:48, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 11:21, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@SwisterTwister: Would List of EastEnders characters (2013)# Johnny Carter be a better target if this is redirected. AIRcorn (talk) 09:54, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Music1201 talk 19:48, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:09, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:09, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:09, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 00:48, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete, I think it's probably still WP:TOOSOON, he technically fails WP:ENT and most sources discuss his EastEnders character rather than the actor himself - I can't find any exceptions, even the interview he did in a recent Gay Times is purely discussing his EastEnders role. anemoneprojectors 08:15, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. (non-admin closure) Onel5969 TT me 03:04, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Martin Cassini

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

This article was previously nominated for deletion in 2008. I believe that this person is not notable enough for Wikipedia. Although he may be a campaigner for changes to road design and has been quoted in several news outlets in recent years, I cannot see from this article and other searches why is views are especially notable as he does not appear to be a traffic planner or had direct influence on shared spaces. As an aside, much of this article appears to have been written by Martin Cassini (as User:Seeplain), but that is not why I'm proposed deletion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Seaweed (talk • contribs) 16:56, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 07:39, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 07:39, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 07:39, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep  Nominator wants the "views" of the topic to be "especially notable", which is a not a policy-based notability argument.  The first AfD the nominator didn't get a single editor to support his/her position.  I found the references needed to satisfy WP:GNG using the first page of searching using WP:BEFORE at Google news (BBC News, The Guardian, Daily Mail).  These references postdate the previous AfD, so longevity of attention to the topic over time is also shown at Google news.  Unscintillating (talk) 01:12, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as the article itself is sourced and detailed but none of it is actually suggesting the necessary solid independent notability and, FWIW, 2008 is certainly enough time to suggest a new AfD as Wikipedia and articles have certainly changed since then. SwisterTwister talk 05:04, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep – Meets WP:BASIC, although perhaps on a weaker basis per sources that I am presently able to access online. Here are some sources that provide significant coverage about the subject: [49], [50], [51], [52] (shorter article), [53]. The last source is largely about a court appearance for a speeding ticket, though; not primarily about the subjects works, life, etc. North America1000 10:20, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Music1201 talk 20:39, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 00:45, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I am the nominator for the first AfD. I reviewed the resources currently listed in the article and do not find them to meet WP:BASIC. I consider coverage of Cassini in the referenced secondary sources to be trivial. I did search and could not additional secondary sources that would meet notability. I do not consider Cassini as meeting WP:CREATIVE for his work in the field of transport. He is a public advocate for shared space; Hans Monderman and Ben Hamilton-Baillie meet this criteria for the subject that Cassini espouses. Although not a guideline for determining deletion or notability, the article reads more as an editorial in support of shared space than a biography and the article has been substantially self-edited by Cassini to read this way. - ¢Spender1983 (talk) 14:39, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Note that the current article is still questionable for solidity and contains nothing satisfying for a better acceptable BLP article. With its current state, it's still best, at least, moving to Draft where better improvements can be made. SwisterTwister talk 06:08, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, Cassini is a notable journalist, broadcaster and campaigner in the UK. The article does need some work to bring it up to scratch. -- de Facto (talk). 20:16, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Keep. Michig (talk) 07:26, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dominique Prieur

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

WP:BLP1E. Known only for being involved in the sinking of the Rainbow Warrior, and all content is about this. Should be covered there, if at all.  Sandstein  20:37, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • But this does not address the problem that the sources are all about one event, the Rainbow Warrior sinking, which should lead us to cover this person in the context of that article.  Sandstein  08:41, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Sandstein, the example given at "Subjects notable for only one event" is John Hinckley, who is notable only for attempting to assassinate Reagan however has his own page as his role and the event are both significant. Prieur similarly fits this description - the event was significant, and her role in it was substantial. MurielMary (talk) 00:21, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Agree with Stuartyeates. She was also in the news again about 10 years after the event as it was remembered. She is known best for the 1 event, but if she's published a book and has sources over time, then the article meets WP:GNG and one event does not apply. I'm adding the references I'm finding. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 23:39, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:13, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:13, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:13, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:13, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:13, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Being the first woman French secret agent makes her sufficiently notable even without the most unfortunate Rainbow Warrior incident (as they would say in Japan). Passes all three points of exemption in WP:BLP1E. Hawkeye7 (talk) 00:30, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 00:45, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep see point 3 to WP:BLP1E: she is at least as well known in NZ as Hinckley is in the USA - in fact her notoriety in NZ is on a level with that of Mark David Chapman. The event for which she is notorious was described by the French government themselves as a terrorist act, before the truth came out about their involvement - and it took place in a country where any sort of terrorism is extremely rare - Mafart and Prieur are the only persons convicted of anything I'd call a terrorist act, in NZ, that I can recall. Daveosaurus (talk) 05:17, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - the article seems fairly well sourced now which suggests to me that the subject has received significant coverage in a range of reliable sources. The coverage also seems to be spread over quite a period of time and is international (French, British, NZ and Australian) and includes both news sources and books etc. As such I'd say it meets WP:SIGCOV and therefore WP:GNG. I am a bit dubious about the "first woman French secret agent" claim though as I am sure there have been countless other French women that have been involved in any number of intelligence operations over the last few hundred years (either officially or unofficially). I imagine then that it must be a question of definitions. Anotherclown (talk) 10:47, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, Anotherclown... I think it's a matter of wording. I am sure there have been many French female spies before her, but she must have been the first woman in her type of position. :) Megalibrarygirl (talk) 15:19, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Sarahj2107 (talk) 13:57, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Abdeslam Serghini

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

My searches simply found nothing better at all and the current article is noticeably of concern, both information and sources, nothing currently suggesting keeping and improving. SwisterTwister talk 05:57, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 05:59, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 05:59, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Morocco-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 05:59, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete. I found only passing mentions in several sources, enough to show he existed and played a part in the Moroccan nationalist movement but not in-depth enough for WP:GNG: [54] [55] [56] [57]. On the other hand, the language and transliteration issues (and all the chaff provided by travel guides that mention the street named after him, under both spellings) may have prevented me from finding better sources. So if some turn up, I would be willing to change my mind. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:28, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 00:42, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. North America1000 13:16, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note that America.Pink is a cheesy chinese site which copies material from a variety of sources, including wikipedia. Kuru (talk) 00:24, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- My guess is that America Pinks is mirroring WP, which takes us nowhere. The question is whether the content is reliable. Essentially he was a lecturer in a Muslim university. The article ends by saying that he appointed President of the supreme court. If correct such a person is surely notable. If streets are being named after him, again it may point to notability. I accept that the article may be guilty of poppy adulation, but the cure to that is editing, not deletion. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:23, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. In the current state of the article there is too little that is actually solidly verifiable, and almost all of the content looks like pure WP:OR. If the article were to be stubbified to something basic and satisfying WP:V, it's not clear what that something would actually be. Nsk92 (talk) 13:12, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Notability isn't inherited just by association. As referred to above, Serghini's involvement in nationalist causes brought him alongside different influential figures and has meant that he's tangentially mentioned by some reliable sources. Yet that appears to be pretty much it. Hunting around some more myself hasn't changed my mind. I agree with deleting the page. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 13:50, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Dasari Narayana Rao. MBisanz talk 00:00, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Greeku Veerudu (1998 film)

[edit]
Greeku Veerudu (1998 film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No evidence of notability Maproom (talk) 11:58, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. North America1000 12:49, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. North America1000 12:49, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
in looking:
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)
filmmaker:(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)
star:(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)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
WP:INDAFD: Greeku Veerudu Movie Dasari Narayana Rao Arun Kumar Dasari Pooja Batra Dasari Film University
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 00:38, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete--Ymblanter (talk) 07:47, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Probyn Gregory

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

Autobiographical article of a non-notable musician, created for promotional reasons (PROD was objected to by the article's subject). Notability is not inherited, no matter how many famous people you've been in the same room with. Doesn't meet any of the criteria of WP:MUSICBIO, which is one of the widest standards of notability I've come across on Wikipedia. IgnorantArmies (talk) 13:26, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk) 06:10, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 00:38, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America1000 13:18, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. Michig (talk) 07:21, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Myonta Taylor

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

Article has been speedied and recreated several times; latest version as created included "career" and "filmography" copied from Max Schneider (and discography looks to be based on MS's discography). Sources appear unreliable. No evidence of notability. Suggest that title should be salted to save more wasted time. PamD 17:03, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: Note that the creating editor has attempted to disrupt this process by removing the Afd template and blanking this discussion page. PamD 04:54, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 00:36, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. North America1000 13:32, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. North America1000 13:32, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America1000 13:32, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Sarahj2107 (talk) 12:39, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

UCLA/VA Multicampus PM&R Residency Program

[edit]
UCLA/VA Multicampus PM&R Residency Program (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Page for a non-notable medical residency program. The list of "Pain fellows", as well as edit comments like "Added Dr. Riggs to the list" speaks to the fact that this page uses Wikipedia as web host for the program's participants rather than as a global encyclopedia. WP:BEFORE searches turn up little. This belongs on the UCLA web site, rather than here. HappyValleyEditor (talk) 17:17, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I respectfully disagree with the assessment of HappyValleyEditor. In a world where every Kardashian gets their own Wikipedia entry, contributions made by those in medicine, arts, sciences, math and engineering languish in the dark. Wikipedia serves as an encyclopedia that acknowledges the importance of those in the fields not on TMZ every day. Sites like UCLA/VA Multicampus PM&R Residency Program are available through the world wide web around the world and are helpful for those who may be interested in doing a site visit or are interested in learning more about an important medical fields like physiatry. Thank you.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Katomin (talk • contribs) — Katomin (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • delete well i would flip that around HappyValley. I think the residency program is a good one but I don't know that any residency program could pass NOTABILITY. In any case this is not an encyclopedia article but a webhost page for the program, and we are not a webhost. So fails NOTABILITY and even if it didn't, it needs WP:TNT. Jytdog (talk) 23:24, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 00:36, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. Michig (talk) 07:19, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mulkearns (surname)

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

Seems to be unreferenced original research. In fact, the last sentence concedes that some of the content is unverifiable. Pichpich (talk) 19:57, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:36, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:36, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 00:34, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. Michig (talk) 07:16, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Songs of Zion

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

Based on the coverage I found during my BEFORE, this particular hymnal falls far short of notability under the general notability guideline as well as the more specific guidelines for music and books.  Rebbing  21:25, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions.  Rebbing  22:50, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 00:33, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete--Ymblanter (talk) 07:45, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Den of Geek (magazine)

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

Unreferenced. Promotional Rathfelder (talk) 22:41, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk) 06:30, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. North America1000 12:40, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. North America1000 12:40, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 00:32, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I'm pretty sure this is a reliable source, and I've seen other editors cite it. However, merely being a reliable source isn't good enough, and I don't see the coverage necessary to satisfy WP:NWEB. We already have a redirect at Den of Geek that points to the publisher, so I think deleting this without leaving a redirect would be fine. Also, I'm not sure why it's disambiguated as a magazine when it's a website. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 02:43, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as nothing convincing for solid independent notability. SwisterTwister talk 06:24, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedily deleted by User:Y under criterion A7. (Non-admin closure) "Pepper" @ 15:55, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Www.JobbieCrew.com

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

Lack of significant coverage by reliable third parties. Niteshift36 (talk) 00:27, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - as per nom, this lacks enough coverage to even pass WP:GNG. All sources in the article are from the company website, and I couldn't find anything else. Not much more to say here. GABHello! 00:33, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. North America1000 00:44, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. North America1000 00:44, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2016_May_9&oldid=1142621256"