Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2016 January 16

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 15 January	17 January >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. Sam Walton (talk) 00:09, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Kirk Broussard

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

Non-notable junior college football player and NFL "intern". Subject does not satisfy the specific notability guideline for college athletes per WP:NCOLLATH or pro football players per WP:NGRIDIRON, and there is no evidence to suggest subject has sufficient significant coverage in multiple independent, reliable, secondary sources to satisfy the general notability guidelines per WP:GNG. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 22:40, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 10:06, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Louisiana-related deletion discussions. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 10:06, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 10:06, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States-related deletion discussions. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 10:06, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Interns are not inherently notable and I see no reason to make an exception here.--Paul McDonald (talk) 18:46, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

73.157.188.195 (talk) 19:49, 19 January 2016 (UTC)Subject in fact has held numerous positions beyond the Intern level in Pro Football. Subject has held the General Manager position as well as Offensive Coordinator of a Minor league Pro sports franchise in several Arena leagues. In addition the intern positions held in the NFL were the position subject entered into later progressing to position coaching jobs. This history has been cited and updated on the article. Subject is in-fact a reputable sports figure with many news articles in his history as well as a massive social media following. This article should be retained on wikipedia as there are many sports figures on the same level who have standing articles at this time.[reply]

Comment generally, assistant coaches are not inherently notable either per reasons outlined at WP:CFBASST essay. The few news sources provided only have passing mention of the subject or are transactional reviews. I do have to question them as a legitimate news source as the Google News Search only turns up one article (Bluefield Daily Telegraph) on the subject. Is there an explanation why the others should be considered as legitimate third party news sources and is the coverage enough to be considered notable? I don't doubt the subject is a reputable sports figure. I don't think Wikipedia cares if the subject has a "massive social media following" because that's subjective and irrelevant. However, I am curious about the alleged "many news articles in his history" because THAT is what can point to notability. Where are these "many news articles" for us to review?--Paul McDonald (talk) 20:50, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

73.157.188.195 (talk) 03:14, 20 January 2016 (UTC)Here are Two of many examples of assistant coaches articles on wikipedia Example: ^[1] Example: ^[2] Even article on Minor league Indoor/Arena Players Example: ^[3] A general Search for subject by name or by name plus football yields three to four pages per google. Published articles from Major Outlets such as WEAR 3 news, Daily Journal of NE Mississippi with over 400,000 Subscribers and readers Example: ^[4] Midland Reporter- Telegram ^[5] Example: ^[6] Major news outlets Subject is the focal Topic. Example: ^[7] Example: (Not Focal point) ^[8] Example: 97.5 The Game Bay Area Radio http://www.957thegame.com/ ^[9] Example: WNSR Nashville Radio http://www.wnsr.com/ ^[10] Thank You Sir I hope this helps.73.157.188.195 (talk) 03:14, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That's some good research. However, just because other stuff exists it does not mean that this article should. I can see strong arguments for deletion of the articles that you presented as examples. I'm not going to nominate them myself because I don't have time at the moment, but I would not be surprised if they do get nominated. I think we might be looking at the possibility of trying another wiki. I respect the efforts you're putting forward here, and another person may come along to see it another way. For example, the djournal.com article is simply a passing mention article much like a transaction--useful, but not what would pass for a notability gauge in today's landscape. Were this 1910, when print costs were more expensive that might mean more--but today, it's really reinforcing that the individual is an "intern" which in my view doesn't pass muster. The oursportscentral.com article also shows that he's not in a significant position at a not-very-significant minor league indoor football league. If anything, the two articles seem to confirm the lack of notability rather than provide it. I'd love to one day meet this coach as it seems he does good work with players, I'm just not seeing the level of notability required for inclusion in this particular encyclopedia.--Paul McDonald (talk) 14:36, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Further comment if we do not get a few others to participate in this discussion in time to close, I suggest it be relisted for getting further comments. There are others better at research than I am and I hope they can jump in to provide insight I may be missing. There's no harm in this case to extend the discussion time and make sure we arrive at the decision that is best for Wikipedia.--Paul McDonald (talk) 14:42, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Not enough in-depth coverage from reliable, independent sources to show he passes notability criteria. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:17, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Lacks substantial coverage from independent, reliable sources. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 13:52, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. J04n(talk page) 14:12, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

EchoVNC

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

Software article of unclear notability, lacking independent references, and tagged for multiple issues since 2013. A search turned up no significant WP:RS coverage. Article was created by an SPA as possibly promotional.Dialectric (talk) 22:34, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note - previous afd, from 2008 and closed as no consensus, is at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Echovnc. Dialectric (talk) 22:36, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Dialectric (talk) 22:38, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - searches turned up nothing on News or Newspapers except a link to softpedia. A few trivial mentions on books and scholars, and zip on Highbeam. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NCORP. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 16:50, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as mentioned, nothing to suggest better satisfying the software notability guidelines. Notifying the only still active AfDer C.Fred. SwisterTwister talk 21:13, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. From the previous AfD, there's this article from eWeek, but that's about the only coverage that seems to exist. The previous AfD also mentions a ZDNet article, which was seemingly gone dead. I'm not really seeing significant coverage here. The eWeek article is basically just a glorified announcement, and I'm assuming the ZDNet article is more of the same. Unfortunately, archive.org doesn't have it archived. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 12:18, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. J04n(talk page) 14:13, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Manikanta Belde

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

Non-notable author. Magog the Ogre (t • c) 22:20, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - other than a single mention on Books, nothing at all on any of the other searches. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NAUTHOR. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 16:52, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No signs of better notability for WP:CREATIVE. SwisterTwister talk 21:12, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 03:11, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hannah Cranston

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

Biographical spam. Notability not asserted. Bueller 007 (talk) 22:03, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Not a single in-depth source on any of the search engines regarding this particular person with this name. Fails WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:28, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep as this all seems obvious and the current sourcing seems convincing (NAC). SwisterTwister talk 05:53, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Finery (company)

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

Online retailer recently founded. Fails WP:CORPDEPTH. Written by a likely COI editor. Was CSD'd by another editor, but reluctantly declined (see history) so here we are at AfD. Not seeing anything encyclopedic about this topic. Legacypac (talk) 20:15, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 20:40, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Looks like the page lacks references but I think the extensive external links covering the subject could be worked into the article to confirm notability. Meatsgains (talk) 21:07, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets notability requirements, even if some of us, including me, don't find it very interesting or important. Borock (talk) 21:58, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Notable article, sources and external links covers notability requirements.--BabbaQ (talk) 22:49, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - those external links badly need to become references though. Artw (talk) 23:28, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Clearly meets WP:GNG and WP:CORPDEPTH, multiple instances of significant coverage in reliable independent sources. Softlavender (talk) 04:06, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:15, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:15, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Snow Keep – Comfortably passes WP:CORPDEPTH. For some sources, see here and the custom search below. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:19, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Find sources: "Finery, London" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · highbeam · JSTOR

Snow keep As above, clear WP:CORPDEPTH in the sources. Joseph2302 (talk) 13:40, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Snow Keep comments ignore that this was essentially spam, CSD'd and an Admin nearly deleted it. The article has been renamed, the title turned into a DAB and the contents extensively rewritten so it does not even resemble what was AfD'd. At this point the nomination should be procedurally closed because all the changes make it impossible to evaluate. Call it a withdrawal. Legacypac (talk) 14:50, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Legacypac, assuming I'm the admin in question an Admin nearly deleted it is demonstrably untrue by virtue of the fact that this AFD is even taking place. I'd appreciate you not telling lies about me in furtherance of your obsessive vendetta against every page User:Neelix has ever touched. ‑ Iridescent 15:07, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate your kind thanks for doing a lot of the grunt work scoring through tens of thousands of redirects required to clean up the Neelix mess (an editor who was the subject of wide community outrage, a redirect topic ban, and who many people believe only retains the ability to edit due to the Super Mario Effect.) shows how many of his redirects are now red The only connection he had to this title was he created the title as a redirect, something I only noticed when I sent this to AfD and twinkle automatically notified him. He actually has nothing to do with this article which was written over his redirect years later. If I misinterpreted this comment I am truly sorry. " Iridescent (talk | contribs)‎ . . (6,771 bytes) (-156)‎ . . (Much as it pains me, I have to decline this, although feel free to AFD it. It's (just about) adequately sourced, and not quite over the line into spam, so I can't in good faith speedy it." Legacypac (talk) 15:28, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sam Walton (talk) 00:10, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Edmond Leka

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

Not enough information to justify inclusion S Philbrick (Talk) 19:11, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:26, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albania-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:26, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Self-publication, no sources at all.--Mondiad (talk) 15:32, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG clearly lacks third party sources.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 03:20, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:10, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Association of Seventh-day Adventist Librarians

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

I couldn't establish that this is WP:NOTABLE or even worth a merge. Tagged for notability for 8 years, no consensus at AfD 3 years ago; hopefully we can now get it resolved. Boleyn (talk) 18:29, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:34, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:27, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Museums and libraries-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:27, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Few to no reliable sources found; fails WP:GNG and WP:ORG. --Regards, James(^talk/_contribs) 19:54, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- The previous AFD was closed with no consensus, after votes both ways. It certainly exists. The question is whether it is notable. It seems to undertake some kind of abstracting service and have a conference, but I see nothing to indicate size or anything else to show it is notable. Peterkingiron (talk) 19:56, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. I created this originally; now retired from Wikipedia. But yes it is probably not ″notable″ in the Wikipedia sense. Colin MacLaurin (talk) 06:29, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - even the creator agrees it's NN. Bearian (talk) 21:35, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 03:10, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Allfader

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

I couldn't establish that they meet WP:NBAND or WP:GNG Boleyn (talk) 18:20, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Dat Guy^Talk_Contribs 18:28, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as I simply found nothing else better at News, Books, browsers, Blabbermouth, Kerrang! and Terrorizer. SwisterTwister talk 05:43, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:27, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Akahum

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

Doesn't meet WP:NBAND or WP:GNG Boleyn (talk) 18:15, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Dat Guy^Talk_Contribs 18:28, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as mentioned and this was actually PRODed in 2008 by Ironholds, nothing here suggests better satisfying the notability guidelines, searches found nothing convincing. SwisterTwister talk 05:37, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NBAND and WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 22:24, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep (non-admin closure). Sir Sputnik (talk) 00:20, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Adam and Gila Milstein Family Foundation

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

Essentially promotionalism. I can't figure out how to separate it out, so if it notable, it needs rewriting from the beginning. DGG ( talk ) 17:30, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. clpo13_(talk) 17:37, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. clpo13_(talk) 17:37, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I searched, found news coverage of the Foundation. Added a couple of articles to the page. There is more, stuff like this one: [1] about the Israeli Red Cross giving the Milsteins a humanitarian award. Frankly puzzled by the existence of this AFD on a sizable, source-able, charitable foundation.E.M.Gregory (talk) 23:56, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This article should be kept. It has a lot of legitimate sources, and a quick google reveals many more articles and news coverage about this group. ^[1] A.T.J.J. Smith (talk)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions.E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:57, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions.E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:57, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep WP:ORG Important information in this article regarding which organization this Foundation supports. Important to know funding source for these smaller organizations, from an impartial resource like Wikipedia.Bookishperson (talk) 19:24, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep No compliance with WP:Before. Clearly can and should be improved, but Delete makes no sense. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 22:00, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to En Masse Entertainment#Pocket Platoons. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 00:35, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Pocket Platoons

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

Non-notable video game failing to pass WP:GNG with no multiple reliable independent in-depth sources, such as WP:VG/RS. Of the two sources in the article, one is by the developer, the other is an announcement in a non-reliable source. Cannot locate any in-depth sources besides catalogue entries and announcements (single reliable non-trivial announcement [2]), in other words, no in-depth material such as reviews. Does not appear like we could write an article with the current materials available. Metacritic is absent even of unreliable reviews. (The developer does not have an article, where the game's entry could be merged otherwise and it is listed in publisher's article.) — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 16:54, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Added more information to the Pocket Platoons page, citing two independent reviews of the game. Baraqorn (talk) 00:56, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 16:55, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy redirect to dev article: En Masse Entertainment. Analysis above is good, but dev article exists. Redirect as useful search term. czar 18:20, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to En Masse Entertainment#Pocket Platoons. Ana r chyte 05:26, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as this is unlikely independently notable. SwisterTwister talk 05:06, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Week keep per these reviews. Otherwise, redirect or merge. edtiorEهեইдအီးËეεઈדוארई電子ಇអ៊ី전자ഇī 05:13, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

These sources are unreliable by every measure. I wouldn't even call the second source a review. czar 05:42, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:24, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Crown of the Gods

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

Unreleased non-notable video game failing to pass WP:GNG with multiple reliable secondary in-depth sources, such as WP:VG/RS. Cannot locate any sources that are reliable. The current sources in the article do not appear to be reliable or in-depth. The majority are very short and none are in-depth reviews as the game is not released. A lot of information appears to come directly from developer (Kickstarter, interview, announcements) so not independent. Appears to be WP:TOOSOON until release and coverage of reliable sources. Probably suitable to be userfied until such time.The author appear to be closely connected with the game (which is not in itself an issue, but the article does go into excessive gameplay details). — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 16:42, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 16:43, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Article topic lacks significant coverage from reliable, independent sources. (?) It had no meaningful hits in a video game reliable sources custom Google search. There are no worthwhile redirect targets. If someone finds more (non-English and offline) sources, please {{ping}} me. czar 18:06, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for now per the nominator. The less than 1,000 likes on this game's official Facebook page should be an additional indication of this game's lack of notability. 和DITOR E tails 00:21, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as there's perhaps not even solid in-depth third-party sourcing overall. Draft and userfy if needed though, SwisterTwister talk 05:07, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 03:10, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

BUFADESO

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

Non notable NGO. -- Rsrikanth05 (talk) 16:26, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Dat Guy^Talk_Contribs 18:30, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Peru-related deletion discussions. Dat Guy^Talk_Contribs 18:30, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Subject lacks notability and coverage in reliable sources. Meatsgains (talk) 21:53, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 00:36, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Betty Lou Holland

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

She doesn't appear to have been that notable as an actress. OscarL 14:00, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Dat Guy^Talk_Contribs 18:34, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Dat Guy^Talk_Contribs 18:34, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as simply none of this suggests better satisfying WP:CREATIVE. SwisterTwister talk 05:44, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep passes GNG. See the references I added to the article. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 20:54, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep With sources added (thank you, Megalibrarygir), the article meet notabilty guidelines for actors which is different than WP:CREATIVE. Additionally, the article meets the GNG. Sydney Poore/FloNight ♥♥♥♥ 20:43, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I believe the actress passes WP:NACTOR for prominent roles in many notable stageplays that were major productions on Broadway. The article has been given references to RS.Atlantic306 (talk) 14:41, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sam Walton (talk) 00:08, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ronald Tisauke

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

Fails WP:GNG, effectively unsourced as the source given is just a single passing mention The Banner talk 13:53, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The only claim to fame is that he was previously part owner of a minor beauty pageant in Zimbabwe. Thomas.W ^talk 14:00, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Zimbabwe-related deletion discussions. Human3015^{Let It Go} 14:34, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Human3015^{Let It Go} 14:34, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom Clearly fails WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 22:39, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 03:10, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Miss Heritage Zimbabwe

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

Fails WP:GNG The Banner talk 13:49, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Dat Guy^Talk_Contribs 18:34, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:28, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Zimbabwe-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:28, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:28, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as fails WP;EVENT & GNG. –Davey2010^Talk 00:43, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:21, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Miss Countries 2016

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

Crystal ball, fails WP:GNG The Banner talk 13:46, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, utterly non-notable event. The article is an attempt to create notability for the pageant, not a reflection of existing notability (I would have nominated it for speedy deletion if it hadn't been here at AfD...). Thomas.W ^talk 13:57, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. Human3015^{Let It Go} 14:28, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. Human3015^{Let It Go} 14:29, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Human3015^{Let It Go} 14:29, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: per WP:TOOSOON. First edition will be held in Nov 2016, maybe article can be created later once notability of event established.--Human3015^{Let It Go} 14:32, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:31, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Too soon, main page was speedied for non-notability last year and since recreated, still not notable. Mabalu (talk) 20:36, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Possibly qualifies for an A7 speedy as an organized event for which notability is not even asserted. Only coverage found was in the usual pageant blogs. • Gene93k (talk) 22:43, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as fails WP;EVENT & GNG. –Davey2010^Talk 00:43, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:21, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Miss Countries

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

Promo, Crystal ball, fails WP:GNG The Banner talk 13:46, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It's a recreation of an article that was speedied as A7 and G11 in September 2015, and is IMHO no more notable now than it was then (I would have nominated it for speedy deletion if it hadn't been here at AfD...). Thomas.W ^talk 13:55, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. Human3015^{Let It Go} 14:36, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Human3015^{Let It Go} 14:37, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. Human3015^{Let It Go} 14:37, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:32, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and salt - per above and previous speedy dels. Mabalu (talk) 20:34, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:35, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom until there is evidence of sufficient coverage from reliable third party publications. Regards, Yamaguchi先生 (talk) 22:58, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Complete and absolute failure of WP:GNG, WP:ORG and WP:EVENT. No reliable source coverage found in independent searches. The article's two independent "references" are exceptionally dodgy. One is a blog site where anyone can post, and the post was made a few days ago by a newbie member. The other pageant blog ref is nearly identical copying whole paragraphs verbatim. Both read like the organization's about us page or PR boilerplate. There is no credible assertion of notability. • Gene93k (talk) 23:28, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as fails WP;EVENT & GNG. –Davey2010^Talk 00:43, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sam Walton (talk) 00:10, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Defense of Plava and Gucia

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

POVFORK, NPOV, OR, etc. Issues on talk page. Zoupan 13:17, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as WP:POVFORK of articles mentioned on talk. 23 editor (talk) 16:14, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per reasons presented above. Also, the article is horribly written, not even close to fulfilling linguistic standards of encyclopedic content. Sideshow Bob 12:32, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as of far too low quality for an encyclopedia, plus sources are clearly nationalist POV sites. --T*U (talk) 13:05, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Amazingly, no outside input at Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Albanian_nationalist_sites.--Zoupan 20:45, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - a badly written attempt to re-write history. Bearian (talk) 21:38, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 04:43, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Levan Songulashvili

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

fails WP:ARTIST. The sources just don't stack up to notability for an artist. Jahaza (talk) 15:59, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Georgia (country)-related deletion discussions. Jahaza (talk) 16:04, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletions. – Jahaza (talk) 16:06, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Theroadislong did a good job in improving the article. The article has many sources from online magazines, press releases, newspapers. Levan Songulashvili is one of the most well-known living artist of Georgia, he got prize by President of Georgia, had received several major awards... On December 31, 2015, he was nominated for "The Best Artist of The Year" next to Niko Pirosmani, which was great XX century artist. In 2015, Levan's artwork was sold at Sotheby's auction house in New York City at Take Home A Nude art show. The artist's painting was exhibited with world famous artists pieces, including work by Eric Fischl, Will Cotton, Arthur Elgort, Patrick Demarchelier, Yoko Ono and Kiki Smith. He has exhibitions in and out of his country... Levan is a member of Artists Union of Georgia, there are many interviews with the artist in a lots of broadcasting companies and you can find various articles about him in popular magazines and newspapers nationwide (in Georgian, Russian and English languages). In 2010, there was an article about him in Georgia's Public Encyclopedia... There are lots of papers in Georgian and Russian languages, as well as in English. It is important for Georgian society to have an article about the artist in English language Wikipedia and it is already a strange fact that we are doubting on it. You can delete it but remember, it will be a big mistake. I expect more from you before you make a final decision." GeorgianArtCenter (talk) 21:26, 8 January 2016 (UTC) GeorgianArtCenter (talk) 21:27, 8 January 2016 (UTC)GeorgianArtCenter[reply]

You should cite the Georgian Public Encyclopedia article as a source in the article -if indeed that the national encyclopedia of Georgia mentioned him in 2010 then he is clearly notable. You should also give some citations to the georgian and russian newspaper articles (preferably with a translation of the title into English). if you can provide this that will demonstrate that he is notable since notability does not require English language sources even though that is most comfortable for most editors.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 22:07, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If what GeorgianArtCenter says is true and there is an article about him in a major Georgian encyclopedia - then I would say that Songulashvili passes the general notability criteria. Same is true if Georgian news coverage establishes that he has received significant critical attention in Georgia.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 22:10, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
·maunus, I totally agree with you. I can also provide the letter of appreciation by President of Georgia and many other documentations, certified by translator. The Public Encyclopedia is a book which is not online but I have PDF document of the certified translation in English. How can I provide those files? Sincerely, GeorgianArtCenter (talk) 22:34, 8 January 2016 (UTC)(talk)[reply]

You dont need to provide them, you can just cite them as you would cite any other off-line book. And you dont need certified translations either. The letter from the president is not a useful source since it is not a published work. If a news article mentions the letter from the president, then that would also support notability.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 05:45, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Jahaza, ·maunus, I did some changes, the article is improved and I am sure it is ready without any doubts! Besides of other sources of articles in press (magazines,newspapers, online press releases in Georgian, English and Russian languages), I used the article of Georgian Encyclopedia, 9th edition, volume I, Publication - 2010. GeorgianArtCenter (talk) 04:55, 10 January 2016 (UTC)GeorgianArtCenter[reply]

You have indeed added a good number of sources, several of which seem decidedly to be "non-trivial" and "independent of the topic". Some of them do appear to be low quality non-reliable sources, and many of them are not formatted in a way that allows the reader to discern if the source is reliable or not, or if it is even about the topic of the article, but that is not important at this point since per policy we have to assume good faith until we have a good reason to assume otherwise.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 15:11, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Sources demonstrate significant, non-trivial coverage in independent, reliable sources - and therefore passes GNG. Particularly the entry in the Georgian national encyclopedia is convincing to me. If an editor who reads georgian is willing to check and confirm the sources, that would be really good. But in absence of any evidence that the sources are misrepresented we must assume good faith.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 15:11, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: fails WP:ARTIST, WP:GNG. Quis separabit? 05:19, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Could you explain how a person with an article in the Georgian national encyclopedia fails GNG?·maunus · snunɐɯ· 05:28, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Maunus, the problem is that it's not at all clear that it actually exists. We haven't been given a citation with actual publication data. Neither does the name of the article as it's been relayed suggest that it actually is about the man in question. In addition, as far as I can tell, there is no 2010 general edition of the Georgian Encylopedia see here, rather there was a general volume, "100 GEORGIANS EBROAD (2010)." (presumably that's a typo for "abroad" and since Songulashvili didn't even go abroad until 2014 there's no reason he would've been included. --Jahaza (talk) 14:53, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to remind you that we have a policy called AGF. This means that your doubts about whether the source exists are not grounds for anything other than requesting the publication data. Regardless, a person who is considered one of the most significant 100 expatriates of their nation clearly passes the GNG.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 15:02, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You have missed an important part of the substance of the comment. Yes, "a person who is considered one of the most significant 100 expatriates of their nation clearly passes the GNG." However since Songulashvili didn't go abroad until 2014, he can't have been "one of the most significant 100 expatriates" in 2010 when the Encyclopedia volume was published.--Jahaza (talk) 15:49, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The page has been scanned and uploaded by GAC to demonstrate that Songulashvili is indeed found in the encyclopedia. GAC has already been required to go to greater lengths than policy requires to demonstrate the notability and the veracity of their sources.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 16:12, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: There seems to be significant WP:COI concerns here. What is GeorgianArtCenter's relation to the topic? The username violates the username policy (WP:ISU) and the pictures the user uploaded to commons are being considered for deletion there for various copyright and COI reasons[3] and the user's statements there suggest some kind of relationship with the subject.--Jahaza (talk) 14:53, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest you substantiate the COI accusations or strike them. Also you are forgetting some fundamental policies your self including AGF, and BITE. Someone editing from a National Art center about artists from their country is not haing a COI, but is providing a public service that Wikipedia needs - namely experts providing information about areas where the average wikipedian is not knowledgeable. If a new user violates the username policy the correctthing to do is to politely notify them about the policy so that they can request a name change. ·maunus · snunɐɯ· 15:07, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

sed contra WP:AOBF--Jahaza (talk) 15:14, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your bad faith is well substantiated in your own edit above - where without any evidence or motivation accuse another editor of fabricating sources and of editing with an undisclosed COI. That is the definition of assuming bad faith.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 15:29, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I already linked to evidence, the deletion discussion on Commons for the many works of the artist that the user uploaded as "own work". I phrased it neutrally by referring generically to "COI concerns" rather than directly accusing the user of having a conflict of interest. Please read the evidence provided.--Jahaza (talk) 15:47, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion discussions at commons are not evidence of any of the concerns you have expressed - but simply attest to GAC being a new user who does not yet understand technical policies such as our copyright policies. The polite phrasing of an accusation has no bearing on the bad faith behind it. As for your concerns of fabricating sources GAC has now scanned and uploaded the page, and described what kind of source it is (it is more like an National Annuary than an encyclopedia, but regardlss it still attests to the independent notablity of whoever is featured in it).·maunus · snunɐɯ· 16:09, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment:·maunus, Here is one more, Lela Zurebiani's interview with Levan Songulashvili. The interview starts with the words: "This man has been a hot topic in Georgia for several weeks now"; "has already become a mini-celebrity of sorts"; "Young Georgian Maestro"... Is not it enough to prove the notability criteria?

Georgian Journal: "the first English-speaking news channel in Georgia, provided by the Palitra Media House - the largest independent publishing house in the country. With our brand new internet television site we are proud to serve both English-speaking audiences in Georgia and abroad with breaking stories and with features relevant to the English speaking community." - http://www.georgianjournal.ge/about-us.html P.S. You can delete the photo of the magazine as well, I just wanted to show the truth. Wikipedia needs an article about only notability artists, here it is and it does not matter I would create it or other, it would be created sooner or later. Sorry that I do not know all Wiki rules but for sure I know that the artist meets all the notability criteria.

"Sakhelebi" is annual Encyclopedia (since 2002), aimed at the President, government representatives, Georgian and foreign businessmen, politicians, other high officials and those working in the area of culture, as well as at any reader. Volume I comprises key information about Georgia, being interesting for the public, and about country's political, cultural and public life, which is of vital importance. Volume II is dedicated to "business-faces". Check out short information about the presentation of the encyclopedia: http://1tv.ge/en/news/view/11122.html If you have other concerns let me know, but there is no doubts that he is a notable artist in Georgia.

Thanks for your attention! - TornikeSani (talk) 17:16, 11 January 2016 (UTC)TornikeSani·[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 12:11, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as passes notability guidelines and has an international scope and recognition. Sad that the editors improving the article are being hassled here. Legacypac (talk) 16:04, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep passes WP:ARTIST. Also, per the notable sources and the above keep's! --MurderByDeletionism^"bang!" 21:33, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Sources added by GeorgianArtCenter appear to show enough notability per WP:ARTIST. Potential conflict of interest issues isn't a discussion for AfD. clpo13_(talk) 21:58, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

'Comment ·Sandstein here is a recent article about Levan Songulashvili published by well-known - The Art People Gallery: https://www.facebook.com/artpeople1/posts/1034827123256270

http://www.artpeoplegallery.com/levan-songulashvili/ Mr. Songulashvili was selected for the Summer 2016 edition of Studio Visit Magazine as well. It is time to make your final decision. TornikeSani (talk) 18:27, 22 January 2016 (UTC) TornikeSani[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 03:09, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jasmin SMS Gateway

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

Doesn't appear to meet our notability guidelines. There's no significant coverage in reliable sources: note that references provided in the article to BBC News and The Guardian do not actually mention Jasmin. It gets some mentions in 'how-to' articles and in promotional articles on the web, but no significant coverage in anything I think we'd consider a reliable source. Previously {{prod}}ed by Ohnoitsjamie, endorsed by me, and contested by 190.246.131.119. _└^UkPaolo/_talk^┐ 11:34, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. sst ✈ 13:02, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. sst ✈ 13:02, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as I also think it seems questionably solidly notable. WP:TNT at best. SwisterTwister talk 06:15, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Deleteper nom fails WP:SIGCOV .Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 22:46, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep (non-admin closure). Sir Sputnik (talk) 00:22, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sink estate

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

The subject of this article is a moderately recent pejorative buzzword that is only used by the UK Conservative party and allied newspapers to refer to poorer housing estates. Its contents can be divided into a) material already existing in the Housing estate article, b) non-neutral political opinion, c) unreferenced assertions.

Inasmuch, it meets the following "Reasons for deletion" set out in WP:Deletion_policy:

6. Articles that cannot possibly be attributed to reliable sources, including neologisms, original theories and conclusions, and articles that are themselves hoaxes (but not articles describing notable hoaxes)

7. Articles whose subjects fail to meet the relevant notability guideline

14. Any other content not suitable for an encyclopedia Ordinary Person (talk) 10:55, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. sst ✈ 13:03, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. sst ✈ 13:03, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The article could do with some more sources, but notability can be established from the Scholar hits alone - which also establish that the term has been used in an academic context since at least 1981. Kolbasz (talk) 13:23, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: There is useful sociology and suggestions for improving social housing in the article. The References section includes material from The Observer and The New Statesman which are both centre left, that shows it's not just a Conservative term. Nuggets of Knowledge (talk) 13:48, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep term in wide use for over a decade and therefore unlikely to fall foul of WP:NEO. Artw (talk) 16:17, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the article is not in a good shape, but that is not a reason to delete it. I have added a few sources, and it is not hard to find news pieces regularly using the term in political discussions (eg: [4], [5], [6]) Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 17:40, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 03:09, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Drake Kemper

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

Fails WP:NACTOR and probably also as a race car driver. Clarityfiend (talk) 09:38, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. sst ✈ 10:17, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. sst ✈ 10:17, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Not better satisfying WP:CREATIVE. SwisterTwister talk 05:49, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - his only roles have no names and/or are redshirts. Bearian (talk) 21:37, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment WP:CREATIVE has got nothing to do with it. I think he fails WP:NACTOR with no notable roles, so his claim rests on his motor racing of which I don't know enough to judge.Atlantic306 (talk) 15:54, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep. Michig (talk) 09:23, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

2017 ATP World Tour

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

We just started the 2016 ATP World Tour and now someone has created a 2017 World Tour article. Way way way too early for this. I tried a proposed deletion to no avail so now it's a standard deletion nomination. Fyunck(click) (talk) 09:16, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete should be speedy! Legacypac (talk) 09:25, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Human3015^{Let It Go} 09:34, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Human3015^{Let It Go} 09:34, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The schedule for the 2017 and 2018 tours have been confirmed. I have seen major tournaments from other sports been given an article years before the event before. Seasider91 (talk) 11:04, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not an argument whether to keep or delete an article....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 14:50, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:CRYSTAL - "Individual scheduled or expected future events should be included only if the event is notable and almost certain to take place" Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 18:23, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
That WP:Crystal sentence is for mentioning things in preexisting articles... not an article itself. This is ridiculously early. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:01, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No, it applies to articles too. Why is it "ridiculously early"? When should it be created? One day before it starts? 30 days? 31 days? It meets WP:V with WP:RS to state it's scheduled to happen. At worst it should be redirected to the main ATP article, but as it stands it violates no WP policy, so should not be deleted. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 19:03, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see that. Let's put it this way... almost every single article for an individual tournament has been deleted by the entire wikipedia community if it's more that 60 days prior to its start....sometimes more than 30 days. Anything more has always been considered way to early "by consensus". Now this isn't a tournament, this is the 2017 ATP tour, but it's a year before it starts. It violates no policy, but it easily violates consensus and should be speedily deleted. I would have no real problem with it being redirected to the ATP article, and then come November recreating it with more pertinent info. Fyunck(click) (talk) 21:02, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Why November? What if it was 31 October? And your claim of "almost every single article for an individual tournament has been deleted by the entire wikipedia community if it's more that 60 days prior to its start" is completly made up. I'm part of "...the entire wikipedia community..." and I recall no such discussion. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 10:18, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It is not made up. Tennis Project has brought these events up many times and they almost always get deleted or redirected till we get much closer to the event. As for your 31 October stuff, you're simply being argumentative. I used 60 days as a pretty good indicator and rule of thumb and of course the time/date is not etched in stone. But a year is way off kilter, and two years is hard to fathom. Look at it like the garbage can law in my city. If you don't bring in the cans by 8pm the day of collection you're breaking city ordinance. But as long as you bring them in by the next day no one cares. Start taking them in 2 or 3 days late on a regular basis you'll get reported and keep doing it and your cans will be confiscated. So certainly there must be flexibility depending on the tournament significance, but I think a year out is much much too early. Fyunck(click) (talk) 11:11, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

So what about 61 days? How is that any different from the 60? Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 19:03, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Cool, I can agree to that. 61 days it is. Fyunck(click) (talk) 21:26, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to the article about the association. While I hate to suggest deleting articles about upcoming events per WP:CRYSTAL and WP:TOOSOON, I can't find many independent publications talking about this even itself just yet, so I guess this will have to apply here. edtiorEهեইдအီးËეεઈדוארई電子ಇអ៊ី전자ഇī 00:34, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Adding the full content of 2017 ATP World Tour to Association of Tennis Professionals would add too much detail to the latter article. Do you suggest only listing changes in 2017 compared to the 2016 world tour in the ATP article? That could be a good compromise if deletion/redirect is the outcome of this discussion. Gap9551 (talk) 18:27, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I assume it was created now because ATP published the calendar 13 January.[7] They also published the 2018 calendar and the author also created 2018 ATP World Tour. With the full calendars known except the location of a new pre-Wimbledon event and the possibility of changes, the articles have almost as much information now as shortly before the seasons start. Some readers will be interested in the calendars and I don't see good reason to delete them now just to recreate them later. 2015 ATP World Tour was created in February 2014 and already had 1155 views in March.[8] The empty progress columns look silly now but they could be removed without deleting the articles. WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS but Category:Scheduled sports events have lots of articles with far less information and some of them have been kept at AfD like Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2017 BWF World Championships, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2021 World Aquatics Championships, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2021 World Championships in Athletics. The calendars have useful information that wouldn't fit elsewhere, and the Google search ATP 2017 2018 already finds independent sources. PrimeHunter (talk) 00:53, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Which is why I also nominated that article for deletion. I still think it's silly to list an empty season a year in advance, and don't get me started on a 2018 season. And while it's true that "some" events don't get deleted, I could easily throw others in like 2016 Wimbledon Championships, 2016 US Open (tennis), and 2016 French Open that have been deleted multiple times. Fyunck(click) (talk) 01:04, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep WP:CRYSTAL applies and is met. There must be enough relevant content available, of course, and that is the case here. WP:TOOSOON says: If sources do not exist, it is generally too soon for an article on that topic to be considered. Sources exist, but a lack of independent sources could be a concern for notability, even if the ATP source seems very reliable. That said, Fyunck(click) has a strong point about consensus in WikiProject Tennis about waiting with article creation until shortly before the tournament/tour. I'm not familiar with those discussions and I would like to hear more about the arguments used, and how they compare to WP:CRYSTAL. I vote 'keep' at this time based on the more general guidelines. Gap9551 (talk) 18:20, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Just so I don't err on understanding your pov. If Wimbledon or the Taiwan Open release official dates for future events 5 years out (and we can source it), we can make new encyclopedic articles about them? Because that's all this article is about... The events have all listed their scheduled dates so the ATP has released the full schedule. Other than the fact that those tournaments will exist in the future, there is nothing. No financial commitments, no draws, no player commitments, no round by round schedules, no tickets, etc... Only a date. Even the number of players in the draw is speculation since many events can change that. Also, per the sources, there is no mention that the points distribution will change/be tweaked for those events or Davis Cup, so those charts are not sourced. I think this is bad precedent for an encyclopedia. Fyunck(click) (talk) 20:56, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Having only a date is insufficient for an article like 2016 Wimbledon Championships, and I agree we'd need the kind of information you mention, otherwise the article would have almost no content. But 2017 ATP World Tour is not about one event, but about the order in which a large number of events are held. It is not only about providing information about each event individually, but also about the relationships between various events, for example, which events are held in the same week, which events are held the week before a Grand Slam, which events are held during the Asian swing, how many weeks are there between the French Open and Wimbledon, etc. In my opinion, that is a large part of the value of this article. Either way, unlike articles for separate events, 2017 ATP World Tour has a lot of content. Not having enough content for each event article individually could even be an argument for making one article combining all of them instead. Gap9551 (talk) 22:49, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Ok... however a lot of the content is conjecture, not fact. All the release says is the place, event type, the date and the court surface. It says nothing about the draw numbers (which do change), the point distributions (which also change), so that type of inclusion is WP:OR. This should be simply a list. I still disagree with it's inclusion as I find it the same as listing Madison Square Garden's concerts for the next 3 years. And this is a year ahead...2017.... there's also a 2018 article up for deletion. Fyunck(click) (talk) 23:58, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Draw information etc. that is not in the source should be removed, I think. Draws usually stay the same from year to year, but as you said, we shouldn't assume that. I like your idea of This should be simply a list. The current table is way too large with all the empty columns, plus the unlinked draw text in the left-most column. We could replace it with a simple table with columns for week number, date, city, event, event level, and surface. Each event row should have only a single line of text (unlike the 5+ lines in the current table), so the whole table wouldn't be very long. In due time, the table can be changed to the normal format (the format that is currently used). Let's wait for more opinions. Gap9551 (talk) 00:32, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There is no reason ATP season 2017 will not happen, and plenty on info present on it aleady. Naki (talk) 21:15, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Of course it will happen. So will the 2018, 2019, 2020 and 2021 seasons. That doesn't mean we make empty frame-work articles for them in January of 2016. I don't think we do have "plenty of info." If people here feel there's enough info to warrant keeping it, that's fine. Fyunck(click) (talk) 21:40, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete--Ymblanter (talk) 08:47, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Survival Island! Escape From The Desert Island!

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

No references proving notability. Googling "Survival Island! Escape From The Desert Island!" comes up mainly with cheat codes and YouTube videos. Ana r chyte 08:41, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Human3015^{Let It Go} 09:37, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Article is not notable and fails WP:GNG. Metacritic does have a page for it but there is no review available. No reliable sources are covering it. AdrianGamer (talk) 05:30, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as certainly questionable for better notability with the applicable notability guidelines. SwisterTwister talk 05:04, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Agree with all of what the rest of the people are saying with this. Matt294069 is coming 03:45, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy delete per WP:CSD#G3, WP:CSD#G4 Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 09:59, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Californias

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

The article is one of Wikipedia's longest running hoaxes (about 8 years, 11 months). This is a blatant and notable hoax per WP:HOAX. Deletion is mandatory. The article maintains a fictional "The Californias Province" by rearranging material pasted from real articles (Baja California and California) to make the hoax seem real.

The article has been voted for deletion before under earlier titles, for example: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Las Californias Province. The author of the hoax, User:WCCasey and/or sockpuppets, recreated the article with redirects to circumvent the decision. An earlier incarnation of the hoax in the same manner circumvented deletion by creation of two nearly identical articles, then merging them (see Talk:The Californias). Wyeson 08:33, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete should be speedy per CSD G4 (it is a repost of a deleted article). Wyeson 09:15, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Human3015^{Let It Go} 09:41, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. Human3015^{Let It Go} 09:41, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Human3015^{Let It Go} 09:41, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Human3015^{Let It Go} 09:41, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The Californias is obviously a hoax. Everyone in California older than eight years old knows that Baja and Alta California were never one country. WCCasey made it up and she and all her Sockpockets should be pemanently blocked for vandalism. This article was already deleted four times before, but WCCasey keeps recreating her hoax in violation of Wikipedia's policy. Castanea dentata (talk) 09:29, 17 January 2016 (UTC) 07:56, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete OK I messed up. I just wanted to leave my mark in a bunch of things on the internet. So I made some things up. Is that so wrong? I didnt't hurt anybody. So, go ahead and delete The Californias and Viceroyalty of New Spain. So what? Now I admitted what I did, don't block me. WCCCasey (talk) 08:25, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep.(non-admin closure) Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 17:06, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Illustrations of Japan

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

No indication of notability asserted in the article. Entirely self-referenced. For me, the original title "Bijzonderheden over Japan" gets 89 Google hits. Should be mentioned on the article for the author Isaac Titsingh (as it is already) and nothing more. Bueller 007 (talk) 08:08, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Human3015^{Let It Go} 09:51, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Human3015^{Let It Go} 09:51, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. Human3015^{Let It Go} 09:53, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: From what I can see on the publisher's page, Secret Memoirs of the Shoguns looks an annotated version of the same book. However because it is annotated and published through a reputable publisher, I'd say that the annotations could be used as a sign of notability in this situation. We'd need other sources to show notability, though. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 10:56, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: If someone were to edit the material carefully into the article on Titsingh, this might be fine, but simply deleting it smacks of vandalism. It seems to me that arguing about "notability" for current events or material is sorting wheat from chaff, but historical surviving material is by definition stuff that has been found notable enough to survive. Imaginatorium (talk) 15:08, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Notability is not in doubt. Among contemporary reviews, all of them substantial:

It was reviewed in 1822 by The Gentleman's Magazine (pp. 430-432).

It was discussed at length in The Eclectic Review of 1822 (pp. 324-332).

It was reviewed by The Monthly Review in 1822 (pp 337-350).

More recently, it was reviewed by Sir Hugh Cortazzi for The Japan Society, again in substantial detail. Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:02, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is significant as an early Western look at Japan.E.M.Gregory (talk) 01:52, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, meets WP:GNG and WP:NBOOK which is shown by citations above, thanks to Chiswick Chap, also covered by WP:OLDBOOK. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:32, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep' and I would've also closed as such as this seems currently convincingly notable and acceptable. SwisterTwister talk 06:54, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 04:40, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Lucy Hannah

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

Non-notable supercentenarian. FailsWP:GNG as there is no coverage in reliable sources. Of the sources in the article, two are from the GRG which are simple names in a table. The third source is a mention in a footnote that states her case "escaped media notice". Nothing here that establishes notability let alone a standalone article. Article also tells us NOTHING that isn't already available in List of supercentenarians from the United States, List of the verified oldest people, List of the verified oldest women and Oldest people. So even if notable, WP:NOPAGE would certainly apply.

Note: There was clearly some off-Wiki canvassing going on during the previous AFD so a much better discussion should happen now that some of the SPA's have been cleared out. CommanderLinx (talk) 07:30, 16 January 2016 (UTC)This editor has made few or no other edits outside this topic.[reply]

Keep She is one of the oldest person ever, and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lucy Hannah (2nd nomination) (7 months ago) result was keep. survived two prior AFDs, clearly notable.--Inception2010 (talk) 09:10, 16 January 2016 (UTC)This editor has made few or no other edits outside this topic.[reply]

Except there is nothing in the notability guidelines that says "being old makes you notable". Prior AFD was sock infested so there should be a better discussion now. Can you also address the sourcing and the NOPAGE problems? There is literally nothing in this article that isn't available in one of the four or so lists she's on. CommanderLinx (talk) 10:36, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your opinion that "Article also tells us NOTHING that isn't already available in List of supercentenarians from the United States, List of the verified oldest people, List of the verified oldest women and Oldest people." and "There is literally nothing in this article that isn't available in one of the four or so lists she's on." is wrong. Information that being she was claimed to be a year older is does not exist in List of supercentenarians from the United States, List of the verified oldest people, List of the verified oldest women and Oldest people.--Inception2010 (talk) 11:59, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Alabama-related deletion discussions. Human3015^{Let It Go} 09:58, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Human3015^{Let It Go} 09:58, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, what Commander should have said is Article also tells us NOTHING WORTH MENTIONING that isn't already available in [etc]. EEng (talk) 13:12, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/redirect to appropriate list. Another nothing-article. EEng (talk) 13:12, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete since the whole thing (outside very basic bio) is a collection of unsourced unverified standings in the mythical longevity Olympics. Legacypac (talk) 14:51, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There are not sufficient non-trivial, reliable sources to satisfy the requirements of WP:N and the circumstances surrounding this "case" make it obvious that they do not exist, as noted in the nomination. There is no Wikipedia policy that states that longevity is in and of itself notable, so that is not a reason to keep this article. Canadian Paul 22:34, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The article has been steadily kept at two different AfDs. WP:NOTABILITYISNOTTEMPORARY should apply here. Also sources indicates that the facts stated are true. Being the oldest ever from a certain US state is as notable as being the oldest from a country. WP:GNG also applies. --BabbaQ (talk) 00:49, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The argument that an article should be kept because it survived prior AfDs is absurd, since if it was valid we'd never have more than one AfD for a given article, not to mention that the prior AfDs are SPA-infested. And, of course, I take it you can't point to any policy or guideline providing that state-level oldsters are inherently notably (which would be ridiculous, since we'd have thousands and thousands of these article, by that reasoning). EEng (talk) 01:40, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Really? the second oldest person ever in the U. S. and the world's third oldest human ever recorded isn't notable? I beg to differ. He died over 20 years ago so sourcing will be more difficult, but not a reason to delete this page.--Uietueps (talk) 06:25, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Really. Notability is based on coverage, not status. EEng (talk) 06:37, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No, according to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Arbella Ewing, the second oldest American and third oldest human at that time was not. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 19:22, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Arbella Ewing was just second oldest living American and third oldest living person during lifetime. not second oldest American ever and third oldest human ever. "(World's) third oldest person ever" and "(World's) third oldest person" are different types of extremes of longevity, you know?--Inception2010 (talk) 13:26, 20 January 2016 (UTC) This editor has made few or no other edits outside this topic.[reply]

Tomato, tomoto, neither were ever the oldest. Strip all the nth oldest now then ever never and you have a the details that go on a headstone, not a biography. Legacypac (talk) 06:16, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to the American supercentenian list as was done for Arbella Ewing, the last second old American and third oldest human being listed. Consensus is that reliable sources are needed and they aren't here. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 19:22, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

there is no information here that is not better presented on a list. I tried reorganizing the seemingly conflicting claims to her rank, but it still says she was both the oldest and 2nd oldest American, presumably because someone passed her later. When the next person passes her, do we remember to update this non-bio attempt at writing ? Legacypac (talk) 02:42, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

How often does the 3rd oldest human OF ALL TIME get passed? Seriously? You've also voted twice now. GuzzyG (talk) 07:50, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep If you're going to delete super centenarian articles start from bottom to the top, not the top from bottom, top three aged human in history IS NOTABLE. NTEMP and all that, it's a shame she died in 1993 and not 2013. Not to mention this got 12681 views in 90 days are we really going to send these people to a list? AFD is not cleanup for bad articles.. GuzzyG (talk) 07:50, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

opps - fixed that. A lot of these non-bio bios look alike. To pass WP:NTEMP would require actual coverage of her life. Legacypac (talk) 08:21, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Again, there is nothing in the notability guidelines that says "being old makes you notable". Can you address the clear failure of WP:GNG as there is no significant coverage in sources and the NOPAGE issue? There is nothing in this "article" that isn't easily available on a list. CommanderLinx (talk) 08:58, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep If being old is not notable then Jeanne Calment is not notable, and no-one is suggesting her page should be deleted. I think the oldest black person ever is notable even if the article is sparse. Pistachio disguisey (talk) 01:16, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jeanne Calment got extensive press and other coverage in RS so passes GNG. This subject, not so much. Legacypac (talk)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 04:40, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Diamond and Diamond

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

Not a notable Canadian law firm. Not worthy of a wikipedia article. The length of this article demonstrates that. Sportsfan100 1999 (talk) 06:52, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. sst ✈ 07:24, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. sst ✈ 07:24, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:33, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - other than press releases, trivial mentions, and listings, not enough to show they pass WP:CORPDEPTH, and they clearly don't pass WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 17:02, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as unlikely notable local company. SwisterTwister talk 21:11, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy - it's possibly big enough to pass my standards, but I can't tell from the information and citations in the article right now. Bearian (talk) 21:43, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. J04n(talk page) 14:22, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jeremy Diamond

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

This article is a stub. Jeremy Diamond is not a notable person. It appears to just be advertising for him. He links to the article on his law firm webpage. Sportsfan100 1999 (talk) 06:46, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. sst ✈ 07:25, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. sst ✈ 07:25, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. sst ✈ 07:25, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - searches did not turn up enough in-depth coverage from reliable secondary sources to show that he meets the notability guidelines. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 17:03, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as I also believe this is currently showing unlikely signs of better notability, simply a local lawyer. SwisterTwister talk 21:13, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete per WP:SNOW. I'm closing this one early per my comments below. I could wait for more delete votes, but this one seems obvious. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:22, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Paolo and Magillicuddy

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

Either made up or not at all notable, online searches only turn up this article. Captain Sweden 06:22, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. sst ✈ 07:25, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I took a look at another article made by the same user. I think that the reason that you're not hearing anything about this is because this was a homemade movie created by a 7 year old. I've speedied the child's page and I've left a note on the editor's talk page about notability. I think it's likely that the article's creator is probably around the same age (if not the director himself), so I also gave him a link to the page on minors editing Wikipedia. I think that I'll probably close this one early, as a search shows that there's nothing out there and this looks to clearly be a film that he made on his own. I always think that it's pretty neat when children make their own film since that shows some serious creativity and effort on their part, but they rarely pass notability guidelines. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 08:37, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to wait for at least one other person to give their input before closing this, just as a sign of good faith that maybe sources might exist. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 10:48, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I think I found the same web page as Tokyogirl79, but, in the interests of privacy, I'm not going to comment on it it. If this film exists, I think it's likely that it's a non-notable amateur production. I don't see mention of it anywhere in reliable sources. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 16:01, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. -- RoySmith (talk) 02:53, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hadith of Jesus Praying Behind Mahdi

AfDs for this article:

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

Non notable hadith which fails GNG. Furthermore the article uses Unreliable self-published sources and information from primary sources to create a WP:COATRACK. There are 13 sources given in the article(I may edit this to add other sources if they are added during the deletion discussion). Given below is a rational as to why these fail to hold this article up. Closing admin should note that some voters who edit with a Pro-Shiite POV vote here with "Keep" but will not provide any counter arguments to substantiate this atrocious source misrepresentation in the article, nor will they present any rationale as to why this article is a complete OR Coatrack. These SPA's give some "Reliable" sources discussing this tradition. A simple click will show that as with other ten or twelve thousand common traditions, this too has been mentioned in three or four lines. Not a single reliable source can be found which can give indepth mention of this narration.

The first source is "The Prophet Jesus (as) and Hazrat Mahdi (as) Will Come This Century". It is an unreliable source penned by Adnan Oktar who is nothing more than a conspiracy theorist. Therefore this is an unreliable source and any article which exists based on this as a "scholarly source on Islam" should be deleted.
There are two references to the Quran. This is 100% coatrack, as the very title of the article is "The hadith of....". Including the references to Quran here are just a part of a coatrack.
Source number four is Sahih Bukhari, which is a Primary collection of traditions. This is pure 100% Original Research. Wikipedia forbids WP:OR due to this kind of issues, because editors can cherry pick information out of a primary source and then create an article based on that. There are more than Ten Thousand subjects covered in these Primary books, should every one of those subjects be now used to create a wikipedia topic?
Source number five is a hate book written by Akhtar Rizvi. Now although we can use, and should use, hate books to show the opinions of their writers, we should not use them as sources of "Scholarly opinion". The simple proof that this book is a hate book is that it uses the hate word "Qadiani". A simple analogy is that a book which uses the word "Dirty niggers" throughout the book "should not" and "will not" be used as a scholarly source in African American Articles. Same is the case with books using the word "Kike" throughout not being used as scholarly sources in "Semitic" articles.
Sources six and Seven are once again Primary sources from which information has been cherry picked through WP:OR.
Source number eight is quite a conundrum. According to this article the information is from the book "Nuzool Isa Ibn Maryam Akhir al-Zaman" written by Jalaluddin al-Suyuti. Now when we try to find this book it appears to be un available on the internet in any form. Even Though many books have been uploaded in Arabic, there are hundreds which are not on the internet, so this is not a big deal. It does however raise some eyebrows. When we try to search for this book in google books, to see if "any OTHER scholar" has quoted Suyuti's opinion, we come up empty handed. Only "Religious Polemics in Context: Papers Presented to the Second International Conference of the Leiden Institute for the Study of Religions (Lisor) Held at Leiden, 27-28 April, 2000" and "THE BIOGRAPHIES OF THE ELITE LIVES OF THE SCHOLARS, IMAMS & HADITH MASTERS: Biographies of The Imams & Scholars" have the name of this book in their index, and both of them refrain from giving any quotes etc. So even though this "may well" be a reliable book, up till now I am having trouble ascertaining whether it is even a real book or not.
Source number ten is "Ibn Hajar al-Haytami's book Al-Sawa'iq al-Muhriqah". This appeared to be suspicious to me from the get go as this a highly polemical book written against the Shia's and Almost the entire book is written to show the good qualities in the first four caliphs. the book had literally nothing to do with Jesus and Imam Mahdi, but I have perused the book just in case. I was not able to find the Original Arabic version but rather an Urdu translation. the first Problem with this reference is that the book has more than one "Sections 11's" and none of those sections 11's is on page 254. The first is on page 477 and talkes about how a marriage was arranged while the second is on page794 and that talks about Ahl-al-Bayat, and nothing is said about Jesus. So this is either source misrepresentation, or something else. In the nutshell, this source also, does not support the article.
Source number 11 is "Fara'id al-Simtayn. p. 43". Now this too is a book which has almost nothing to do with jesus, but again AGF, I took the time to search for it and read it. Now page 43 as given in the scanned version of the original here ( you may have to scroll down and the pages are in Arabic Numeral, so the page number 43 will look like "3" and then a "trident like thingy". this is the image of the page you can see the page in top left, then use the orignal text to scroll to the required page) does not state anything about Jesus, or about the Imam Mahdi. The tradition is in Arabic, an Arabic user can understand it, but if you have a keyboard in Arabic you can type it in google translate and the translation will show that Imam Mahdi and Jesus are absent here. So again, source misrepresentation, or something like that.
Source 12 is again the same dubious book by Suyuti under a different name. Already discussed.
The last source is a "Shi'ite encyclopedia" now even if throw out the little fact that two bit encyclopedias like this are not sources. We are left with a HUGE book and no reference. It is like me asking for the directions to the Ayatollahs house and the reply being."The Ayatollah Bamboozly Al Bomby lives on the earth". Kinda hilarious to be frank.

So seeing all this, the article should be deleted. FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 06:11, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. sst ✈ 07:26, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. sst ✈ 07:26, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (Page creator): The article should not be deleted and certainly passes GNG per [9], [10], [11], [12], [13] and etc. Mhhossein (talk) 11:18, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The talk page of the nominated deletion page was already asking the nominator to put his observation first. Instead discussing the issues at talk page, he has suddenly nominated the page for deletion. I request the nominator to first discuss the issues at talk page. Nannadeem (talk) 19:27, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Closing Admin plz also note my edit-harassment at EN:WP after reading the comments of page deletion nominator that "Closing admin should note that some voters who edit with a Pro-Shiite POV vote here with Keep" Nannadeem (talk) 15:40, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There are so many sources for this. Why was this even nominated in the first place? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Saheehinfo (talk • contribs) 18:38, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Saheehinfo: Me and some others have the same question here. Mhhossein (talk) 12:10, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This would be a great article to keep, but I'd like to see a "background" section added that gives more context than the lead to these narrations. -Darouet (talk) 08:50, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Cumberland, Maryland. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 00:38, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

List of festivals and events in Cumberland, MD-WV

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

A list of some of the many events around this area. Most don't seem article-worthy. TaylorMoore2 (talk) 18:14, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. sst✈ 18:56, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. sst✈ 18:56, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Maryland-related deletion discussions. sst✈ 18:56, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of West Virginia-related deletion discussions. sst✈ 18:56, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Selective Merge to Cumberland, Maryland, which will enhance the merge target article. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:59, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:07, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 05:47, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Procedural Close. Deleted on 16 January 2016 by RHaworth (talk · contribs) (A1: Very short article lacking sufficient context to identify subject of article) (non-admin closure) | Uncle Milty | talk | 12:30, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Cringe Rap

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

Move to Wikitionary or somewhere else. Ueutyi (talk) 05:45, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. sst ✈ 07:27, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. sst ✈ 07:27, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. With the low participation in this discussion, will consider this a soft delete. J04n(talk page) 14:21, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Olu Aboluwoye

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

I created this article last year. After another look today, I'm uncertain as to whether he meets WP:ACADEMIC. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 17:08, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 17:11, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 17:11, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 17:11, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:54, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: fails WP:ACADEMIC and WP:GNG, IMHO. Quis separabit? 05:17, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 05:34, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Cannabis strains. Never usually close on one !vote but it's been up 3 weeks with 2 relists so can't see the discussion getting any better so redirecting. –Davey2010^Talk 00:46, 23 January 2016 (UTC) (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 00:46, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Shaman (Cannabis)

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

Non-notable Cannabis strain. The sole reference ([14]) was removed three years ago for being unreliable, and it's still one of the only sources I can find. Fails WP:GNG. clpo13_(talk) 16:40, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. clpo13_(talk) 21:57, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organisms-related deletion discussions. clpo13_(talk) 23:00, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:53, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Cannabis strains. It is difficult to figure out the correct search terms with this one. Shamans (as in animistic priests) and their trances are likely connected to cannabis use, so lots of false positives there. Considering the revision history, it is unlikely anyone will improve the article any time soon. The article's unspecific phrasing and lack of sources additionally make it impossible to verify the subject. - HyperGaruda (talk) 19:56, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 05:33, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. With the low participation in this discussion, will consider this a soft delete. J04n(talk page) 14:20, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Versatile Avionics Shop Test

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

Fails WP:GNG, non-notable JMHamo (talk) 12:01, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. sst✈ 13:01, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. sst✈ 13:01, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. sst✈ 13:01, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom - no independent in-depth coverage of the subject; mere existence does not equate to notability. YSSYguy (talk) 22:55, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:53, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 05:32, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 00:46, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

True Original

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

Only with a template, and no sources. 333 -blue 08:37, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:40, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:40, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:53, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - it was only released a week or so ago so I didn't turn up much in the way of coverage. Here's a dedicated piece in Sideline, although that does seem to be a blog. The single is also rising on the Billboard Dance Club chart, for what it's worth. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 22:27, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 05:32, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - the song as pointed out is climbing the Dance Club Songs chart and a video was just uploaded to YouTube, so I don't see any reason to remove it.Robert Moore (talk) 04:12, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep.(non-admin closure) Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 17:12, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Seance (band)

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

Does not meet WP:BAND. The only source for the article is its label and therefore not independent. The label it is on is, however, independent. MSJapan (talk) 05:53, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:36, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:36, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep perhaps considering the current coverage. Delete for now at best as this has never had any apparent signs of likely better notability and searches so far at Blabbermouth, Terrorizer and Kerrang! found nothing better than this (hardly enough, passing mentions). SwisterTwister talk 01:39, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:51, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I'm finding some stuff out there to assert notability. I've added some coverage to the article. There are some other things like this that I'm unsure of, though. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:47, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I also found this. The site looks like it'd be a RS, but I haven't listened to the show yet to see if there's any actual coverage or if they're just playing the albums. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:52, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This isn't the strongest keep, but I think that there's enough to assert notability for the band. We have two reviews from AllMusic, one from Exclaim!, and one from MetalReviews. They were also mentioned at length in a Bazillion Points book from what I could see. Other than the one album, I don't know that their individual albums need articles, but I think there's enough for the band as a whole. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:55, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 05:29, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Enough coverage for an article. --Michig (talk) 16:36, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I agree with Swister's and TokyoGirl's assessment. Enough coverage from the reviews to show the band barely passes notability criteria. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 17:05, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. J04n(talk page) 14:17, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Correllian Nativist Tradition

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

Non-notable organization. No coverage in reliable sources. – Jonesey95 (talk) 05:51, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:36, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:51, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete; seems like a hoax. Per Wicca, the religion is a twentieth-century creation, so the idea of a subgroup being founded in 1879 (the date is repeated; it's not a single typo here) is impossible. Nyttend (talk) 20:03, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I am not a Corellian Wiccan but I do run a major Wiccan website. I can't personally speak for the Corellians as I have never met them but I have met people who have been in contact with them. The Corellians are definitely real and operating in London. They have a group running at this website below which meets 'in the flesh' which is why I came to the site. I wanted to find out more about them. It is definitely not a hoax. I was actually surprised to see that their entry was up for deletion as I understand them to be one of the better organised and more serious Wiccan lineages.

http://www.globalwicca.com/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.29.164.193 (talk • contribs) 21:26, 12 January 2016‎

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 05:28, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

On the Fence: It's not a hoax article but needs heavy pruning if it remains. Whether it does or not, a brief paragraph should probably appear at Contemporary witchcraft. There's a fair amount of evidence regarding its existence out there, though what can be considered secondary WP:RELIABLESOURCES is a bit problematic. Examples outside of pagan sources are few and far between and include their founding of Witch School (http://www.religionnewsblog.com/3711/wiccans-get-out-of-building-contract is also a pointer), being successful co-plaintiffs for veteran right to have the wiccan pentacle on headstones, and this re South African repeal of witchcraft laws (apparently subsequently successful). Additional hints to potentially inaccessible news stories are here. It's also possible that they're in Alex Mar's Witches of America. ^~~Hydronium^~Hydroxide^~(Talk)~~ 12:17, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - wait, isn't Corellia the home planet of Han Solo in the Star Wars films? Thinking potential hoax here. Blythwood (talk) 15:23, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Even if they are a genuine group, I do not see how they are notable among the thousands of Wiccan traditions that exist. Where are the reliable, third party references? TechBear | Talk | Contributions 19:48, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
This group is notable because they exist on the ground not just in books. There are thousands of groups in theory but on the ground there are only about a dozen wiccan lines active. I only talking about the London area. This is one of the active ones so people might come to Wikipedia to find out who they are, as I did. This page could be cleaned up but deleting would destroy useful info Keep — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.29.164.153 (talk) 18:42, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Can you provide references to reliable sources that support your statement? That is what the article needs in order to be kept. – Jonesey95 (talk) 19:03, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 00:47, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

MarqTran

AfDs for this article:

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

Not notable, no sources found. Previously kept way back in 2004. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 05:07, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. sst ✈ 07:29, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. sst ✈ 07:29, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:35, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep - These two reports by Smart Growth America has extensive content on the Marquette County Transit Authority which is the full name of MarqTran ("MarqTran" is simply a marketing affectation). Other non-local coverage exists too. [15] --Oakshade (talk) 01:31, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep—but clean up and expand. As Oakshade notes, there are non-local sources, and a quick trip to the library here in Marquette would reveal a plethora of local sources because Peter White Public Library maintains extensive vertical files of newspaper clippings on local topics. Notability isn't limited by those local sources, so adding them would ensure this article meets the bar set by WP:GNG. Imzadi 1979 → 02:29, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Tornadoes_of_1983#December . MBisanz ^talk 00:03, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

December 6, 1983, Selma, AL tornado

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

There does not appear to be any reason to keep this page. It does not seem like a significant tornado event, with the sole reference being the NOAA (which keeps track of all tornadoes), and it does not appear to pass GNG. Primefac (talk) 04:37, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. sst ✈ 07:31, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Alabama-related deletion discussions. sst ✈ 07:31, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Tornadoes_of_1983#December at best. On Wikipedia, "all branches of knowledge" does not mean every single tornado in history should have its own article. The only source listed here is a public domain primary source listing tornados that happened in Alabama in 1983. I couldn't find anything else besides that. 和DITOR E tails 00:11, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as above and maybe give passing mention in Selma, Alabama if there are any other supporting sources beyond the NOAA source. As it stands now, the NOAA source is a largely WP:INDISCRIMINATE list, so we don't have inherent notability with this tornado. Kingofaces43 (talk) 03:20, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. MBisanz ^talk 03:09, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Supporting Our Youth

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

A group of programs run by a health center whose article was just deleted. Sourced nearly completely to SOY website. Deletion suggested here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2016_January_8#Sherbourne_Health_Centre by editor that did not know how to nominate it. Legacypac (talk) 03:41, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

delete no evidence of notability. Staszek Lem (talk) 03:49, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. sst ✈ 07:38, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. sst ✈ 07:38, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. sst ✈ 07:38, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I only found one independent news source (Toronto Life), and it was published two days ago. This doesn't warrant an article until such time as it has more breadth of coverage in the media. Mind matrix 15:44, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Bearcat's updates. Mind matrix 21:23, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This is definitely a poorly written and primary-sourced article in its current state. To be fair, it was written in 2006, a time when our sourcing rules actually did not preclude primary sourcing anywhere near as strictly as they do now — any source at all which verified the content, even if it was a primary one, was once perfectly acceptable. However, a ProQuest search confirmed that it actually does have the level of RS coverage needed to clear the bar under the current standards: it gets hits dating all the way back to 1998 in "Canadian Newsstand Major Dailies". Keep; I'll take a stab at cleaning it up. Bearcat (talk) 17:54, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Update: I've rewritten the article to a more encyclopedic and less advertorial format, and entirely overhauled the sourcing — so it's now in a much more keepable state than it was half an hour ago. Bearcat (talk) 19:05, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the additional information and sources that have been added here, though I wish there were more articles cited outside of the Toronto Star. 和DITOR E tails 00:13, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. MBisanz ^talk 03:09, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Helen Doron

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

Not a notable person. Yes, there are hits for her and her method, but they all seem to be press releases and fairly brief mentions. There's one mention of her here, as a linguist, but that's about all I could find. Note that this article comes with Helen Doron English, which I nominated for CSD G11; there's an associated sandbox as well, User:Nfleischer/sandbox. That user and a few others seem to have done little else on Wikipedia besides writing up/promoting Helen Doron. Drmies (talk) 03:23, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·C) 04:36, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·C) 04:36, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. A rewrite removing promotional material would leave virtually nothing. I too noted that Jedynak references Doron but I was unable to see her reference 98 in Jedynak, Malgorzata (2009). Critical Period Hypothesis Revisited: The Impact of Age on Ultimate ... Europäische Hochschulschriften / European University Studies / Publications Universitaires Européennes. Vol. 333. Peter Lang. p. 172. ISBN 978-3-631-57528-4. --Senra (talk) 14:24, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Promotional without evidence of notability. Close to a G11 speedy. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:32, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Against Delete. She is referred to in several articles about languqge studies and the method is being used in quite alot of places. I think it should stay. Also, she wrote a lot of language teaching songs, which qualifies her as eglibe for article. - Dweck (talk) 08:34, 19 January 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.69.179.98 (talk) [reply]
Keep I added references and links to studies on her work. She passes GNG and her work has been studied pretty extensively in Poland and Czech republic. Maybe a Polish or Czech Wikipedian can add more refs. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 00:37, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I also removed promotional wording and hopefully the article is more NPOV now. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 00:41, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep With the current sources, including several major newspapers and some journal articles, seems to me to meet GNG. 1bandsaw (talk) 17:28, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as the article has RS references and these show that the subject has made a notable contribution in the field of education specifically language teaching ,I think WP: GNG is passed.Atlantic306 (talk) 00:25, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 00:02, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

MyungEun (Kim Myung-soo and Son Na-eun)

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

WP:GNG, no claim to notability and no reliable sources to support. I ship deleting this --allthefoxes ^(Talk) 03:03, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I don't see any possibility of salvaging this article. The subject (a portmanteau of two subjects) is a fictional construct that is not notable in and of itself. The only Google search results lead to fanfiction pages and similar. Chrisw80 (talk) 03:28, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 03:20, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 03:21, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 03:21, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: This is effectively a unreferenced BLP which on to itself is grounds for deletion through the WP:BLPPROD. This article is about a relationship which does not prove why the relationship is notable enough to have its own article, basically it is a content fork without enough support for its inclusion. McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 03:26, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nn. Staszek Lem (talk) 03:36, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: not notable. ubiquity (talk) 03:41, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete - spectacularly non-notable ukexpat (talk) 03:52, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as this is quite obviously not yet a solid encyclopedia article and also not satisfying the notability guidelines. SwisterTwister talk 07:17, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete. No evidence of notability, and according to this request, little prospect of finding any. Also, it's unclear what the article is about – a ship? a person? a group of people? a fictitious person? Maproom (talk) 09:28, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete Purely WP:PROMO. No independent suggestion of notability. _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 12:03, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment In any case I'm going to request that someone who knows the language can shed some light as to the notability of the subject.--Prisencolin (talk) 10:42, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Selective merge into L (South Korean singer) I'm not getting a whole after doing to search of this online but I guess some of the information on the page might be salvageable--Prisencolin (talk) 20:21, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fancruft at its finest. Like most "ships" in the world of K-pop, everything derives from speculation based on the fact that the two have interacted at one point in their career, though that's not necessarily a requirement. Entirely unencyclopedic. — ξ ^xplicit 01:10, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete by Mackensen under G3. (non-admin closure) Altamel (talk) 06:23, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Japanese skyfox

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

Apparent hoax. Nothing about this online or on Google Books. Adam9007 (talk) 01:56, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organisms-related deletion discussions. sst ✈ 02:12, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. sst ✈ 02:12, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete as a blatant hoax --allthefoxes ^(Talk) 03:04, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: without any references, how can this be verified? ubiquity (talk) 03:43, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 00:02, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Game-Express

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

Cannot find any amount of sources that confirm the claim to notability. Non notable small games aggregation website with no refs, and I just can't find anything. --allthefoxes ^(Talk) 01:28, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. sst ✈ 02:11, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. sst ✈ 02:11, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no evidence of notability. Staszek Lem (talk) 03:46, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as certainly questionably notable and actually nearly even speedy material. SwisterTwister talk 07:04, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a non-notable online video game hosting website that fails WP:GNG with no independent, reliable, in-depth sources, such as WP:VG/RS. I cannot locate any reliable source content for this, besides directory entries and generic listings. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 18:15, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete. I can't find any coverage of this. edtiorEهեইдအီးËეεઈדוארई電子ಇអ៊ី전자ഇī 23:11, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

^ http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jonha-revesencio/how-to-succeed-as-an-entr_b_8964668.html

[1] ttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adam_Zimmer

[2] ttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Todd_Downing

[3] ttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B._J._Hall

[4] ttp://djournal.com/sports/former-mudcats-coach-joins-vikings/

[5] ttp://www.mrt.com/sports/article_4c7472a7-3d49-57cf-b87e-f90bcde75a81.html

[6] ttp://www.oursportscentral.com/services/releases/kirk-broussard-named-roughnecks-associate-gm-defensive-coordinator/n-4317027

[7] ttp://www.weartv.com/news/features/national-news/stories/washington-hs-grad-added-nfl-buffalo-bills-staff-322.shtml#.Vp71xU-YlOY

[8] ttp://www.oaoa.com/sports/local/franchise/roughnecks/article_479474dd-cb67-53bf-80f4-2f421216146d.html

[9] ttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J-5qSkSFElc

[10] ttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7S-8uBgJiVY

[11] ttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/jonha-revesencio/how-to-succeed-as-an-entr_b_8964668.html

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]

[8]

[9]

[10]

[1]