Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2016 February 13

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 12 February	14 February >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was keep. All high/secondary schools are kept per SO

(non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 01:52, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Darul Huda Islamic University

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

This is not a university but a secondary Madrassah. The organization is not approved/listed by the University Grants Commission, Newdelhi. Prof TPMS (talk) 23:54, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:10, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:10, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It's not a secondary madrassah but a university (with ~~200~~400 graduate students according to its website). Also a member of the Federation of the Universities of the Islamic World [1]. Uanfala (talk) 00:56, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Even if it's not approved by the "University Grants Commission" it still seems notable. --Mr. Magoo (talk) 10:15, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ A madrassah masquerading as a university cannot meet Wikipedia standards. Prof TPMS (talk) 14:30, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Could you demonstrate that? Thanks. Uanfala (talk) 15:21, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

By standard the nominator automatically votes delete so you don't need to add it. --Mr. Magoo (talk) 16:48, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - legitimate university and by long consensus we keep tertiary educational institutions. No reason to think it cannot meet WP:ORG. Just Chilling (talk) 00:39, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES. AusLondonder (talk) 18:50, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
If by "secondary" you mean a kind of Secondary school, i.e. "high school," it would still be a default keep under WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES, so I believe there's a problem with the deletion rationale. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:03, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Appears to be a degree-awarding university, which we keep by longstanding precedent and consensus. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:24, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MelanieN (talk) 00:29, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

FiLTH

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

Fails WP:GNG. No arguments have been given in the last AfD. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 23:01, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:GNG per my comments when I nominated this article at its first AFD, which was closed WP:NPASR No Consensus since no-one else had commented on that AFD. The author has not touched this article in the three months since, confirming my impression that this article was nothing but an attempt to bolster a repeatedly speedied article on the artist who supposedly created this subgenre. Meters (talk) 23:28, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 06:33, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as simply none of this suggests a better applicably notable article. SwisterTwister talk 07:43, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete Joke article. --Mr. Magoo (talk) 10:10, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete Unsourced nonsense. Should have been speedied long ago. sixtynine ^{• speak up •} 01:56, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. Hoax – there is nothing on reputable news media about a person by this name dying a month ago. Just a Reddit/4chan joke in rather poor taste. Super Mario Man ( Talk ) 22:13, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Christian Mootson

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

Wikipedia is not a memorial and no reliable source (it could be a joke). Sismarinho (talk) 21:59, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MelanieN (talk) 00:31, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nu Fetish

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

Poorly sourced neologism / porn quasi-genre fails WP:GNG. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 21:33, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 21:34, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 21:34, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Word-for-word taken from a Urban Dictionary definition, which was written in 2010. The term hasn't really picked up motion since. The sources are from 2011-2012. In addition I were left scratching my head trying to understand what exactly is supposed to be the fetish. --Mr. Magoo (talk) 22:22, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Good point. That's true of the initial article and the remaining first paragraph. I went ahead and removed most of that text and left a copyvio warning on the article creator's page. Would be enough to speedy delete if a paragraph of original research hadn't also been added. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 23:55, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 09:35, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The remaining paragraph wasn't original research -- it was a near verbatim copy of material from one of the references (the deliciouslydeviant cite). It's been removed and there's pretty much nothing left but a short list of links. NewYorkActuary (talk) 23:46, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MelanieN (talk) 00:32, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Katsuhiro Hayashi

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

A non-notable video game composer. A while ago, I created his page just because he had one on the Japanese Wikipedia, but now I've realized he isn't really notable and that the Japanese Wikipedia has different notability guidelines. I can't find any sources indicating notability either, and the page is also near-unsourced. DrDevilFX (talk) 20:31, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 21:40, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 21:40, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Not notable at all. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 00:59, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as currently questionably solidly notable for the applicable notability. SwisterTwister talk 23:54, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, composer working on notable games doesn't make composer notable. Doesn't show up in WP:VG/RS. --Soetermans. T / C 12:25, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete due to the lack of non-trivial coverage from reliable publications. Regards, Yamaguchi先生 (talk) 00:34, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As per nom - lack of sourced notability. -- Hybris1984 (talk) 22:36, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Redirect to Libertarian Party presidential primaries, 2016. --MelanieN (talk) 00:36, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Austin Petersen

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

Subject dosen't appear to meet general notability guidelines as laid out in WP:42. Per WP:NPOL, just being an unelected candidate for office does not automatically confer notability. The sources in the article are all either primary or non-rs. I searched for better sources, and was unable to find evidence of significant coverage of the subject in secondary reliable sources. Ddcm8991 (talk) 19:56, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: A redirect to Libertarian Party presidential primaries, 2016 might be considered as an option, as opposed to outright deletion.--Ddcm8991 (talk) 20:09, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Libertarian Party presidential primaries, 2016. If he wins the Libertarian nomination, that will probably bring him to a level of being notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:24, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Mr Petersen does not conform to the foundation and primary principle of non-aggression stated in the Libertarian Party bylaws, the party platform, the Statement of Principles, and the pledge of non-aggression that all Party members must sign when they join. There is little chance that the Party delegates will nominate him as it will be largely contested. Buncoshark 15:43, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:27, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Conservatism-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:27, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Sources do not demonstrate notability. AusLondonder (talk) 18:31, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect/Merge to Libertarian Party presidential primaries, 2016. Definitely a potential search term, but the current coverage seems minimal. I could see this being recreated in a few months when it's closer to the Libertarian Party convention, when coverage could theoretically increase, or especially if he were to win the party's nomination. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 16:09, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete His biography reads like fan-club style trivia, and is sourced to non-notable/fringe libertarian websites. If he gets or is a serious competitor for the LP nomination, he will be mentioned more prominently by the media, and the page can be created at that point. Right now he isn't notable. Steeletrap (talk) 00:47, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - this is obviously a self-written promo article for a minor candidate, with very little to no reputable sourcing for notability. 68.190.174.4 (talk) 02:16, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect – Barely notable, but he is noteworthy enough to list as a 2016 LP candidate, with non-promotional RS. – S. Rich (talk) 17:57, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Libertarian presidential primaries, 2016. As others have pointed out, he is noteworthy enough to be listed as a candidate on that page, but not notable in his own right per WP:GNG or WP:POLITICIAN. The article seems to be sourced entirely by primary sources and non-RS blogs and cites.--Newbreeder (talk) 16:00, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have put many hours in researching and learning about Wikipedia, so I could make Austin an appropriate page. Austin is certainly notable, he is consistantly in either first or second place in the polls. And his competitor Gary Johnson has a campaign page. I'm a Libertarian. I am just seeking fair coverage of candidates. The Libertarian primaries are next month(March 15) We will be having our first nationally televised debate on Fox Business with John Stossel, and Austin will be on it. If there is something I can do to fix it, let me know. Or could we at least keep his page on here until it is decided whether he is our nominee or not. Hezymundo (talk) 20:54, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Hezymundo: I sympathize, but the difference is that Gary Johnson was a governor for eight years, and had plenty of coverage during that time. He also received a lot of coverage for his 2012 presidential run. It's not necessarily fair, but Wikipedia is supposed to follow the sources, not get ahead of them. Check out WP:GNG and WP:RS for information about what's required here. —Tourchiest ^talk_edits 22:11, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Tourchiest: Thank you for replying. I understand. So after the primaries, IF he were to succeed, I can recreate the page? Also, can I edit the Libertarian Primaries page to include a little biography about him? Neutral of course. Hezymundo (talk) 22:44, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No, Austin Petersen is only "first or second place in the polls" in polls created by Petersen and his few followers. They pack the poll and then advertise while Petersen is ahead. once the other three Libertarian candidates move ahead of Petersen, they abandon that poll and make a new one, giving the illusion that he is ahead, but it's always until they make the poll public. Petersen cannot be the nominee as his opposition to the non-aggression principle calls for censorship of his bid. The Libertarian Party is not officially debating the point right now because they are getting publicity. It will be done during the convention. Buncoshark 23:23, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

That is a lot of speculating, and accusations for a page claiming to be neutral. If you want to debate me personally, please find me on an alternative source. Even on the Wikipedia page for Nap and Libertarians it is cited that it is controversial. Hezymundo (talk) 01:28, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I've already seen the Party bylaw that talks about how Petersen can lose his bid for nomination. The issue here is not whether the NAP is "controversial," but that Petersen is not abiding by Party regulations. My point with you is that those reports about Petersen being ahead in polls is fictitious (see my explanation above). Buncoshark 01:49, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

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

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

The result was no consensus. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:25, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Kallarati

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

Orphan, no info available, no references or external sources to support it. Mondiad (talk) 20:38, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 19:41, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 05:03, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 05:03, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albania-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 05:03, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete at best for now because my searches found nothing better at all. SwisterTwister talk 05:04, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 19:21, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Check out the article in the Albanian wiki. It clearly has a long history. Philafrenzy (talk) 12:38, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Withdrawn by nominator. Only 'delete' !vote has been reversed. (non-admin closure) | Uncle Milty | talk | 16:57, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Tom Murphy (chess player)

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

Not notable at all: amateur chess player (~ 2000 USCF) who doesn't even have an international FIDE rating, let alone being a GM or a national champion (usual notability criteria for chess players)! Sophia91 (talk) 18:26, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn by nominator: Sasata added other references, now has sufficient coverage. Sophia91 (talk) 14:50, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:13, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:13, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:13, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 19:39, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I agree that the article should be deleted. Strawberry4Ever (talk) 21:03, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I've added a few sources that could be used to expand this article (and more could readily be found with a search). While Murphy does not meet the "usual notability criteria for chess players", he meets the general notability for BLP subjects in Wikipedia ("A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject."). Sasata (talk) 16:21, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep only if it can be better improved but if not Draft and userfy until a better article is available. SwisterTwister talk 05:05, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 19:21, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There is sufficient coverage to let this person clear the GNG threshold, but the article needs to incorporate these into the text. Vanamonde93 (talk) 19:32, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as the reason for this nomination seems to be a WP:DIDNOTWIN argument. edtiorEهեইдအီးËეεઈדוארई電子ಇអ៊ី전자ഇī😎 20:28, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- edtiorEهեইдအီးËეεઈדוארई電子ಇអ៊ី전자ഇī😎, I did not AfD it for a "a WP:DIDNOTWIN argument" as you say, just check the history of the page: before Sasata expand it, the article was not something that I would have called "a topic who has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". Good that Sasata have found other sources, because I did not find anything. Sophia91 (talk) 14:32, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I've changed my mind about this after reading Wikipedia's notability guidelines. According to WP:GNG, "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list." Tom Murphy (chess player) passes that test since several articles were written about him. I agree with Sophia91 that Murphy isn't notable as a chess player since he isn't a grandmaster and hasn't won a significant championship. He's a street hustler, as are many other people, and he won the Under 2200 prize at the World Open Blitz Championship, as have many other people. But since multiple news sources wrote human interest stories about him, I now think that makes him notable from a Wikipedia point of view. I agree that the article should be expanded with information from the cited sources. Strawberry4Ever (talk) 14:05, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:20, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mrugesh

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

Non-notable Sanskrit word. Not a distinct Hindu deity; epithet of Kartikeya. Redtigerxyz ^Talk 17:45, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:01, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 19:39, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nothing suggests this is better notable and improvable. SwisterTwister talk 06:47, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 19:20, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Kalasha Awards. Due to low participation, the article may be restored (and thereafter speedily renominated) without prejudice. (non-admin closure) Mz7 (talk) 20:14, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Kalasha Award for Best Lead Actress in Drama

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

Non-notable subject as per Wikipedia standards. I couldn't find any reliable third party coverage. If not a deletion the article should me merged with Kalasha_Awards. Kagundu^{Wanna Chat?} 13:23, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:25, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:25, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Kenya-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:26, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:26, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:26, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 19:29, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Kalasha Awards perhaps at best. SwisterTwister talk 05:09, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 19:20, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. SOFTDELETE per low participation herein. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:29, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

One Above

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

Does not seem to meet WP:BAND guidelines. Article mentions winning an award, however, the link provided does not list him as one of the winners. No proof/resources provided to show just how much of a contributor he is to the writing of these songs. only (talk) 03:17, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 03:25, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as my searches found nothing better aside from a few unfamiliar websites and there's nothing else imaginably better for the applicable notability. SwisterTwister talk 01:20, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Grahame (talk) 02:07, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 19:22, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 19:20, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:20, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

List of programs broadcast by KTN

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

Non-notable list. Should be merged with Kenya_Television_Network if not deleted. Kagundu^{Wanna Chat?} 13:27, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:24, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:24, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Kenya-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:24, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. While "non-notable list" doesn't mean anything here (any more than "non-notable article would), this television network does not appear to have any original notable programming, which makes it far less valuable. All of the notable series listed originated on other networks. postdlf (talk) 23:45, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 19:20, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep perhaps as this may be improvable. SwisterTwister talk 05:25, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 19:20, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - its local programming is expanding. VMS Mosaic (talk) 04:47, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Michig (talk) 11:04, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Brian W. Cordes

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

subject fails notability criteria Drdpw (talk) 18:24, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Drdpw: May I ask in what way, or what specific criteria you claim this does not meet? 331dot (talk) 19:46, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@331dot: Winning a single Competitive eating contest, albeit 5 times, does not equal notability as a competitive eater. Additionally, a Wikipedia search for the contest Cordes has won—the Cheese Eating Nationals—comes up empty, showing that the contest itself is non-notable. Also, the news articles used as citations in the article are from local papers, which shows that that Mr. Cordes's notability is very limited. There are wikipedia articles about several notable competitive eaters; Brian Cordes does not appear (to me at least) to be in the same class of notability as them. Drdpw (talk) 22:13, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:38, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 19:20, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:15, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, cyberdog958^Talk 01:06, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Delete at best and draft & userfy if needed as this is questionably solidly notable article for a solid article. NotifyingDGG for analysis which I know is always beneficial. SwisterTwister talk 03:14, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom. Can't establish notability -- Hybris1984 (talk) 21:43, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:20, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Playrix

(Find video game sources: "Playrix" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · TWL · NYT · WP reference · VG/RS · VG/RL · WPVG/Talk)

Unreliable references. No indication of notability. Township seems to be the only notable game there, and that already has an article. Anarchyte (work | talk) 02:16, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Anarchyte (work | talk) 02:17, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Anarchyte (work | talk) 02:17, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as certainly questionably notable as there is not enough convincing in-depth third-party sources overall. SwisterTwister talk 05:24, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting because the previous AFD was not visible up until now SpinningSpark 18:33, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SpinningSpark 18:33, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 19:19, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a non-notable video game developer failing WP:GNG with no reliable independent in-depth sources, such as WP:VG/RS. Does not meet WP:NCORP and having developer notable video games is WP:NOTINHERITED. AdColony entry doesn't appear reliable and like PR. There's an interview, but it's mainly primary content. Other stuff looks like PR mainly, like [2][3] or all those game press releases. No hits in Russian print magazines. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 23:13, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:25, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Audio Network

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

Poorly sourced article about a company, which has a definite advertorial slant to it and was created by one of its own founders (thus violating WP:COI). The sourcing here is entirely to primary sources and simple namechecks in business directories, with no reliable source coverage in which the company is a subject. As always, Wikipedia is not a free advertising directory — a company does not become entitled to have an article on here just because its own self-published web presence verifies that it exists, but must be the subject of media coverage to earn one. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 00:53, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment While I could easily suggest a delete for reasonings of WP:CORPSPAM, I've have found a couple of reliable articles including this article that show a bit of promise. edtiorEهեইдအီးËეεઈדוארई電子ಇអ៊ី전자ഇī😎😎😎😎😎😎😎😎😎😎😎😎 06:48, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SpinningSpark 18:19, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete at best as the article could be drafted and userfied if improvable but the current article is still questionable. SwisterTwister talk 05:26, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 05:26, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 05:26, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 19:19, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete; only ref I could find is this one, and it reads like a PR statement. FoCuS contribs; talk to me! 19:14, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The article's subject is found to lack the notability required for inclusion. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 02:49, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

AN Games Studio

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

(Find video game sources: "AN Games Studio" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · TWL · NYT · WP reference · VG/RS · VG/RL · WPVG/Talk)

Article topic lacks significant coverage from reliable, independent sources. (?) It had no meaningful hits in a video game reliable sources custom Google search. None of the current sources cover the company in any depth, especially enough to write a reliable article on the topic. There are no worthwhile redirect targets. If someone finds more (non-English and offline) sources, please {{ping}} me. czar 15:11, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. czar 15:11, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. czar 15:11, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Czar: * Keep Incase if you have not noticed reference #6 http://jets.iti.gov.eg/newsDetailView/4385 is a very reliable source especially when it's from an egyptian government website. i mean what reference can be more legit. anyway i contacted the company and they seem happy to cooperate Aelpop (talk) 02:41, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Dear Czar thanks alot for review efforts, this is ahmed fawzy ceo and founder of the company, sorry for any conflict, our game studio is officially recorded @ government, and we have any official papers required for that, we have been also listed on http://www.gamedevmap.com under egypt which is very trusted website for listing official game studios arround the world they also checked official records. If you need any extra official proves such as our studio contracts and governmental papers scan let me know please to send or include as references and I will do with pleasure, you can also make sure our official website is made by me by checking who is angamesstudio.com and you have my official email on my account profile. Thanks a lot mate Engineer.Ahmed.Fawzy (talk) 03:24, 7 February 2016 (UTC) — Engineer.Ahmed.Fawzy (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

(I didn't get your ping—they only send when you sign your post (with four tildes) in the same edit.) The reliable sources guideline has more about what constitutes a reliable source—we don't need official government sources or really popular pages, but news outlets with a reputation for reliability and fact-checking who cover the topic in depth. This is to say that it's not really about cooperation but the type of available sources. We have examples of some such sources at WP:VG/RS, but I've already searched them for your company and didn't find anything. While we're on the subject, please do keep the COI guidelines in mind when editing. We ask editors with financial affiliations to declare their interest on the article's talk page. czar 15:06, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Czar: Thanks for being a good guide. i think the only reason you didn't find anything that the game industry in egypt are just getting started and this something happened years ago globally in other countries. so it won't get the global attention. but the event was a big impact of of course in egypt and was mentioned all over the egyptian media as it appears for example in reference #7 http://egypttoday.com/blog/2013/12/11/apps-that-make-a-difference. this will be the history of the game industry in egypt. which is so important to record at the moment. Aelpop (talk) 19:53, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That may indeed be the case, but WP is a tertiary source that collects reliable, secondary sources on topics. So when a topic such as this does not have significant coverage in multiple reliable, independent sources (?), we have to wait until it does to give it a dedicated article. If, on the other hand, there are enough sources for an article on the Egyptian video game industry, that could be an option, but unless you're able to dig up lots of reliable Egyptian newspaper coverage dedicated to this developer in specific, there likely isn't enough verifiable content to write a full article. czar 19:57, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now at best as none of the current article suggests convincing notability yet. SwisterTwister talk 22:06, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think i can dig up more sources and refrences to cover an article about Egyptian video game industry and how it evovled. Aelpop (talk) 23:14, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

New source from the news i found while digging for the developer http://www.masrdotbokra.com/Story_Details.aspx?StoryID=1013 and a google translation for the page because it's in arabic https://translate.google.com/translate?sl=ar&tl=en&js=y&prev=_t&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.masrdotbokra.com%2FStory_Details.aspx%3FStoryID%3D1013&edit-text= . and i'm working right now to dig up offline source from the newspapers. Aelpop (talk) 16:27, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

New (non-English and offline) source it's a screenshot of one of the egyptian newspapers which wrote about the event. i grabbed it from the facebook account of the journalist who wrote the article Nancy Fares https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=1059921980699943&set=a.275575142467968.85912.100000464520907&type=3&theater. i will include all the new sources in the article as soon as possible and i will keep digging for more. Aelpop (talk) 17:15, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I assume that the page with "ahmed fawzy" in the byline was posted by the other editor in this thread (and it reads like a press release). I don't have any indication about the quality or content of that newspaper photo. czar 14:07, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

in 2015 "an games studio" participated in global game jam, and helped game developers by forming a team form juniors under lead of senior ahmed fawzy, made a game called "What do we do now? (The end of the world)", here is the link of participation account http://globalgamejam.org/users/engahmedfawzy where an games website is mentioned, and link to the game and team formed here http://globalgamejam.org/2015/games/what-do-we-do-now-end-world global game jam is very popular around the world and reliable source

@Engineer.Ahmed.Fawzy: you don't need to put keep on every reply , it's not a vote , this is just a discussion and opinion clarification. and don't forget to sign your posts on this page by adding 4 tilde symbols at the end. about your source nice work but i think news is prefered so focus on news and keep up the good work.feel free to contribute to help improve the article. i recommend you The Wikipedia Adventure to get the basics of editing and writing articles on wikipedia. cheers everybody. Aelpop (talk) 13:23, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Aelpop: ok removed

More for game development history in egypt , minister Atef_Helmy in global game jam 2015 in egypt discuss with AN Games Studio what we do and future of game development https://www.facebook.com/AN.Games.Studio/photos/pb.399729550132545.-2207520000.1455029479./645688855536612/?type=3&theater https://www.facebook.com/AN.Games.Studio/photos/pb.399729550132545.-2207520000.1455029479./645688825536615/?type=3&theater https://www.facebook.com/AN.Games.Studio/photos/pb.399729550132545.-2207520000.1455029479./645688788869952/?type=3&theater https://www.facebook.com/AN.Games.Studio/photos/pb.399729550132545.-2207520000.1455029479./645688772203287/?type=3&theater Engineer.Ahmed.Fawzy (talk) 15:03, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

those are great photos which prove your strong presence in the game development scene in egypt and can light up the article. may i have your permission to add one of them to the article mr ahmed ? Aelpop (talk) 15:24, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Aelpop: sure please do in case it can help Engineer.Ahmed.Fawzy (talk) 15:31, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This is off-topic but the photo's copyright holder (the photographer) needs to give their permission. There are more instructions at Wikipedia:Consent czar 17:06, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Czar: dear czar photos are owned by our studio we have taken during the event and there is no any copy right on it, I really wonder if photos is off topic & world wide map for game studios is not reliable, and all official refernced introduced here that record important events in history of developing game industry in egyptian community all you just comment with not reliable or off topic, it really doesn't make sense to me the ignore to all these references. Anyway I will try to get to here some arabian admins from wiki community they can confirm some of resources written in arabic like newspaper. Thanks anyway for efforts. Engineer.Ahmed.Fawzy (talk) 20:22, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 19:19, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:27, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Simply fails WP:GNG, no reliable sources mention this, at all. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 12:30, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Soetermans:hi, here reliable sources

* world wide map of game companies all over the world

http://www.gamedevmap.com/ -> check egypt

* EgyptToday Webite article mention our winner game (third paragraph) which is hosted under our official google play account

- the news link http://egypttoday.com/blog/2013/12/11/apps-that-make-a-difference/

- game on "AN Games Studio" account link https://play.google.com/store/apps/developer?id=AN+Games&hl=en

* Egyptian information technoligy inistitute talk about same game as winning game (under smartphone apps)

http://jets.iti.gov.eg/newsDetailView/4385

* old article from a girl taking about our demo game, even article is arabic, our studio name is very clear in english

http://forums.fatakat.com/thread4663913

beside sources that was mentioned above in previous replies, it is just the company doesn't have many of english resources but it is not like we haven't at all Engineer.Ahmed.Fawzy (talk) 22:35, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - none of the references qualify as reliable sources or demonstrate that the subject is notable.--Rpclod (talk) 22:53, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~^{[duplicate !vote]} just because none of the regular english western media haven't talk about the company doesn't mean it's not notable , when a country that haven't Witness any kind of 3d video game have been developed on it's land and a company comes to break this state and most of the arabian media,press, and government talk about it. i call this history which should be recorded for humanity and for the future generation of egyptians who would want to know when video games industry started on their country. the english western media won't mention this event simply because it's something happened years ago in their countries so they won't give a damn. most of the english wiki admins blindly won't accept nothing but the western media. that's the reason why most of you wrongly think the references is not reliable. without an arabian admins in this discussion. the egyptian history that should be written will be blindly deleted. Aelpop (talk) 01:11, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

- We're not here to discuss geopolitical issues. And ranting about English western media really won't help your case. Fact of the matter is, is that this game developer is not notable. A forum post by a girl talking about the game? How does that make the developer notable? A link to Google Play is a commercial one, and we all know that are thousands upon thousands of video games to be found there, a fraction of which are notable - and again, doesn't make the developer notable. The only sources that is somewhat reliable is Egypt Today, but that's one source and does not mean the developer has to have an article. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 09:23, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Soetermans: sir, egypttoday is reliable soruce, jest.iti.gov is more reliable source too, most of websites introduced are very popular to all egyptians, im not sure how you just judged egypttoday is , and others not ( what is your criteria ??) is it name of website ?? our locals know this reliable sources very well, and i think Aelpop is not talking about any geopoliticals, he is just focus on importance of recording things as wiki articles do, thanks sir anyway. Engineer.Ahmed.Fawzy (talk) 22:45, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a non-notable video game developer not meeting WP:NCORP and failing WP:GNG with no reliable independent in-depth sources, such as WP:VG/RS. The sources in the article and given above do not pass GNG. A few are likely be reliable, but they are not nearly in-depth. A lot of sourcing discussion above boils down to whether it is reliable, but neglects that it also needs to be both independent and in-depth. Importance and popularity is not relevant to notability. I see no additional search results and I assume all potentially usable non-English sources have already been presented. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 14:42, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Egypt-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:11, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:11, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:11, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Hellknowz: totally dis-agree with non-notable, just try this in google search engine " ahmed fawzy game developer egypt " without quotations, with more than two pages of results all is about ahmed fawzy same person game developer in egypt, thanks mate Engineer.Ahmed.Fawzy (talk) 00:47, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Those hits are not 1) reliable 2) independent and 3) in-depth. That is what "notable" on Wikipedia means. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 00:54, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Hellknowz: actually they are from various resources like linkedin, youtube, egyptian gaming communities, it is only my bad luck to not have english wiki interrest from many people to record such important info, please note

(iti / jets lab) is first reliable game dev educational inistitut in egypt.

gamedev map is a 6 years old reliable source

samsung comptetion recorded videos delivering prizes in 2013 / 2014 twice is very reliable.

photos with communication minister

i'm really tired of explain each time about how this sources are reliable and known in our countries, i really advice not delete if not aware about local reputation here. Engineer.Ahmed.Fawzy (talk) 02:22, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As others has already replied regarding those sources, they are not 1) reliable 2) independent and 3) in-depth. Please actually read what WP:GNG says. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 12:44, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:16, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ritika Singh

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

I don't see the coverage needed to meet WP:GNG. She has no top tier MMA fights so she fails WP:NMMA and there's no evidence she's a notable acress that meets WP:NACTOR. Mdtemp (talk) 21:31, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 22:58, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep there is no nominAtion statement. Offhand the article looks okay. do ncr am 00:39, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

MDTemp's nomination statement was not there when I commented, although time stamps seem to assert it was there.do ncr am 15:09, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"Looks okay" is not a policy based reason for keeping. An IP removed my nomination.Mdtemp (talk) 01:08, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - the actress has appeared in a notable film and her performance has received widespread acclaim for that particular film. Editor 2050 (talk) 01:14, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Added a few more sources. Editor 2050 (talk) 18:17, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Could you document "widespread" by multiple reliable sources? The article just cites one review (Sify). do ncr am 15:13, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep- Certainly meets wiki:GNG , and there are far worst sourced bio's Shrikanthv (talk) 07:57, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that there are worse biographies is irrelevant. See WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Papaursa (talk) 00:09, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete- only one movie because of mixed art, fails WP:NACTOR. Amitbanerji26 (talk) 15:01, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Definitely fails WP:NMMA and with one acting role does not meet WP:NACTOR.Peter Rehse (talk) 15:11, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Irudhi Suttru / Saala Khadoos are the same project yet two different movies - the editing, language spoken and actors are somehow different. Editor 2050 (talk) 18:19, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as questionable for the applicable notability. SwisterTwister talk 06:16, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable as an MMA fighter or actress. Papaursa (talk) 00:09, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Why not as an actress. The reviews on the page itself show the widespread acclaim she has received. Editor 2050 (talk) 19:11, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Because she doesn't meet the notability criteria at WP:NACTOR. She hasn't had major roles in multiple notable films or made "unique, prolific or innovative contributions" to her field. Papaursa (talk) 01:22, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 19:19, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The article's subject is found to not meet the requirements of WP:GNG and is therefore not suitable for inclusion, at this time — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 02:47, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

GradeAUnderA

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

YouTube personality WP:BLP article with no reliable secondary sources found. Tgeairn (talk) 20:09, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete All the sources that are on the page seem to be primary sources, especially a link to his Patreon (really, free advertising?). Not seeing anything outside these sources to show notability. RickinBaltimore (talk) 13:49, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:25, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:25, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I cleaned up the article and added some sources I could find. --Mr. Magoo (talk) 09:28, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 19:18, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete I myself am a fan of his YouTube videos but this article reads terribly, and his name just isn't out in the open - he's only known to the Internet community, for now this is his only claim to fame 172.56.20.240 (talk)
~~Keep~~ Weak Keep I further cleaned up the article and added information from a new interview. At this point I think this meets notability standards. --Mr. Magoo (talk) 13:15, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oh and maybe there should be a revote since this doesn't resemble anything like what the article used to be like. --Mr. Magoo (talk) 13:40, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to allow time for review of new sources added to the article. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:24, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:24, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. He has over a million YouTube subs, and he is very well known on the internet besides YouTube, such as on Reddit. 24.224.195.254 (talk) 23:25, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - At this point, following the work of many, the article has 14 references. None of these individually or in combination meet WP:GNG or WP:WEBCRIT. Specifically: 1) Twitch is self-published content, 2) livecounts is routine reporting (at best, and the ref in the article is broken), 3) tubefilter is closest but does not meet either of WEBCRIT, 4) reddit AMA is not independent of the subject, 5) self-published, 6) upvotes on reddit are not notability, 7) passing quote, 8) article is not about the subject, 9) ???, 10) being nominated in a reddit contest is not notability, 11) about a debate, not about the subject, 12) about a debate, not about the subject, 13) statistical reporting does not confer notability, 14) Yes, another channel exists. --Tgeairn (talk) 00:40, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:02, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Even after a valiant cleanup, the article's subject does not have significant coverage in multiple reliable, independent sources. (?) I verified the source review above, and the secondary sources listed (save for the Daily Dot) either do not discuss the subject in any depth or are unreliable for statements of fact. czar 23:27, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 01:19, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Flamingoes in Orbit

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

Article about a book, which makes no substantive claim of notability besides "book that exists" and is based entirely on WP:PRIMARYSOURCES: the source for the existence of the book is the author's profile on the website of his PR agent, and the sourcing for "two of the stories in it were previously published in multi-author anthologies" is the publication details of one of those anthologies and the Amazon.com sales page of the other. This is not how a book gets a Wikipedia article — it would qualify for one if it could be sourced to reliable source media coverage about the book, but every book that exists is not automatically eligible for a Wikipedia article just because its existence can be verified in primary sources. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 22:44, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: This indicates that Roz Kaveney appraised it in the Times Literary Supplement. It's also had at least two editions in Italian (Fenicotteri in orbita), which makes it seem likely that it would have received some critical reaction there other than the coverage in this article by Danilo Arona. ^~~Hydronium^~Hydroxide^~(Talk)~~ 09:31, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
This book was also reviewed in the New Statesman & Society. I've cited that review in our article. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 11:36, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:01, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:01, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:01, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I've tracked down the TLS review and cited it in the article. That and the New Statesman & Society review have about 300 words each about this book, and, along with the Italian article linked above, I think we have enough to demonstrate notability. 86.17.222.157 (User talk:86.17.222.157talk) 14:05, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 19:18, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep owing to reviews mentioned above Awesomewiki64 (talk) 19:30, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per evidence of coverage (This appears to be an additional Italian source). User:86.17.222.157: If you have access to the full TLS and/or NS&S articles, would you mind adding in something about their reaction so that the article's contents demonstrates the notability of the book (I'm wary of borrowing the TLS quoted material directly from Contemporary Authors). Thanks, ^~~Hydronium^~Hydroxide^~(Talk)~~ 07:24, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, Ebsco shows it was reviewed by Sight & Sound magazine [4]. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:43, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:15, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Robert C. Williams

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

Fails WP:BIO; little depth of coverage in reliable sources. Fails WP:ANYBIO; appears to have made no widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record. Fails WP:POLITICIAN. Magnolia677 (talk) 21:53, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Purely of local interest, with local being a small township in Canada. LaMona (talk) 21:43, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A small township of tens of thousands of people, housing Bramalea, Canada's first satellite city, who had to negotiate its place within Brampton, which quickly became one of Canada's largest cities. -- Zanimum (talk) 14:37, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The sourceability of his role within those negotiations is poor to nonexistent, so that protestation doesn't assist in the slightest. See below. Bearcat (talk) 04:34, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE: While Dr. Williams did not win an Order of Canada, Magnolia677 deleted a variety of Order of Canada redlinks from lists of people for Peel. I posted on his or her talk page that the Order of Canada was the country's second highest civilian honour, implying to him to back off. Regardless of whether this article qualifies as notable, this users should win an "out of spite AfD nomination" barnstar. -- Zanimum (talk) 14:37, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, or at least move to the draft namespace, passes WP:POLITICIAN, he just exists in a pre-Internet age, in a jurisdiction that's been randomly missed by newspaper digitization projects. He was still being quoted by the Toronto Star, Canada's highest circulation newspaper, on topics at least as late as 2003, thirty years after retiring as a politician. -- Zanimum (talk) 14:41, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"Quoted on topics" doesn't make a person suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia in and of itself. It might suggest the possibility that enough coverage of the person in other contexts might exist to make him notable — but giving soundbite in coverage of other topics doesn't make him notable in and of itself, because he isn't the subject of what he's saying. And Brampton is within the local coverage area of the Toronto Star — so it doesn't confer the depth of coverage needed to make a smalltown mayor notable just because coverage exists. Especially not when I've got access to this magic tool called ProQuest, which enables me to determine exactly how much useful pre-Internet sourcing actually exists: I can pull out TorStar sourcing all the way back to 1894 (and no, that's not a typo — I really do mean the 19th century). I'll detail below, but you've massively overstated the case. Bearcat (talk) 04:10, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 19:41, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Draft and userfy at best because this article is still currently questionable. SwisterTwister talk 05:01, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 19:18, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:47, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:47, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, there are these nifty little things called news archive databases, which magically turn pre-internet-era sourcing into internet-accessible sourcing. So per ProQuest, what we've actually got here for "quoted in the Toronto Star in 2003" is (a) a one-line soundbite about his opinion on the location of the Brampton Civic Hospital, and (b) a one-line soundbite about his opinion of the Dufferin—Peel—Wellington—Grey by-election in 2002, where the entire quote from him is "there really hasn't been a hell of a lot to talk about". Neither of these offer any evidence of enduring notability. And for coverage during his career I get just 11 hits, of which one is the presence of his name in an employment ad for a job opening at Chinguacousy's municipal office, and all of the others are pure "smalltown mayor does smalltown mayor things and gets WP:ROUTINE coverage for them in the local newspaper" — none of them offer any real substance to make him more notable than the norm for smalltown mayors. So WP:NPOL #3 has not been passed here, because that criterion cannot just be claimed as true. It must be reliably sourced as true — and the sourceability here simply does not cut it, if ten routine mentions of his name, and no coverage that counts as substantive, in the nearest local daily newspaper is the best I can find. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 04:32, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete because sources are simply not sufficient. But, User:Bearcat, I know that you're inundated with these campaign articles, and maybe you have looked at the track records of the editors weighing in here and know that they are folks who should know better, but let's try to hold the snark. After all, I assume that most editors creating and defending candidate articles are carried away by enthusiasm for a candidate, and participating in an election campaign is an admirable and honorable thing, even when it does lead to the WP equivalent of littering the town with campaign posters.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:33, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well, for the record, this isn't an unelected candidate for office — it's a dead former smalltown mayor who never even attempted a run for higher office that I've been able to locate. The by-election soundbite I alluded to above was not quoting him as a candidate — it was quoting him as a voter and observer (which is even less of a basis for a notability claim than having been a candidate would be). And while I admit that my writing style can be blunt sometimes, I'm not seeing where I crossed any line into "snark" at all. YMMV. Bearcat (talk) 19:43, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. I think the discussion slightly tilts towards "delete," but the current !votes are insufficient to make that determination and we've already gone through two relists in an unsuccessful attempt to invite more comments. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:14, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Magic Car

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

Non-notable band that fails WP:BAND. I don't see any reviews in reliable sources. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 15:53, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: agree with nom. I originally tagged for speedy, but was over-ruled on basis that band had a notable member. I don't find either the band or its putative notable member notable. ubiquity (talk) 17:59, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Late comment: In a separate AfD, the article on Phil Smeeton was deleted. Now the claim cannot be made that the band has a notable member. At this point I think it could be speedied. ubiquity (talk) 22:16, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Musa^Talk ☻ 21:33, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Musa^Talk ☻ 21:33, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Not enough to suggest better satisfying the applicable notability. SwisterTwister talk 01:13, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep found some reviews here, here,here I think passes WP:GNG.Atlantic306 (talk) 01:52, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Neither the band nor the linked member are notable. Sources in previous post don't necessarily establish notability. sixtynine ^{• speak up •} 05:13, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. 3 albums on Tiny Dog Records, coverage from Allmusic, The Independent, Folk World, and summarized on the band's website, reviews from Uncut, NME, The Times, Q, Time Out, MOJO, and Music Week. Clearly satisfies WP:GNG and WP:NMUSIC. --Michig (talk) 10:49, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not convinced. Allmusic is a comprehensive guide to all music, and I don't think it can demonstrate notability. Folk World has an editor listed, but it looks like someone's personal home page from 1995. I'm skeptical that this is a real magazine. The official Magic Car website reports some offline coverage, but I generally don't trust official websites very much. I found an archive of the NME review (and a live version). The live version has very little mention of Magic Car, and boils down to "we never heard of this band before". The review in The Independent seems pretty legit, but I'm worried that if all the coverage is of a shared album, the album is more notable than one band who contributed to it. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 13:39, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Walton (talk) 00:25, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 19:09, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:12, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

BRCache

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

Software library released last year and with a stable release last month. No third-party references, article reads like a library documentation rather than an encyclopedic article. Proposed deletion removed by the article's creator. - Mike Rosoft (talk) 06:35, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 07:09, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete at best as none of this suggests a better notable article. SwisterTwister talk 00:05, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 19:09, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Software article of unclear notability, lacking independent references. A search turned up no significant WP:RS coverage. Article was created by an SPA as possibly promotional. Dialectric (talk) 06:18, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Sotware article of clear unnotability. Most search results are WP mirrors, not even press releases in shady places. Tigraan (talk) 10:12, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. (WP:NPASR). North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:21, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Babymetal World Tour 2014

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

There is no in-depth coverage of this tour (not individual concerts, but tour) that make this notable per WP:NTOUR. It happened, and we know it, and we could possibly have a sentence or two in the main article, but this was not a notable tour. Drmies (talk) 18:34, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Passes notability points and sources are highly valid. Any world tour has to be big, and the venues are arenas which makes it a huge venture. To merge all the information onto the Babymetal article would be too long and too offtopic since it was acknowledging a tour. Choicerpex (talk) 19:05, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I looked at other bands and pretty much all the tours of a big band are seemingly articled separately like this — like their albums or even singles. Doesn't Babymetal have hundreds of millions of views on Youtube? I don't know if the tours really need their own articles but it does seem to be the standard. --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 04:34, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Moscow Connection (talk) 13:43, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Moscow Connection (talk) 13:46, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The sources in the article currently look to be mostly about the DVD release. Google News has a bunch of hits, but the English-language ones don't seem to be too compelling. For example, [5] from The Independent, which is basically just an announcement. There's also [6] from The Guardian, which, at the very bottom of the article, says they're the youngest act to play at Budokan. I don't really think that's enough. I'm a bit reluctant to outright vote to delete, though, because I'm not sure I'd be able to find Japanese coverage. I'd feel better if someone could comment about Japanese sources. Maybe they go more into detail about the Budokan record? NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 00:17, 3 February 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 // 05:29, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 19:09, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:10, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Saint Barbara Tondo

(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)

This is the remainder of a set of four articles created by User:Nyflod on paintings attributed to major artists but not attested to in the usual sort of sources for such things. One of these was deleted (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Actaeon mauled by his hounds) but for whatever reason the other three were never addressed. All four of these were also created on the Italian Wikipedia, and all four have been deleted there. In any case the problem is the same for these as in the first case: it is unconscionable that works by major artists should be hard to document in English. Mangoe (talk) 03:26, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 04:51, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Doubtful if it even exists. If it does, attribution is questionable at best. For an artist whose work is subject of so much scholarly work, and considering the other contributions of Nyflod it seems exceedingly unlikely that this is anything other than a WP:HOAX Mduvekot (talk) 18:22, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 19:09, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Pernom. Arthistorian1977 (talk) 09:50, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:10, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Turtle Beach (Florida)

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

Non-notable geographic location. Magnolia677 (talk) 01:03, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 02:57, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete perhaps although I would've also suggested mentioning at the local community's article. Unlikely serparately notable though, SwisterTwister talk 03:35, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge – to Siesta Key, Florida. The topic has received some significant coverage (e.g. [7], [8]), and the merge target presently only mentions the beach (which I added, diff). This will preserve appropriate content per WP:PRESERVE and improve the merge target article. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:24, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 19:08, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Beaches, like rivers, mountains etc. are natural geographic features, and named ones should fall under WP:GEOLAND which states that such features "are often notable, provided information beyond statistics and coordinates is known to exist." This seems to be the case here. Americanfreedom (talk) 01:43, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep or at least Merge with redirect. Appears to be notable at least locally. VMS Mosaic (talk) 04:54, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. czar 23:19, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Queen of the South (film)

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

This movie was never made, see this Variety article. Dark Cocoa Frosting (talk) 14:46, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Dark Cocoa Frosting (talk) 14:50, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep and rename~~ Delete as Queen of the South (TV series). It was made into a 2011 TV series by Telemundo in Miami, Florida. The Spanish article is La reina del sur (telenovela). And one reason we know about this, is because copies of the series DVDs were found when drug king El Chapo was captured last month. The series actress Kate del Castillo was in contact with El Chapo, who is a big fan of both the actress and the series. Currently, an English language version of the series is being filmed in Dallas, Texas for the USA Network. Deadline Hollywood Jan 22, 2016, Central Track Feb 3, 2016. — Maile (talk) 18:26, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: If you are suggesting to have an English wikipedia article about the 2011 Telemundo telenovela, here it is: La Reina del Sur (telenovela). I don't see any connection between the telenovela and the announced movie (actors, executive producers, production companies, etc. all differ) other than both being based on the same book, so I don't see why those should be merged. –Dark Cocoa Frosting (talk) 19:00, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for that link. I wasn't suggesting a merge. I was suggesting a renaming for a separate article on the USA network series being filmed. Like you, I don't find anything that it was actually made as a movie. But WP:BEFORE we do an actual delete, perhaps we should consider just the renaming. The USA network series has been in the works since 2015, so maybe it would be more prudent to just rename/transform this article for the USA network series.— Maile (talk) 20:26, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The upcoming USA Network Queen of the South (TV series) also has its own article, and is not based on the film either.–Dark Cocoa Frosting (talk) 20:30, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That being the case, I struck my Keep and am now Delete. — Maile (talk) 20:34, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Given the Variety article, this looks like this should be at best a mention in another related article. edtiorEهեইдအီးËეεઈדוארई電子ಇអ៊ី전자ഇī😎 01:28, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Content is mergeable in the Jonathan Jakubowicz page. Cavarrone 20:25, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 19:08, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:18, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - the subject movie was never released and apparently nobody cares except this article.--Rpclod (talk) 23:00, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:01, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:09, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

M. Alison Atkins

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

Article is about a seemingly unknown artist who, by the author's own admission, "little is known about her private or professional life", exhibited only locally and "was not recorded as a member of the Society of Women Artists". Article is cited only to birth/death notices and original research in archival records. Talk page is filed with speculation and guesswork. The list of known works show no evidence she was prolific or well known either. I don't know the motives of the author here (a relative? a west London art lover? art dealer?) but this simply doesn't show any evidence of notability therefore failing WP:GNG and WP:ARTIST. Sionk (talk) 11:01, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 15:11, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 18:09, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 19:06, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The Talk page contains interesting suggestions on possible ways that more may be discoverable about this person, but a research and discovery process belongs elsewhere than Wikipedia which should be merely presenting verified results. As things stand, I see nothing to indicate that the subject's accomplishments amount to any more than the many other illustrators and exhibitors; fails WP:ARTIST, WP:GNG. AllyD (talk) 08:27, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete regrettably she does not seem to have been noted by anyone. The little information here can be easily recovered if adequate sources are ever found that show her to have been notable. Philafrenzy (talk) 14:09, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy deleted as A7 by Od Mishehu clpo13_(talk)

Klajdi Abdullai

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

Notability not established per WP:BIO ~Pesco^{So say•we all} 18:57, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:25, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albania-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:25, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. czar 23:16, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Development Cafe

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

I couldn't establish that it meets WP:ORG or WP:GNG. Boleyn (talk) 18:50, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I also was not able to find the needed in-depth coverage from independent reliable sources to establish notability. The author was also informed of the problem but has not been able to provide the needed references.--Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 19:49, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:47, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Kenya-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:48, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:18, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:GNG. Reliable independent sources have not been provided and could not be found. Johanna^{(talk to me!)} 02:19, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. Speedy deleted by Randykitty, multiple reasons: speedy deletion criteria CSD A7, CSD G11. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 19:15, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Bharti Shriji

AfDs for this article:

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

Pure advertisement, but previous afd gave no consensus. The only one saying keep in that discussion was a now-banned sockpuppet DGG ( talk ) 17:09, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Reads like a puff piece and subject lacks any significance. Meatsgains (talk) 17:45, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete likely as this is still questionable for the applicable notability guidelines and the history will show how troubled this article has been. Notifying the only still active AfDer Green Cardamom. SwisterTwister talk 17:46, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It is just an advertisement. Abesam (talk) 00:20, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and perhaps salt. Pure spam. Safiel (talk) 04:47, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. This is a WP:Soft delete; the article may be restored by any administrator upon request. MelanieN (talk) 04:08, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Bong-Ra

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

Article topic lacks in-depth, significant coverage from reliable, independent sources. (?) The closest it got was this three-sentence biography in a custom Google search of reliable music sources. No other sources to use from its articles on other language Wikipedias. There are no worthwhile redirect targets. If someone finds more (non-English and offline) sources, please {{ping}} me. czar 15:59, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. czar 16:08, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless better convincing Dutch sources can be found as this current article is currently still questionable for the applicable notability and the Dutch Wiki has nothing better. SwisterTwister talk 23:53, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:17, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:00, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:21, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. This is a WP:Soft delete; the article can be restored by an administrator upon request. MelanieN (talk) 04:07, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Xanopticon

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

Article topic lacks in-depth, significant coverage from reliable, independent sources. (?) The closest it got was listings in a custom Google search of reliable music sources. There are no worthwhile redirect targets. If someone finds more (non-English and offline) sources, please {{ping}} me. czar 15:50, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. czar 15:50, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as currently questionable for the applicable notability. SwisterTwister talk 23:52, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:17, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:58, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:21, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Uncontested. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 02:09, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mawlana Rumi Review

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

Non-notable journal. Not indexed in any selective databases, no independent sources. Does not meet WP:NJournals or WP:GNG Randykitty (talk) 15:45, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:04, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 01:11, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete—Checked to see if WP:GNG was a possibility. I'm not seeing any writing about this journal in the usual places. Lesser Cartographies (talk) 07:58, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:17, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:20, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Don't see how that one is remotely notable. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 13:19, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. Uanfala (talk) 22:04, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. Uanfala (talk) 22:04, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sarahj2107 (talk) 09:32, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Bachana Arabuli

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Giorgi Kulua

Articles for deletion/Bachana Arabuli

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

This article was previously nominated for deletion here, and closed no consensus without prejudice to speedy renomination due to bundling issues. The underlying notability concerns remain however. Arabuli has not played in a fully pro league or received significant coverage, meaning the article fails WP:NSPORT and WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik (talk) 15:30, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 15:30, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Georgia (country)-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:15, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete has not played in a fully pro league.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:02, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 19:56, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails NFOOTY as has not played senior international football nor played in a fully professional league. No indication that subject has garnered significant reliable coverage for any other achievements to satisfy GNG. Fenix down (talk) 12:18, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep/Comment - a user in the previous discussion said that this source shows that the Umaglesi Liga is professional. I did very slight research and found mixed results. If the Umaglesi Liga is found to be professional than the article should be kept, if not than article should be deleted. Inter&anthro (talk) 14:01, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think you are confused between the notion of a professional league, one in which there is a degree of remuneration, where some teams may pay their players sufficient that they do not need other employment, and a fully professional league, where the level of financing in the competition as a whole is such that essentially all first team players are full-time. I don't think there is any doubt that there are elements of full professionalism within georgian football. The doubt remains whether the league is fully professional given the level of attendances amongst other statistics and comments in sources. Fenix down (talk) 14:29, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The only confusion here is that of the football wikiproject groupthinkers who believe that such a thing as a "fully professional league" actually exists anywhere in the world, and, even if it did exist, whether it bears any relationship to actual notability. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 21:39, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry that you seem to confuse consensus with group think,. You probably ought to review WP:FPL then as there are plenty of sources there which confirm the fully professional nature of a large number of leagues. As always, GNG trumps any subject-specific guidelines, so perhaps rather than popping into AfDs to post bitter comments, you might find your time more productively spent trying to find sources to satisfy GNG, it would certainly be morehelpful to the wider project. Fenix down (talk) 09:29, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There are problems with doing that. Firstly I don't read Georgian - it has a beautifully looking alphabet but I'm afraid I can't make any sense of the language, so can't make a stab of getting anything out of these potential sources. The other problem is that deletion discussions for any footballer outside the major European footballing nations always start with the same few editors claiming that they don't meet WP:GNG, but without saying what evidence thay base that statement on. Maybe Sir Sputnik and GiantSnowman could tell us what steps they made to determine that this player does not meet WP:GNG, which is the usual way that deletion discussions on other topics are conducted. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 21:38, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:09, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The issue appears to primarily be whether the league is fully professional or not. If someone can read Georgian and is interested in this AfD, I recommend reading the discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Football/Fully_professional_leagues#Georgian_Umaglesi_Liga, visiting the site listed by FkpCascais, and updating the list of known fully professional leagues to reflect the appropriate status of the Umaglesi Liga. To avoid further controversy, please consider posting (at the above-linked discussion) an English translation of the applicable paragraph(s) from the Georgian football regulations.--Rpclod (talk) 12:12, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:58, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:58, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Therein lies the problem. The anglocentric football notability criteria make the issue whether the league is fully professional or not, rather than recognise that this player has played ten matches for the most successful football team in Georgia, and so is, from any sensible standpoint, more notable than someone who has played ten matches for the 92nd most successful team in England. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 20:16, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:39, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - While Umaglesi Liga is the top league in the Republic of Georgia, it is not on the list of fully-professional leagues, and thus cannot be used to meet the current requirements of WP:NFOOTY. Arabuli has not played for the Georgia national football team and has not appeared to garner enough significant independent coverage to meet WP:GNG — Jkudlick • t • c • s 20:57, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The question is whether the current requirements of WP:NFOOTY are fit for purpose. Does anyone really believe that someone who has played ten matches for York City, a perfectly respectable team but not a particularly successful one, should be presumed notable but not someone who has played 10 matches for Dinamo Tbilisi, by far Georgia's most successful team and one of the top teams in the former Soviet Union? Can we please base the discussion on real life rather than wikilawyering? 86.17.222.157 (talk) 20:16, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:17, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Suburban Secrets (film)

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

Fails NFILM and the GNG. No assertion of notability. No independent reliable sourcing (all references are to the video itself. PROD tendentiously removed without explanation or article improvement by the usual suspect.) The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by administrators since 2006. (talk) 15:09, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:30, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:32, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:32, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Due diligence:

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

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

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

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

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

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

KEEP per due diligence showing this not-porn but adult-themed sexploitation film by Joseph W. Sarno as just meeting WP:GNG and WP:NF. Was really quite easy to find authored reviews at DVD Verdict. 10k Bullets, Exploitation Retrospect, Plume Noire, and others.[9] I politely remind that since a topic's notability is found through sources being available, used or not, no article ever has to specifically say "I am notable because". This simply needs editorial attention, and not deletion for a lack. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 19:11, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:17, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per MichaelQSchmidt. --do ncr am 00:28, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

And MichaelQSchmidt expanded the article, including adding a "Reception" section with multiple reviews, and I added a bit from Sarno's 2010 NYT obituary. Wherever the article was before, it is now clearly over the "Keep" line IMHO. --do ncr am 20:16, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep subject of the article meet WP:GNG and WP:NF. Another nomination with a complete lack of WP:BEFORE. Many thanks to Sir. Michael for this diligent work. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 10:31, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. czar 20:05, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Chubby Pixel

(Find video game sources: "Chubby Pixel" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · TWL · NYT · WP reference · VG/RS · VG/RL · WPVG/Talk)

Fails WP:GNG. A quick Google search does not bring up any reliable sources. Having one game in a Humble Bundle does not mean developer is notable. Soetermans. T / C 15:07, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 15:48, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 15:48, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as an unnotable company. Anarchyte (work | talk) 08:46, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Anarchyte (work | talk) 08:47, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a non-notable video game company failing WP:GNG with no reliable independent in-depth sources, such as WP:VG/RS. Having released notable games is WP:NOTINHERITED. WP:NCORP doesn't prescribe any exemptions either. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 13:54, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This isn't Steam edtiorEهեইдအီးËეεઈדוארई電子ಇអ៊ី전자ഇī😎 01:35, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Chubby Pixel games have been featured on a lot of important websites such as IGN Italy http://it.ign.com/woodle-tree-pc/64626/review/woodle-tree-super-mario-3d-land-per-pc, Game FAQS http://www.gamefaqs.com/pc/805522-woodle-tree-adventures, PC Rating https://pcmrating.com/games/woodle-tree-adventures, Nintendo Enthusiast http://nintendoenthusiast.com/interview/woodlee-tree-adventures-inspired-nintendo-90s-sm64-particular/, Spaziogames http://www.spaziogames.it/recensioni_videogiochi/console_multi_piattaforma/14905/woodle-tree-adventures.aspx, Moreover, the game requires a description in the Humble Bundle games lists https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Humble_Bundles MalboMX —Preceding undated comment added 09:13, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. GameFAQs, PC Rating, Nintendo Enthusiast and Spaziogames are not a WP:VG/RS, even if you would consider them to be "important". Wikipedia cannot be the source for itself. There can still be a description of the game in the Humble Bundle games list, even without an article. IGN is a reliable source, but IGN Italy isn't listed at WP:VG/RS either. --Soetermans. T / C 11:37, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I just noticed this is the deletion discussion for the developer. You have to prove WP:GNG for the developer here, not the game. --Soetermans. T / C 11:39, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails the WP:GNG. The collection of sources provide so are either not what Wikipedia considers reliable and/or not significant coverage about the company itself. Sergecross73 msg me 15:22, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:37, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as this seems too soon and there's nothing to suggest better independent notability. SwisterTwister talk 21:18, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails GNG. Philafrenzy (talk) 11:42, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:08, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Woodle Tree Adventures

(Find video game sources: "Woodle Tree Adventures" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · TWL · NYT · WP reference · VG/RS · VG/RL · WPVG/Talk)

Fails WP:GNG. A quick Google search does not bring up WP:VG/RS, only Metacritic. Soetermans. T / C 15:04, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete I was able to find this magazine review, but the notability of the game and the company who made it is still questionable. edtiorEهեইдအီးËეεઈדוארई電子ಇអ៊ី전자ഇī😎 20:26, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a non-notable video game failing WP:GNG with no reliable independent in-depth sources, such as WP:VG/RS. I see some directory entries, but nothing substantial. I'm unsure above the above source -- the magazine is self-published and I cannot find any editorial information. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 22:51, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The game has been featured on a lot of important websites, such as IGN Italy http://it.ign.com/woodle-tree-pc/64626/review/woodle-tree-super-mario-3d-land-per-pc, Game FAQS http://www.gamefaqs.com/pc/805522-woodle-tree-adventures, PC Rating https://pcmrating.com/games/woodle-tree-adventures, Nintendo Enthusiast http://nintendoenthusiast.com/interview/woodlee-tree-adventures-inspired-nintendo-90s-sm64-particular/, Spaziogames http://www.spaziogames.it/recensioni_videogiochi/console_multi_piattaforma/14905/woodle-tree-adventures.aspx, PC Gaming Wiki http://pcgamingwiki.com/wiki/Woodle_Tree_Adventures . On Arstechnica The game was one of the most popular games #152 on Steam in 2014 http://arstechnica.com/gaming/2015/03/steam-gauge-measuring-the-most-popular-steam-games-of-2014/3/ . Moreover, the game requires a description in the Humble Bundle games lists https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Humble_Bundles MalboMX
Comment (copied from my reply at other deletion discussion) GameFAQs, PC Rating, Nintendo Enthusiast and Spaziogames are not a WP:VG/RS, even if you would consider them to be "important". Wikipedia cannot be the source for itself. There can still be a description of the game in the Humble Bundle games list, even without an article. IGN is a reliable source, but IGN Italy isn't listed at WP:VG/RS either. WP:POPULARITY is not synonymous with notability (and don't think being the 152nd most played game in 2014 on Steam is any indicator of popularity to begin with). --Soetermans. T / C 11:43, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Yes, but Ars Technica is listed in the Video Game Sources of Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Video_games/Sources with over 100.000 copies sold on Steam and 500.000 active players. The game is on GiantBomb too http://www.giantbomb.com/woodle-tree-adventures/3030-46675/, furthermore it's not possible to add description on the Humble Bundle games list, so a proper page should be necessary MalboMX

[10] is probably good, but none of the others are. The sources for GNG need to be 1) reliable, 2) independent, and 3) in-depth. Not one or two, but all three. Only IGN IT fits this assuming we consider non-English version of IGN reliable. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 13:17, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Article topic lacks significant coverage from reliable, independent sources. (?) I'd give my benefit of the doubt to the Italian IGN and Spazio sites, but I know little about their editorial standards. Still, the rest is unreliable (or mentioned in passing) and there isn't enough coverage to write an article. There are no worthwhile redirect targets. If someone finds more (non-English and offline) sources, please {{ping}} me. czar 20:11, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:07, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jake Bass

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails PORNBIO and the GNG: no qualifying awards, no independent reliable sourcing. Virtually all content is promotional and/or drawn from promotional sources. PROD tendentiously removed without explanation or article improvement by the usual suspect. Prior AFD dealt with a different person of the same name. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by administrators since 2006. (talk) 15:02, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:29, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:31, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:31, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails PORNBIO without award wins. Lacks significant reliable source coverage to satisfy GNG. No reliably sourced biographical content in the article. No independent reliable source coverage found in independent searches. • Gene93k (talk) 20:01, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Undue attention from promotional sources to be expected of non-notable, non-significant Western porn actors. Esquivalience ^t 00:52, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails current notability guidelines, per nom. Cavarrone 20:48, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails everything. Spartaz ^Humbug! 07:30, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. and will rename as suggested DGG ( talk ) 18:07, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Roman Iron Age

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

This is an unusual use of the term "Roman Iron Age" and I can't source it to Oscar Montelius or I'd redirect it. As a term or phrase used by Montelius it doesn't seem in any way notable. Doug Weller talk 15:01, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 15:47, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There does appear to be some support in the literature for considering the Iron Age in Northern Europe as consisting of both a pre-Roman Iron Age and a Roman (influenced) Iron Age. See Human Sacrifice in Iron Age Northern Europe: the Culture of the Bog People, google snippets at Local Societies in Bronze Age Northern Europe and Roman Reflections: Iron Age to Viking Age in Northern Europe. If kept, moving to Roman Iron Age in Northern Europe might be appropriate. As it is currently unsourced and I don't have access right now to the sources needed to update it, I can't in good conscience !vote keep. 24.151.10.165 (talk) 17:05, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Roman Iron Age in Northern Europe ("N" or "n"?), which is the subject here; ie the Iron Age of the lands north of (and during) the Roman Empire but obviously much influenced by it. But the present title is crazy, at least in English - it may be common in books in the local languages, as searches on eg the Norweigian/Danish "Romersk jernalder" suggest. Johnbod (talk) 17:08, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:19, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:16, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to Roman Iron Age in northern Europe per johnbod. In England the Iron Age ended with the Roman invasion in AD 43. In Scotland (which was never permanently conquered) the Iron Age continues until the arrival of Christianity in about the 6th century. In Ireland similarly, the next period is Early Christian. If the term "Roman Iron Age" is used for the period in north Germany (and northwards) when it was influenced by Roman culture and trade from the south and west, we should retain the term, but it needs a qualifier, as its use seems to be limited in geographic scope. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:58, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with the suggestion that the page should be renamed for clarity, not deleted. The page on the "pre-Roman" iron age has several sources (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pre-Roman_Iron_Age) which may be of use in sourcing information on this page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.100.196.224 (talk) 06:18, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Considering that the nominator was blocked for this nomination, it's difficult to consider their view a good faith assessment of notability, and there is too little discussion by others to establish consensus. Can still be editorially merged or redirected if desired and if there's editorial consensus for that. Sandstein 22:33, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Vitelcom

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

Lack of sources. No notability as no books and no newspaper talking about this brand. Pizzole (talk) 13:08, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note that the nominator removed the sources from the article and complained here of "lack of sources". I've reinstated the sources without any comment on their suitability for determining notability, and I offer no opinion on whether the article should be deleted or kept. I have also blocked the nominator for continuing with personal attacks in retaliation for having one of their articles nominated at AFD, after a previous block for the same thing expired. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:31, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:08, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:08, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep or merge - I created this article about 10 years ago when the company was creating a bit of a stir with the Grundig Mobile brand (which has its own article). It could be merged with Grundig Mobile or perhaps both those articles could be merged into Grundig (although they were only ever a licensed brand). I do note that I recently nominated an article by Pizzole for deletion. Here are a couple of additional references:

Shritwod (talk) 14:16, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Poor sources, no clear indication of notability. The nomination should not be judged on the behavior of the nominator.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:29, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:15, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:15, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:07, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mikael Ljungman

AfDs for this article:

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

Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Mikael_Ljungman especially User:Bishonens comment [1] Govindaharihari (talk) 20:25, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Nothing quite meets WP:GNG criteria. Subject was a political candidate, but not elected. Subject contributed money to some political campaigns. Subject was involved with a company that was involved in a more famous company. Subject committed a crime.--Rpclod (talk) 20:54, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

References 1, 14, 15, 16 are patents, many duplicates, which give no indication of notability. References 2, 4, 6, 20, 27-31, 34-36, 39, 41-44, 46 all relate to the subject's prosecution and conviction for fraud and several are duplicates. Reference 45 only peripherally mentions the subject. Reference 3 is a twitter profile which gives no indication of notability. References 5, 12, 17, 18, 25, 32, 33, 37 are dead links. References 7 & 8 are identical and indicate that the subject was a Christian Democrat candidate, which gives no indication of notability. Reference 9 indicates that he is a criminal and a candidate. References 10 & 11 merely list the subject among other contributors. References 13, 21, 22, 23, 24, 26, 38, 40 do not list the subject at all. Reference 19 relates to a (failed) relaunch of Gizmondo in 2008. There is not enough here to meet notability standards. The subject was involved in a fraud that was covered in Danish press. He was also an unsuccessful politician.--Rpclod (talk) 01:57, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - What's more, he doesn't have a Wikipedia entry in Danish or Swedish. If he's not notable enough to be written up in his home country, the place where all his business dealings and legal issues took place, he can't possibly merit inclusion in English Wikipedia. Add to that the amount of grief the edit wars over this puny article have generated and it's clear that it's not worth the effort to keep. Grifter84 (talk) 10:53, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There is some material for notability. Very hard though to reach consensus.Tore N Johansson (talk) 15:03, 6 February 2016 (UTC) — Tore N Johansson (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Keep -- even in reduced form [11], without the spammy primary references, it's clear there are enough sources to meet a basic notability standard. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 21:47, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The nominator flattered me by referring to my earlier comment here, and yes, I don't think the subject is notable. The only thing that I can find reliabe third-party sources about is the criminal record, especially in relation to the parliamentary candidacy, so that's what the article needs to focus on if it's to be kept. But I don't think it should be kept: I call out, as typical tabloid exaggeration for effect, the claim in the Aftonbladet reference[12] that Ljungman is such a well-known financial criminal. (I live in Sweden and follow the news, and I had never heard of him.) Aftonbladet tends to be sensationalist (see the criticism section of our article on it), and also has a political angle. It's part owned by the Swedish Trade Union Confederation, which appoints the paper's political editor. The Christian Democrats party, on whose election ticket Mikael Ljungman was a candidate, are unlikely to get good press in Aftonbladet. It's all in the day's work for them to emphasize that the CD party has a 'notorious' criminal in their ranks — especially at the time of the run-up to an election. We should be aware that this source has an interest in aggrandizing the criminal fame of Ljungman.

Mikael Ljungman was created as a promotional stub in 2008 by User:Truthmaker1. Two SPAs with equally promotional/whitewashing agendas have since been blocked as socks of Truthmaker1. Now there's a fourth SPA account editing the article, User:Tore N Johansson very much like them. (He's !voting Delete above; I formated your !vote for better visibility, Tore, hope you don't mind.) Yes, this article is more trouble to keep clean than it's worth. That's not a formal reason for deletion (my formal reason is lack of notability), but it weighs with me. Bishonen | talk 17:15, 6 February 2016 (UTC).[reply]

Delete per arguments of Grifter84 and Bishonen. Failing that reduce to a stub, but I don't see much hope for keeping the stub in a sensible state while the SPA is involved. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 19:22, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
if you look at and remove the now blocked accounts, the result last time was a clear delete - Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Mikael_Ljungman_(2nd_nomination) Govindaharihari (talk) 20:07, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, the article suffers from periodic attempts at whitewashing, but according to Aftonbladet, Ljungman is Sweden's best-known financial criminal, with significant media coverage in Aftonbladet, realtid.se, Berlingske and other reputable news sources. I do not think we should let the SPAs determine whether we can maintain an article on the subject. If necessary, protection and/or blocks of those engaged in worsening the article are more suitable options than just giving up and letting the SPAs destroy the page on a notable subject. Huon (talk) 09:18, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The sourcing looks good enough for WP:GNG and WP:BLP, they cover more than one event (so there's no issue with WP:BIO1E) and the long-term nature of the coverage of his misdeeds is enough to meet WP:PERP. The special pleading above that we should ignore mainstream national-newspaper level sources because he has attracted political enemies (what politician doesn't?), because the newspapers have a bias (what newspaper doesn't?) or because his misdeeds were too sensational doesn't sway me. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:49, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep perhaps as this seems convincingly enough. SwisterTwister talk 06:15, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:43, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:43, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:43, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:43, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 12:29, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Sufficient sourcing to meet WP:GNG AusLondonder (talk) 18:38, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:GNG which is meets.BabbaQ (talk) 23:17, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:02, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

2015 New Year's attack plots

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

No evidence of notability. A collection of terrorism arrests and alleged offences. No actual attack or incident. WP:NOTNEWS. AusLondonder (talk) 01:55, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note Invalid reason for nomination to AFD. Plots of many kinds have articles, failed terrorist plots have many articles. Nom appears unaware that is a plot gains sufficient attention, it can be notable. E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:48, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. FallingGravity (talk) 02:34, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. FallingGravity (talk) 02:35, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. ~~WP:SYNTHESIS of various news reports and~~ fails WP:NEVENT's lasting impact and continued coverage criteria. - HyperGaruda (talk) 06:48, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. ansh 666 07:06, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. ansh 666 07:06, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - while at least some have been covered together as related incidents (e.g. CNN), it doesn't seem to meet WP:NEVENT by itself; the content would probably be better off as small addendums on ISIL-related pages rather than as its own standalone page. ansh 666 07:08, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge to an article which includes all (unsuccessful) plots. ansh 666 21:59, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and expand. It is simply another of the large number of articles on foiled terrorist plans. These four foiled plans could, of course, each be given an independent article. Sourcing for that exists. It merely seemed efficient to group them this way. This is not WP:SYNTHESIS because as these attacks were being reported, the others were mentioned: NBC; The Independent; Sydney Morning Herald. I could fill this page with major news media covering these attack plots as a group. The Atlantic The question (for editors who do a proper search for sourcing), is whether to keep this as one article or as four.E.M.Gregory (talk) 11:17, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete – this summary style of putting four practically unrelated attack plots together on the basis of their date isn't appropriate. If these four incidents shared a direct common thread (such as a single mastermind trying to make co-ordinated attacks), then I'd try to make a WP:GNG judgement; but since they don't, I'm simply going to say that the style is unencyclopedic and an article of this title will not be appropriate. Aspirex (talk) 03:03, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Except, of course, that they were all ISIS-related. Please do not make misleading and untrue statements like "practically unrelated" at AFD.E.M.Gregory (talk) 23:56, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No, I disagree entirely. "ISIS-inspired" is a broad category which merely describes the ideology of the individuals involved. As per my example, unless there was a direct link such as common plotters attempting to make a series of co-ordinated attacks, then I maintain that the events are in all practical aspects (using practical by its precise definition "based on practice or action rather than theory or hypothesis" rather than practically's informal definition "almost completely") unrelated. Aspirex (talk) 00:32, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

With apologies for having started an article and not gotten back to expand it, I just did a few small improvements and will be back to do more. Notability is gauged, of course, by available sources, sources are available, and, as I often suggest and often do with article sI find at AFD, when an article's notability is clear and sources are available, it is a better use of editor time ot improve the article.E.M.Gregory (talk) 01:44, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and expand. per E.M Gregory reasoning as well. This article is notable, good sourcing etc. Improvements has been made as well since nomination. all ISIS related as previous statements.BabbaQ (talk) 12:23, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge into article that lists planned ISIS attacks foiled, today one such incident occurred [13]. Spirit Ethanol (talk) 13:21, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- That's a good point. As far as I can see, there isn't an article which lists attacks and/or planned/foiled plots by ISIL; maybe there should be. ansh666 00:11, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - I'd support that in principle. There's no way all of these individual non-attacks should have their own pages, but a chronological list of foiled attacks would serve a similar function to an article like List of Palestinian rocket attacks on Israel,_2016 and would be an effective means of hosting the content. Aspirex (talk) 05:46, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    - I support creation of such an article, ~~merging~~ linking this material to it.(article creator)E.M.Gregory (talk) 13:42, 9 February 2016 (UTC) see belowE.M.Gregory (talk) 15:17, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      - I renamed article per discussion above to List of unsuccessful plots by ISIL, AusLondonder (talk · contribs), nominator, reverted. not sure how to move forward. Spirit Ethanol (talk) 14:23, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Pages in deletion discussions generally shouldn't be moved, especially so drastically. AusLondonder (talk) 14:49, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

We close the discussion, then move the page.E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:20, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closing editor. I think we have reached a consensus and can close this page as merge/ move to List of unsuccessful plots by ISIL, a much-needed page.E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:20, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There is no consensus yet. Far from it actually.--BabbaQ (talk) 16:00, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE there is an open move request at talk:2015 New Year's attack plots -- 70.51.200.135 (talk) 01:18, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

We can not have a AfD discussion ongoing and a move request at the talk page at the same time. Why does people never learn.BabbaQ (talk) 16:00, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 12:26, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep/merge: After users have worked hard to add more information and references to this article, please tell me why on earth this doesn't meet Wikipedia's general notability guidelines? I don't see any reason to delete. Philmonte101 😊😄😞 (talk) 19:27, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note Support expressed by User:Aspirex, (perhaps Nate would also agree) at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/January 2016 Paris police station attack (2nd nomination) to rename that article into this one while merging both pages in to a new article with Spirit Ethanol's proposed title List of unsuccessful plots by ISIL.E.M.Gregory (talk) 10:58, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- comment edited to remove strange formatting issue ansh 666 21:58, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, the merging proposal is not appropiate, as in this case possible attack plots on New Year's Eve are the subject of the article, in the case of the Paris police station incident a failed attack, that received widespread media attention in connection with the migrant crisis and the discussion about a possible terrorist influx along with the migrants.--Gerry1214 (talk) 14:17, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I am persuaded by the arguments made by User:Gerry1214, User:Philmonte101 and by User:BabbaQ that the article should not be merged into List of unsuccessful plots inspired or directed by ISIL but should, rather be linked from that list and kept (iVote) above.E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:17, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, (edit: or merge) clear WP:SYNTH this is a collection of tangentially-related news stories grouped together via synthesis, with no coverage making any connection between them at all. Additionally, it fails WP:NEVENT; the coverage that does exist has no depth and no duration. Bunching a list of several barely-notable news reports together to try and produce an article that will stick falls afoul of WP:NOTNEWS as well. --Aquillion (talk) 19:21, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User:Aquillion I challenge you; I do not see at all any reason that this topic would not be notable. The events were covered in several news articles even after the events happened. This is why I suggested to merge into List of unsuccessful plots by ISIL; in order to keep overly critical editors like yourself from blaming it on WP:SYNTHESIS. Philmonte101 😊😄😞 (talk) 20:56, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User:Aquillion References: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12. By reading down that list, you can go ahead and assume that this article is notable; or at least its content is. I am highly in support of a merge! Philmonte101 😊😄😞 (talk) 20:58, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't actually be opposed to a merge, since I feel that the standard for a sentence or two mentioning something on that article is lower than the standard for giving it its own article. They're synthesis here because putting them together like this carries the implication that there was a coordinated wave of New Years' attack plots by ISIS in 2015 in particular, which isn't really supported by any of the sources; but just throwing them onto a page about failed ISIS plots doesn't have that problem (although they'd need to be examined individually to make sure they qualify as 'genuine' ISIS plots and not copycats or something, but that can be handled on that page.) --Aquillion (talk) 00:56, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:00, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Smashball

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

Fails WP:GNG. A quick Google search does not bring up enough reliable sources. Soetermans. T / C 12:13, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unnotable user content, fallen into absolute obscurity. --Mr. Magoo (talk) 12:23, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:06, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I did find some articles about this mod in some modding news websites but they aren't enough to establish notability, given how scarce coverage for this is elsewhere. No lasting impact either. It doesn't help that searching for just "Smashball" results in several positives, including a fictional sport in the Star Wars universe. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 14:39, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. consensus is sufficient. DGG ( talk ) 18:12, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Resistance and Liberation

AfDs for this article:

(Find video game sources: "Resistance and Liberation" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · TWL · NYT · WP reference · VG/RS · VG/RL · WPVG/Talk)

Fails WP:GNG. A quick Google search does not bring up any reliable sources mentioning the game. Soetermans. T / C 12:11, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fairly unnotable user content, not really a "game". Only the standalone which seems to be in the works appears even a bit notable. --Mr. Magoo (talk) 12:21, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:05, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:14, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete insufficient coverage in reliable sources. Doesn't meet GNG. Philafrenzy (talk) 10:33, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a non-notable unsourced video game mod failing WP:GNG with no reliable independent in-depth sources, such as WP:VG/RS. Being a mod of a notable video game is WP:NOTINHERITED. No meaningful hits in custom RS search, mainly non-in-depth mentions. I see various search hits otherwise, but none appear suitable for GNG, the press simply hasn't covered it in depth. It does not appear like new reliable in-depth coverage has appeared since last AfDs. The available--mainly primary--sources do not provide enough material to write a meaningful article without WP:PLOT and WP:GAMECRUFT and with WP:WAF in mind. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 13:52, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:32, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Daniele Bongiovanni

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

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

According to guidelines for Creative Profession. The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors? It seems not. The person is known for originating a significant new concept, theory, or technique? It seems not. The person's works has won significant critical attention, or is represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums? It is not known Gprosso (talk) 11:47, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well this is interesting, there's now been 5 new users editing this article, out of a total of 7 editors. I don't think they quite WP:GNG but I don't know Italian. Joseph2302 (talk) 11:49, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

History of this artist is referenced, this artist is in private collections 4 institutions or museums: Museo Macia (Costa Rica), Centro Documentazione Amedeo Modigliani (Siena), Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center (USA),next to the Vittoriano (Rome), this is taken up in ref, and also described by the same curator. I ask to see. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Analuim (talk • contribs) 12:22, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Curiously, the reference ^[1] has been written today "13 febbraio 2016" probably on commission, as can be read by opening the link "La Redazione ringrazia Camilla Delpero per la segnalazione."

File:Screenshot ticinolive.png

Commissioned article "La Redazione ringrazia Camilla Delpero per la segnalazione"

and ^[2] has been written yesterday "12 febbraio 2016"... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gprosso (talk • contribs) 12:50, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Checkuser note: Analuim is a Confirmed sock puppet. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Artmimi.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:52, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ Comment This article probably written for advertising purposes, this italian artist isn't notability. The creator of this article was a puppeteer who has continually edited with 11 sockpuppets this Article. See Revision History and Wikipedia: Sockpuppet investigations/Artmimi/Archive

Gprosso (talk) 11:02, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:21, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:21, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

References

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:14, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No evidence they pass WP:GNG. Joseph2302 (talk) 18:25, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:55, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. All available references are apparently PR. Not in major museum (the Vittoriana is a historical monument where there are shows--it does not seem to have a permanent collection) DGG ( talk ) 17:46, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom as WP:SPAM. Mduvekot (talk) 20:23, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

FYI I deleted a screenshot originally included in this discussion, per a discussion among OTS agents in the OTRS mailing list.--S Philbrick (Talk) 18:21, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was speedy keep. Withdrawn by nominator (non-admin closure) | Uncle Milty | talk | 01:00, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yenepoya University

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

This is a diploma mill. The university is not listed in the website of University Grants Commission, India. The link to the same given by the page creator doesn't respond. Prof TPMS (talk) 10:40, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 15:46, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 15:46, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES. Its website is here. No evidence of being a "diploma mill" AusLondonder (talk) 19:04, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - even if a diploma mill, it still meets WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES. If it can be shown thru refs that it is a mill, then the article should indicate that. VMS Mosaic (talk) 05:00, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Appears to be a legitimate degree-awarding university, which we keep by longstanding precedent and consensus. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:27, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: - This AFD was closed by deletion by nominator, and this comment replaced it: "Closed discussion and withdrew deletion proposal as per discussion consensus. --Prof TPMS (talk) 15:30, 17 February 2016 (UTC)" I have restored the AFD and will (non-admin closure) close the discussion the usual way per nominator's withdrawal. --| Uncle Milty | talk | 01:00, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Uncontested. Sandstein 22:27, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Campus Society

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

Does not prove notability. Anarchyte (work | talk) 10:23, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Anarchyte (work | talk) 10:25, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Anarchyte (work | talk) 10:25, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:49, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as the founder is also questionable for solid notability, this company simply seems too soon and thr coversge is not better convincing. SwisterTwister talk 21:23, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 14:36, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:13, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:54, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:54, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:14, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:59, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sarah M. Baker

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

I came across this as a speedy deletion, however there's just enough in the article to assert some notability since she was part of a reality TV show. The problem though, is that I really can't see where there's enough overall to truly justify her having an article on Wikipedia. She exists and is active, but she doesn't appear to have received coverage in places that Wikipedia would consider to be reliable. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 09:47, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. She sounds like a fine person, but this autobiography doesn't assert notability per WP:BIO or WP:NACTOR, with no significant coverage online from WP:Reliable sources. As she notes on the article talk page (speaking about herself in the third person, for some reason), privacy rules forbid her name from being used in the credits. Fair enough, but without references, we have nothing to go on here to judge notability. NeemNarduni2 (talk) 15:28, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I've waited a few days to allow the original author to beef up the references, but Oxygen's self-promotional releases and Facebook posts aren't it. The sole independent source, a review of the show, which doesn't even mention her, is hardly a strong argument for keeping this article. ShelbyMarion (talk) 19:38, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Self-published references do not demonstrate notability for this autobiographical article. ubiquity (talk) 18:40, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:51, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:51, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Doesn't meet WP:NACTOR, and searches did not turn up enough to show they pass WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 18:34, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. article's been improved since nomination, (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 01:54, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Municipal Art Gallery of Ioannina

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

I can find multiple mentions of it on general sites which list all possible tourist attractions in an area, but nothing which indicates notability. It is often listed simply as 'Municipal Gallery of Ioannina'. There's no Greek-lang WP article on it, but there may be Greek sources I've missed. This has been tagged for notability for 8 years, hopefully we can get it resolved one way or the other. Boleyn (talk) 09:38, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Someone who understands Greek might be able to indicate whether this is the same as the Municipal Ethnographic Museum of Ioannina (which according to wikipedia houses photographs and paintings). However, I haven't visited Greece for years and never got past first base with the language when I did.

If Municipal Art Gallery of Ioannina is a separate institution, I wonder if a more constructive solution might be to enter a request at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Greece for someone to extend the entry.

Regards Charles01 (talk) 12:38, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Charles01, a request was put in to Wikiproject Greece about this and several similar articles on Greek museums and galleries, as it was on Wikiproject Museums. It didn't get any response and it's been months now. As it stands, we can't verify any notability, no one has found supporting sources and no notability is even asserted in article. I Googled the addresses, the Municipal Gallery is not the same as the Municipal Ethnographic Museum. Boleyn (talk) 13:23, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Noted. Thanks. Success. Charles01 (talk) 15:05, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 15:45, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Museums and libraries-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 15:45, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 15:45, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Boleyn: You might want to look at the article again.♦ Dr. Blofeld 18:59, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for pinging me and well done to the editor who worked so hard on this. I can't read the Greek, but for the rest, it looks more convincing but still to pretty much just be listed on websites showing places people can go, not necessarily reliable sources or in-depth coverage. Boleyn (talk) 19:16, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Discussed in depth by various independent sources. A search on the Greek form of the name would have been appropriate before nominating for deletion. A very active gallery with an impressive collection of works by prominent Greek artists and frequent special exhibitions. Aymatth2 (talk) 15:28, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. With all credit to Aymatth2 who did the Lazarus job on it. Regards Charles01 (talk) 15:49, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Aymatth2. --Rosiestep (talk) 18:07, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Boleyn: If you still seriously think it's not notable you're wasting everybody's time. Again I repeat, AFD is not an expand upon demand service. It's not the way to get all of those Greek museums expanded.♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:07, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dr. Blofeld, I seem to be in the minority on this one, but that's OK. I trust the AfD process to come out with a consensus on each one. Several of the museum/gallery articles have been deleted, one at AfD at the moment seems non-notable and that's the way its AfD is heading. You know well I have no objection to stubs, including ones as short as these, as I have created thousands of stubs myself. I have little interest in whether it is expanded (it's always nice, but not something I'm concerned about). My concern is its notability, which has been in question for an extremely long time. FOr the third time, I repeat that I am not convinced on this one, but it's OK with me that others disagree. Boleyn (talk) 12:32, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Boleyn: Have you looked in on the article in the last 12 hours?♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:39, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:41, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Top 10 most viewed Taylor Swift's videos ( Vevo )

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

This is an indiscriminate list of information; in fact, it could be WP:IINFO at its finest.. While a list like List of most viewed YouTube videos is probably notable, I don't think the topic of Taylor Swift YouTube videos, let alone which them is the most viewed, is a notable topic. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 09:06, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 09:07, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 09:07, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Maybe the numbers could be added to the table at Taylor Swift discography#Music videos, before the ref column as "views on Youtube". The bad thing is that with this kind of table you can't click on the views and have them be listed in order from highest to lowest. --Mr. Magoo (talk) 12:15, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per not being worth its own article and at best worth a table at some bigger Taylor Swift listings article. Like mentioned below, the (Vevo) addition makes this unviable for redirect. --Mr. Magoo (talk) 10:25, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy ~~redirect~~ ~~to Taylor Swift discography#Music videos at best.~~ This isn't Billboard or WatchMojo.com edtiorEهեইдအီးËეεઈדוארई電子ಇអ៊ី전자ഇī😎 14:21, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Honestly, given the article title, I don't think it's a viable redirect given how it's unlikely anyone would place spaces before and after "Vevo". If this was something like "Most viewed Taylor Swift videos" then perhaps that would have been a viable redirect, but this appears to not be the case for this article. Also, adding viewcounts to the discography article section on music videos probably wouldn't make sense given how they would have to be updated regularly and in any case is probably indiscriminate information. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 14:36, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You'd be surprised how many editors there are who just love updating numbers like these. It's not even a baggage, it's like a joy. But the reason I'm not that keen to adding them is that the numbers are encyclopedic as a highest-to-lowest list but that table doesn't support this function and it would be a huge mess updating the table. --Mr. Magoo (talk) 19:38, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:45, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - it's not as if we balance it out with an article about Taylor Swift's least viewed videos Shritwod (talk) 19:00, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I am a fan of her but this page is irrelevant, anyone can just go to YouTube and search for it. Nahnah4 (talk | contribs | guestbook) 10:05, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Just Shake It Off the encyclopedia already [rimshot]. It's unnecessary, and it should be the job of Youtube's most to least popular video feature.edtiorEهեইдအီးËეεઈדוארई電子ಇអ៊ី전자ഇī😎 21:09, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- NOTE This exact same list is or was also on the creator's user page. edtiorEهեইдအီးËეεઈדוארई電子ಇអ៊ី전자ഇī😎 21:11, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete If anything merge into Taylor Swift. --Fixuture (talk) 18:59, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – indiscriminate list, not useful as a redirect. sst✈^(conjugate) 03:15, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:39, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Race Wars story

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

I came across this as an A7 speedy, which it doesn't qualify for since it's a book series. This doesn't appear to be notable, as a search brings up nothing to establish that it's notable enough for an article nor that the author (whose article I recently speedied) would be notable enough for an article either. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 08:28, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (as the person who tagged it for A7 speedy, oops) - deeply creepy fantasising about a race war (or to quote the author, "a once-proud nation is ripped apart by racial division and self-serving politicians unwilling to quell the violence they themselves helped to create.") Oh yeah, and non-notable, too. Blythwood (talk) 08:35, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Unremarkable, apparently self-published book series. Zero coverage in reliable sources. The only relevant hits I could find are sites selling the book. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 14:41, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Books-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 15:44, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Can't find anything in the search engines to show this passes WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 17:12, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. This is a WP:Soft delete; the article may be restored by any administrator upon request. MelanieN (talk) 02:40, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ivory Hours

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

Article about a band with no strong claim to passing WP:NMUSIC -- the strongest thing here is that they won a local radio station's "Next Big Thing" contest last year. Their music is all self-released on Bandcamp, so having three titles in their discography doesn't satisfy NMUSIC #5. And the sourcing here doesn't get them over WP:GNG, either: of the six references, three are primary sources (their own Bandcamp, their own EPK on CBC Music's "any band gets to repost their own EPK" section, and the website of the radio station that hosted the contest), one is a Q&A interview (which would be acceptable for confirmation of facts after GNG had already been met, but cannot be a bringer of GNG as it represents the band talking about itself), and one is a "local band wins radio station contest" article in their own hometown newspaper (again, acceptable for confirmation of facts after GNG has been passed but not contributing to GNG because of the "own hometown" problem.) Exclaim! (which the creator amusingly misspelled as Explaim) is the only source here that counts toward GNG, but one source cannot carry GNG all by itself if all the rest of the sourcing around it is bad. Delete as WP:TOOSOON, without prejudice against recreation in the future if their notability and sourceability improve. Bearcat (talk) 06:03, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 15:42, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 15:42, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete perhaps for now as it is currently questionable for the applicable notability. SwisterTwister talk 23:51, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:12, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:13, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete--Ymblanter (talk) 12:13, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Owen Tate

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

WP:BLP of a writer and photographer, whose claims of notability for both endeavours are tied entirely to unsourced assertions of popularity on social media rather than anything that would pass WP:NMUSIC or WP:CREATIVE. And there's virtually no reliable source coverage here, with the referencing based almost entirely on unreliable sources like Myspace, Shazam, last.fm, SoundCloud, ReverbNation and YouTube. The only thing here that lifts him even slightly into the realm of RS coverage is a Q&A-style interview on The Huffington Post -- but interviews represent the subject talking about himself, not independent third party coverage, and hence may not be used to bring the WP:GNG in and of themselves, but only for supplementary confirmation of facts after GNG has already been met. All of which means that nothing here is substantive enough, or sourced well enough, to get him a Wikipedia article at this time. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 04:25, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 15:37, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 15:37, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 15:37, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as currently questionable for the applicable notability, nothing currently suggesting better. SwisterTwister talk 23:51, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Pernom. Arthistorian1977 (talk) 09:05, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:33, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Suvigya Sharma

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

Non notable artist. No works in major museum collections (or, for that matter, any museum collections) . The refs are the usual sort of barely described PR, or are mere notices,or both together. Promotional wording throughout, as well. DGG ( talk ) 02:31, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 02:59, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 02:59, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as still questionable overall and this is the expected overall appearance of such articles which have more than meets eye. SwisterTwister talk 04:09, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: First of all, Artist Suvigya Sharma has received media coverage of DNA India, Times of India, Daily Bhaskar, Mid Day, Yahoo News, Indian Express, Outlook, Deccan Herald, Navbharat Times, Mumbai Mirror, Daily Mail etc, are significant and reliable news sources, not a barely PR stuff. Mr DGG.

The media overages he received fulfills Wikipedia's General Notability Guidelines and Wikipedia:Notability (people). The media coverage clearly suggest that he meets the Wikipedia's Notability guidelines. If you think there is praising words in article, then it should be removed, the article should not to be deleted.--150.129.29.104 (talk) 05:04, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Now article has been improved by me by removing praising words, adding more information and citations. --150.129.29.104 (talk) 13:57, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Nomination without merit. As per norms, passes WP:NG and sources found on HighBeam. Caroline A. Murphy (talk) 16:25, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep I am astonished by this nomination. Coverage of Sharma has been very significant in the quality and popular press in India and elsewhere. Evidence of meeting WP:GNG is abundantly clear. Was WP:BEFORE performed here? If a cleanup is required do it or tag the article. Don't nominate a worthwhile, well-sourced article for deletion, especially when it raises questions of WP:GEOBIAS AusLondonder (talk) 19:02, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
keep Reliable, independent sources. ShelbyMarion (talk) 20:13, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I read the references. She may meet the GNG but there is an additional requirement: WP:CREATIVE. That guideline exists precisely because artists and related professions tend to get PR-based articles for individual exhibitions or works--in every country, India not excluded--, and it is necessary to have a more objective criterion also. There is no evidence his work is regarded as important by his peers; he originated no important to concept or technique;he has not produced a major body of work that has attracted significant critical notice; nor is it part of a a major museum's collection. DGG ( talk ) 00:39, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The problem from my point of view is not being part of major museum collection, but the lack of any exhibition, that is not part of commercial galleries. Nowadays the museums tend not to extend their collections, but to held temporary exhibitions. Especially in photography world, you almost can't find any major museum with significant collection. But a notable artist should at least have an exhibition in any public space, either gallery or museum, which I can't find in this case. Also, agree that at least one professional review of portfolio would support the claim of notability. Hence, I tend to Delete. Arthistorian1977 (talk) 09:38, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Huh, This is heck, DGG. Maybe, You may be right, but it can be easily understood by anyone that all these citations cannot be just PR as you are describing it. Despite of several significant coverage from Indian Media, There are Indian Government sources, which can be considered highly reliable and authentic. And nobody bothered to read non-English coverage

Coverage received to the subject, clearly meets Basic criteria of notability WP:GNG, WP:Creative

- Apart from works for Bollywood celebrities and business tycoon, Artist has done restoration for Singapore Art Museum (SAM), a national museum and one of the major tourist attractions in Singapore.

- Restoration and fresco painting projects to his credit including famous architectural heritage sites in India such as the City Palace, Jaipur and Jama Masjid.

Source : Here, Daily Bhaskar, an Indian Hindi-language daily newspaper that is now the largest circulated daily newspaper of India (Audit Bureau of Circulations)

- His collaboration with Make in India, an initiate of Government of India.

Sources : Indian government website, Please find in the article.

As significant coverage from from DNA India, Daily Mail, Times of India, India Today, Yahoo News, Daily Bhaskar, Mid Day, Indian Express, Outlook India, NDTV India, News Nation, Afternoon, Marwar India, Bollywood Hungama, Deccan Herald etc received to Sharma, is enough to prove WP:GNG.So that article can be kept.--103.195.248.92 (talk) 10:31, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Problem I see that, for example, I didn't find any mention of him in connection with Singapore Art Museum restoration project. Also, I've translated the article you mentioned, and it's the same text, which is copy pasted in other articles over and over again, which makes the claim of it being promotional stronger. Significant coverage per WP:ARTIST has to have multiple independent periodical articles or reviews, which I don't see in all these articles. Working with notable celebrities does not make one a notable. Arthistorian1977 (talk) 11:43, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There is clearly mention of him in Daily Bhaskar, That he has done restoration work for Singapore Art Museum. I think, It would be more better if reference checked by the person, who knows Hindi well.

In the same news of Daily Bhaskar, It is also clearly mentioned about his restoration and gold leafing work for City Palace, Jaipur, Havelis of Udaipur and Kishangarh, Jain Temple and Jama Masjid. - He is the only artist who has done 3D Pichwai of Shrinathji, no one has attempted before. As mentioned in DNA India's Interview. - He has introduced new form of Tanjore Painting, That is Refined 24carat Gold Tanjore Painting, in which Tanjore and miniature art has been combined. He embellishes with Real 24 carat Gold in Painting, which was used to do by artist in old days. - He is considered one of the important artist who is known for making traditional Indian Art alive. His work mainly based on Indian Art forms, which is now perishing. Known for his Tanjore works and as the only artist nurturing miniature art in India. Source : Reference can be found in News coverage and even in Indian government websites; Times of India, here, DNA, here.

Here I want to correct you that the subject is not working with notable celebrities but as an artist, He is working and painting for Bollywood celebrities and business tycoons of India. In your point of view, This may not make him notable, but In this case, For Indian society, a painter who is working for big celebrities and illustrious business families of India such as Ambani, Birla, Singhania, Piramal, L.N. Mittal, Burmans, Bajaj etc, became subject of interest and attention for Indian media and its audience, as it is covered in many news reference cited in the article, which must be considered.

I just noted your previous comment, where you mentioned about lack of non commercial or exhibitions in public space, either gallery or museum, which is false. As you agrees that his portfolio supports the claim of notability. Yes it is. Wikipedia works as per norms. We do not need to make our own rules. Significant coverage and portfolio supports his notability.

Here I'm trying to answer of your question;

- Artist has done, exhibition at Academy of Fine Arts, Kolkata in 2005. Source can be fund in the Daily Bhaskar, here.

- He held exhibition in Nehru Centre, London in May 2001 , Terrace Gallery, Sussex, England in 1996. Source : Official website of Suvigya Sharma. (Note: This were quite old exhibitions, maybe this is the reason i could not find any reliable source about this. I was not going to mention about this, but when you question about his gallery, public or non commercial exhibition. I find appropriate to mention about this.)

- Exhibition in Artisans Gallery at Kala Ghoda in 2013. Source : Artisans Gallery, here.

- Recently, after AFD, In February, Government of India celebrated Make In India Week, in Mumbai, which was inaugurated by India's Prime Minister Honorable Narendra Modi. For the event Make In India Week (February 13 to 18), Suvigya Sharma was officially chosen by the Govt and showcased his art work. Sources : Government of India's Websites, here (pdf); Mahaudyog, Government of Maharashtra's website, here; and official website of Make In India, here.--150.129.29.226 (talk) 16:42, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There is no way an American artist would be held to such rigorous standards. Classic case of systemic bias. I urge delete !voters above to perform WP:BEFORE and change their !votes. AusLondonder (talk) 16:58, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

And you should remember to assume good faith. There is no indication of bias or the nominator (or the delete votes) not checking before voting. It's pretty bad faith to assume otherwise. freshacconci talk to me 18:32, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: have trimmed and reworked most of the tone of article, was a complete night mare, the article seemd to be a PR page, have been reverting pov for some time, either needs lot of trimming or delete Shrikanthv (talk) 07:36, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Arthistorian1977's well-reasoned rationale. In contrast to some of the accusations in this AfD, the subject doesn't satisfy WP:ARTIST nor WP:GNG. The sources given are not substantial and yes these are the standards we apply to all subjects of Wikipedia regardless of nationality. Muddying the waters by crying foul is not productive. freshacconci talk to me 18:39, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:32, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Vinita Kinra

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

non notable author. The book claimed as her most important achievement is, according to worldcat, in no libraries at all. Not surprising, for it was self-published. The publishing firm listed has published nothing besides her works. DGG ( talk ) 02:29, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and lack of sources on HighBeam. Brianhe (talk) 03:24, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as this is still questionably solid for the applicable notability. SwisterTwister talk 04:07, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 04:09, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 04:09, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 04:09, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

While there are some circumstances where even a self-published book can be enough to get a writer into Wikipedia, they're pretty rarefied and depend on the ability to source the topic over WP:GNG (Terry Fallis, who won a notable literary award for a self-published first novel, is the textbook example of how this can happen — and the book promptly got bought up by a major publishing imprint which also released his followup works anyway, so his notability didn't actually stay dependent on self-published work for very long.) But the sourcing here doesn't cut it: it's all primary sources, deadlinks and small-market weekly newspapers which can't carry notability, with no evidence of solidly reliable source coverage shown. A writer does not gain an automatic entitlement to keep a poorly sourced article just because she exists; a valid notability claim under WP:AUTHOR, and valid sourcing to support it, have to be shown. Delete, without prejudice against recreation in the future if and when her notability and sourceability improve. Bearcat (talk) 22:49, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep ~ Reason of deletion is given that the book is not available in any library which is a lie.

Pavitra in Paris is available in the following prominent libraries in Canada:

1. Vancouver Public Library https://vpl.bibliocommons.com/item/show/3637451038_pavitra_in_paris

2. Greater Victoria Public Library : https://gvpl.ent.sirsidynix.net/client/en_US/default/search/detailnonmodal/ent:$002f$002fSD_ILS$002f0$002fSD_ILS:287998/one?qu=pavitra+in+paris

3. Richmond Public Library (Canada): https://yourlibrary.bibliocommons.com/item/show/1011426101_pavitra_in_paris

4.Markham Public Library: https://markham.bibliocommons.com/item/show/581988034_pavitra_in_paris

5. Fraser Valley Regional Library: https://fvrl.bibliocommons.com/item/show/1656671021_pavitra_in_paris

Please note: Vancouver Public Library is one of the 3 best and largest libraries in Canada.

News and Interview on Vinita Kinra:

1. CBC Radio Interview: http://www.cbc.ca/player/play/2439827995

2. ICI Radio Canada (French interview) (Canadian Broadcasting Corporation): http://ici.radio-canada.ca/emissions/L_heure_de_pointe_Toronto/2013-2014/archives.asp?date=2015%2F02%2F06&indTime=1648&idmedia=7240348&fb_ref=Default

3. The South Asian Times (NY Page 24) http://www.scribd.com/doc/217609558/Vol-6-Issue-50-April-12-18-2014

4.The Mississauga News: http://www.mississauga.com/community-story/4391260-author-inspires-newcomer-women-through-talk/

5. Canadian Race Relations Foundation (CRRF) (Government): http://www.crrf-fcrr.ca/en/our-canada/150-stories/search-150-stories/item/25815-canada-42-150-vinita-kinra

6. Montreal Serai (Book review) http://montrealserai.com/2014/03/22/pavitra-in-paris-stories-for-life-by-vinita-kinra/

7. CSI Viamonde (French) : http://csviamonde.ca/Viamonde/nouvelles/2014-2015/Pages/%C3%80-Viamonde,-on-souligne-le-Mois-de-l%E2%80%99histoire-des-Noirs.aspx

8. Writer Story: http://www.writerstory.com/vinita-kinra-interview-pavitra-in-paris-book/

9. Uber Quotes: http://www.uberquotes.net/quotes/authors/vinita-kinra/page/2

10. Beach Bound Books: http://www.beachboundbooks.com/author-interviews/author-interview-vinita-kinra

--150.107.40.40 (talk) 13:25, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Unacceptable sourcing for a Wikipedia article, pretty much right across the board. Going over them one by one: #1 and #2 = interviews on local radio programs. Interviews with the subject, in any format, are acceptable for some supplementary confirmation of facts after WP:GNG has already been met, but cannot count toward the meeting of GNG as they represent the subject talking about herself. And both of them are on single-market local radio programs, not national ones broadcast by the entire CBC Radio or Ici Première networks, so claiming that the interviews were broadcast nationally would be wrong. #3 and #4 = community weekly newspapers, not widely distributed enough to count toward GNG. Again acceptable for supplementary confirmation of facts after GNG has been met, but not able to assist in establishing the meeting of GNG. #5 = not media, but a press release on the website of an affiliated organization — and the bylined author is the subject's own husband, which would disqualify it as WP:COI even if it were in real media. #6 = WP:BLOGS don't count as reliable sourcing. #7 = not media, but a press release on the website of a school board. #8 = BLOGS. #9 = not media coverage, but a user-generated database of quotations from her own work, which anybody can add themselves to. #10 = interview on a blog, disqualified by what I've already said about both interviews and blogs.

And if you're going to claim notability because library holdings, it takes a lot more than five library holdings to get there — and regardless of the notability claim being made, none of Wikipedia's inclusion standards can ever be passed just by asserting that they've been passed. An inclusion criterion is passed or failed on the quality of the reliable source coverage you can provide to support the accuracy of the claim to passage — but you have yet to show any acceptable sourcing at all. Bearcat (talk) 02:30, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - searches did not turn up anything to show this subject passes WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 17:08, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to List of OS X components. (non-admin closure) sst✈ 12:21, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Chess (OS X)

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

This article is being nominated again as the last discussion from less than three years ago closed due to lack of arguments, but the notability concerns still remain. I was still unable to find in-depth coverage about this program. This is a mostly unsourced article with all the sources cited here being primary sources that only mention this program in passing and in relation to the Mac computer only. This should at best be a redirect to the article about Mac OS X. edtiorEهեইдအီးËეεઈדוארई電子ಇអ៊ី전자ഇī😎 01:54, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 02:56, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 02:56, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Weakest possible keep. There is currently little information about the topic, and all that can be written is some information and what it does. However, merging it in to OS X would nonetheless distract readers away from coverage of the OS itself, reduce the ability of comparison with other similar programs, and since may compromise the convention to split other software into their own articles. Esquivalience ^t 23:32, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. czar 01:25, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:58, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to List of OS X components. Here's my solution. Unless someone digs up "reviews" of the Chess game, the only secondary sources we're using for this thing are secondary introductions to OS X that describe the pack-in software (like Calculator and the rest of the unsourced articles in that section of the {{OS X}} navbox). One such source is [14] or [15] (which has some background on its origins). If this is as deep as it gets, a few sentences in a list of this low-level OS X pack-in software would suffice. The closest we have is List of OS X components, which is a simple list right now, but I recommend that it be built out with one or two sentence descriptions (such as the one I just mentioned) since many of the other items on this list have little coverage, similar to the Chess game. This is to say that the other similar articles should be boldly merged as well. czar 03:00, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of OS X components. Czar's solution is the way to go. Surprisingly little coverage has been published on this application to satisfy WP:GNG. I sampled a few other articles on List of OS X components, and most of them are essentially in the same situation. (e.g. DVD Player (Mac OS), Contacts (Mac OS), Stickies (software)) If we fleshed out the list with the content that is reliably sourced in each of those articles, I can see a really solid article formed. Mz7 (talk) 02:50, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:09, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I've left a note regarding this AfD at Talk:List of OS X components. Mz7 (talk) 02:50, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per preceding posts. Doesn't deserve its own article but can be redirected to one. I imagine not much has been published about this app because there's really not much to say about it. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 22:07, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:31, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

John J. Carney

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

This is an entirely unsourced article that fails WP:NACTOR. The article's only credits are minor roles in ten films, with no in-depth coverage to be found. edtiorEهեইдအီးËეεઈדוארई電子ಇអ៊ី전자ഇī 01:23, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:40, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 15:07, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as IMDb only lists 1 episode for each TV series thus there are no signs to suggest this satisfies WP:CREATIVE. SwisterTwister talk 18:11, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:58, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as meets NACTOR, He's been in 54 shows/films and had been in Dixon of Dock Green for 2 years and had been in Doctor in Charge and Doctor Who for a year , I'd imagine most sources would be offline and I don't have any offline stuff — Preceding unsigned comment added by Davey2010 (talk • contribs) 03:00, 13 February 2016 UTC
Delete as the subject falls far short of any of the WP:NACTOR criteria (a significant role in a film or television show; a large fan base; a unique, innovative, or prolific contribution) and doesn't fare any better with WP:BASIC. — Rebbing talk 04:04, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not even close to passing WP:NACTOR, and definitely doesn't pass WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 16:55, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:30, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Kings of Chaos (online game)

(Find video game sources: "Kings of Chaos" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · TWL · NYT · WP reference · VG/RS · VG/RL · WPVG/Talk)

This page and the game itself have been poorly maintained over the years, and the game has fallen so far into obscurity that this page is of no necessity anymore. A lot of the "updates" have contained unimportant or arbitrary information, and reference points made are of no consequence to anyone who doesn't know of this game. Tytrox (talk) 10:32, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:22, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 15:03, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:57, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The game does appear to have fallen into absolute obscurity, and even back in the day doesn't seem to have even been a notable browser game. The sources are all from 10 years ago, for the exception of one book from 2009. Other games the 2009 book names are highly obscure titles like "Win Win Manager", "Parachute Flight" (2008) and "War of Warcraft"; last one obviously an attempt at World of Warcraft. --Mr. Magoo (talk) 06:47, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a non-notable video game failing WP:GNG with no multiple reliable independent in-depth sources, such as WP:VG/RS. Not even significant entries or mentions in current reliable sources. the source in article looks okay, others are not in-depth. Can't access the 2006 or 2009 offline publications, but I'm doubtful they have any more in-depth content. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 23:17, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. (non-admin closure) sst✈ 12:19, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Danny Wimmer Presents

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

Fails WP:NCORP. I tagged this as a A7/G11, but it was removed by another editor. The creator of this article and of Danny Wimmer is a paid intern working for the company. That, in and of itself, doesn't mean it should be deleted, but it explains some of the promotional tone of the article. As far as I can tell, the sources in the article are all primary sources or press releases. Still,I have no real stake in this discussion. I'll leave it up to the community to decide. Bbb23 (talk) 22:44, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·C) 23:00, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·C) 23:00, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I understand that this service is provided for information and encyclopedic use only. That said, it is not my intention to promote any product, message, festival, subsidiary, or brand whatsoever. I am a paid intern representing Danny Wimmer Presents and Danny Wimmer; however it is my clear intention to provide only information regarding the history and present projects of the company such as Rock on the Range and Carolina Rebellion. I will continue to monitor and make sure that the language I use is completely objective as to not promote any feature or product offered by the company. The idea is that Danny Wimmer Presents is given the ability to have availability on Wikipedia just as any other promotional company does, such as AEG Live and Live Nation. Danny Wimmer Presents will not include seemingly biased information and if someone in the community thinks that this information exists on the page, I would hope that an edit suggestion would be added to the talk page instead of a nomination to delete the page. I am happy to work with the community to edit out any information seen as biased, subjective, or promotional.

Thank you

(Spuderman (talk) 23:07, 5 February 2016 (UTC))[reply]

Delete per nom. Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:56, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable. Spuderman left a message on my talk page seeking advice. I did a search for Danny Wimmer Presents before I responded, and I should have done the same before I weighed in here with a delete.

The article needs a serious rewrite, but the company appears to meet GNG: New York Times , an interview with some editorial in Pollstar , the primary trade for the touring/concert industry, the Sacramento Business Journal and the Sacramento Bee. I think I would find more references if I had the time to dig deeper.

Spuderman has disclosed his COI on his user page. Let's WP:USERFY this - I will suggest he work on the article/references and submit it through AfC with another disclosure in the edit summary.JSFarman (talk) 20:54, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete at best for now as there's still not enough solid in-depth third-party sources overall. SwisterTwister talk 21:47, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I agree Danny Wimmer should have been deleted, but the New York Times, Sacramento Business Journal and Sacramento Bee sources that JSFarman linked to seem to establish notability for Danny Wimmer Presents per GNG and NCORP. —me_and 14:27, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I believe with established references from the New York Times, Sacramento Bee and Pollstar, notability is not what is now being questioned, but rather the correct sourcing, documentation and objectivity of the article. I would agree that it is a good idea to WP:USERFY this to be worked on until it is ready to be submitted to an administrator for approval. I want to work with the community to make sure content that is making it to article space is purely neutral and objective. (Spuderman (talk) 18:24, 8 February 2016 (UTC))[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 00:54, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep because of the sources identified by JSFarman. Significant coverage in the New York Times and the Sacramento Bee establishes notability, and the article should be improved instead of being deleted. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 09:06, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:08, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:52, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:52, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:52, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Potential redirect target article also deleted. Sandstein 22:27, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Rashid Ajami

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

No verifiable claims of importance. This article was a copy-paste move from a declined draft located at Draft:Rashid Ajami. CSD tag continuously removed, brining to AfD. Anarchyte (work | talk) 00:47, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Anarchyte (work | talk) 00:52, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Anarchyte (work | talk) 00:52, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Anarchyte (work | talk) 00:52, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Anarchyte (work | talk) 00:52, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Anarchyte (work | talk) 00:52, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The article has enough sources from media to be notable. The release discography shows releases on top record labels in this music genre. The artist collaborations are with artists notable enough to be on Wikipedia. The article should not be deleted in my view. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.255.232.50 (talk) 10:05, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I have edited this article and since its initial request for deletion numerous sources have been added that are more then notable. Notice that the discography is fully cited. There are sufficient references for this article to be in accordance with Wikipedia's guidelines. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Davidhollinge (talk • contribs) 10:33, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Looks likely that sockpuppetry was used to remove the speedy tag. Notability per WP:MUSICBIO is borderline, and many of the references are about Campus Society (now also the subject of an AFD) and not Ajami. NeemNarduni2 (talk) 08:27, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I have added further links from press outlets such as Mixmag, vice magazine, thump and deep house Amsterdam. These are the biggest outlets in terms of house music. The article has come a long way since its initial draft that Anarchyte mentions above. There are references on every point and a long list of news pieces in external links. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Davidhollinge (talk • contribs) 08:48, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete at best for now as the current article is not better satisfying the applicable notability. SwisterTwister talk 23:55, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:08, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:12, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Campus Society; he is not separately notable. If the Campus Society article is kept, a redirect is appropriate; if the Campus Society article gets deleted, the redirect will too. --MelanieN (talk) 02:38, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I am also willing for a redirect especially if both articles are later deleted. SwisterTwister talk 05:36, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to List of Scooby-Doo characters. This could've been Merged without a discussion here ....Anyway no point dragging this out for a week so closing as such. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 02:53, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Tar Monster

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

Little more than a monster of the week. Since the show is based on these, not worthy even for the character list. — Vano 00:25, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. — Vano 00:30, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2016 February 13. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 00:32, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Selective merge into List of Scooby-Doo characters, not a whole lot of coverage online about this but I could imagine the information should be kept in some way.--Prisencolin (talk) 00:39, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into List of Scooby-Doo characters. Not notable enough for own article, the majority of which consists merely of episode recaps. sixtynine ^{• speak up •} 01:07, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Selective merge to List of Scooby-Doo characters, which presently does not mention the character. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:06, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:06, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:30, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dream Factory Foundation

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

Promotionally written and dependent mostly on primary sources. Subject lacks significant coverage in multiple, reliable secondary sources as required by WP:GNG and WP:NORG. Seventy hits on Google (and that includes results for other organisations that share the name). Super Mario Man ( Talk ) 00:25, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete. I found the same lack of secondary sources when I searched. The sources that are in the article tend to be its own social media. Definitely fails WP:GNG. —C.Fred (talk) 00:42, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable and strictly promotional. sixtynine ^{• speak up •} 01:07, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Musa Talk 01:37, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. Musa Talk 01:37, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as it lacks significant coverage in independent reliable sources. As the nominator mentioned, my search also result in mentions about other (equally non-notable) organizations with the same name. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 14:55, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 16:52, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

[1] ttp://www.ticinolive.ch/2016/02/13/lesperienza-della-bellezza-nel-percorso-e-nelle-opere-di-daniele-bongiovanni-di-gregorio-rossi/

[2] ttp://www.laprimapagina.it/2016/02/12/daniele-bongiovanni-lungo-percorso-che-fara-tappa-al-vittoriano-di-roma/

[1]

[2]