Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2016 May 22

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 21 May	23 May >

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. Agreement that the subject does not meet the notability standard for an article in the encyclopedia. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:13, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Cam O'bi

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

Had a BLP prod on this but there is a ref now. Anyway I'm not sure about the notability. The creator says they are notable for being with notable people-I don't think that means they are notable though. Wgolf (talk) 23:52, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non notable singer, Fails NMUSIC & GNG. –Davey2010^Talk 00:13, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, does not meet GNG. Kierzek (talk) 15:38, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable musician.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:58, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 20:27, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 20:27, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete altogether as none of this is actually convincing of the needed independent notability. SwisterTwister talk 06:40, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable. One extremely weak reference, which looks self-published. Willondon (talk) 09:40, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The consensus is to delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:17, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

2016 Smoky Mountains helicopter crash

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

Tragic but WP:NOTNEWS. Of no long term impact. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 23:50, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 23:52, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 23:52, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Tennessee-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 23:52, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 23:52, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as I myself reviewed this, certainly nothing else suggestive of a better notable article. SwisterTwister talk 00:09, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The event caused an investigation that is ongoing, therefore it fits in WP:EVENT. It also had the second highest fatality rate of any aviation incidents this year in the United States, and one of the highest in the world as of now. There was lots of coverage by many major news sources. It is a notable event that fits in the criteria. Beejsterb (talk) 04:42, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, already mentioned in 2016 in aviation. News coverage alone is not always indication of notability per WP:NOTNEWS. Crashes of private or company aircraft are usually non-notable, unless there was a lasting effect, a really high number of deaths or a notable person aboard. Brandmeister^talk 10:25, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, WP:NOTNEWS Kristijh (talk) 11:39, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all fatal aircraft crashes worldwide result in an investigation; all fatal car crashes are investigated in the country I live in. Just about anything will generate at least some news coverage these days - an aircraft crash in Sydney in which I was a passenger and which resulted in no injuries at all was mentioned in the Singapore Straits Times as well as local news. We also have the 2016 man-punched-on-a-train incident which generated a very large amount of news coverage. Which is a long-winded way of agreeing with Brandmeister when he says news coverage alone is not always indication of notability. If it is the second-deadliest air crash in the USA this year, then all I can say is the USA is having a good year in terms of aviation safety; however the statement 'one of the highest in the world as of now' is frankly crap and "deaths=notability" is not a guideline for having an article on WP. YSSYguy (talk) 12:03, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, WP:NOTNEWS, as stated above. Kierzek (talk) 15:39, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As stated above, WP:NOTNEWS applies. Since there is no other area where this event is notable, it stands that deletion is warranted. RickinBaltimore (talk) 15:41, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - light aircraft accidents like this are a daily occurrence, just not notable as there is no lasting effect beyond the fatalities. - Ahunt (talk) 22:33, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As above. Sad, yes. but WP:NOTNEWS, and lacking sources other than local newspapers--Petebutt (talk) 04:36, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Commercial tourism flight involving deaths. This is the epitome of a notable air crash. See also Air New Zealand Flight 901 - very similar class of event, and that was certainly notable. A lack of coverage is not an automatic guarantee of non-notability; see e.g. the coverage extent for 2016 Sunbird Aviation crash. Leondz (talk) 09:46, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You cannot seriously think this is similar to one of New Zealand's worst disasters in which a Douglas DC-10 airliner with hundreds of people on board crashed into Mt Erebus in Antarctica; about which books have been written and documentaries have been made and still gets coverage, almost forty years later. YSSYguy (talk) 13:58, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure that's a productive tone :) In the neutral context of air crashes, notability, and encyclopedic categorisation, there are plenty of similarities, which I am sure you can see. Leondz (talk) 20:05, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Actually I can't, other than they are air crashes - you might as well say that a Citroen 2CV is the same as an M1 Abrams tank because they are both motor vehicles. Nobody is going to write a book about this helicopter crash. On the other hand, The Erebus enquiry: a tragic miscarriage of justice, The Erebus papers: edited extracts from the Erebus proceedings with commentary, Flight 901 to Erebus, Impact Erebus, Verdict on Erebus, White out! and Psychological sequelae of operation overdue following the DC10 aircrash in Antarctica. That is what notability looks like. It also looks to me that the Sunbird Aviation crash article warrants examining at AfD. YSSYguy (talk) 20:41, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well, there are plenty of aircrashes that nobody is going to write a book about - like 2016 Sunbird Aviation crash, and the majority of the articles in the category, really. The loss of life was greater at Erebus, for sure, but last I checked there was no ghoulish minimum body count for notability. Conversely, if I write and publish a paper on this event, does its intrinsic notability change? Impossible - the two are disjoint. Thanks for chiming in anyway! Leondz (talk) 13:36, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well if you have it published in a reliable source, as opposed to say your own blog, then it will help establish notability, but it still doesn't change the reality that light aircraft crashes with this number of deaths are extremely common events, just as automobile crashes with this number of deaths are also. - Ahunt (talk) 13:46, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - non-notable helicopter crash. Mjroots (talk) 21:50, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Uncontested. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:21, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

TruFont

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

no apparent evidence of notability DGG ( talk ) 23:34, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and I myself reviewed this, there's nothing at all for the applicable notability. SwisterTwister talk 23:36, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 23:36, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 23:36, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, not notable at this time for an independent article. Kierzek (talk) 15:41, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It got covered by a few Linux blogs, but that seems to be the extent of the coverage. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 19:35, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:22, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

John Wilkinson (architect)

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

No apparent evidence of notability,and I can find nothing except notices and mentions DGG ( talk ) 23:03, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No references, qualifies for BLP PROD but regardless, the subject lacks notability and coverage in reliable source. Meatsgains (talk) 23:19, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
(EC) Delete as nothing suggests anything noticeably better for independent notability. SwisterTwister talk 23:20, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 23:20, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 23:20, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Tentative delete. Building Design Partnership, the large firm which Wilkinson co-founded, is certainly notable, as was that firm's senior partner Sir George Grenfell-Baines [1][2], but so far I have been unable to find much of anything specifically about Wilkinson's work or his role within BDP, only repeated mentions of his name as one of the firm's founders. If anyone can turn up something more substantive I'd reconsider. --Arxiloxos (talk) 01:06, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Uncontested. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:23, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sharesmart

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

no evidence of notability for the product; the references are about the general matter of patient confidentiality in Canada DGG ( talk ) 22:58, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nothing for the applicable notability. SwisterTwister talk 23:21, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 23:22, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 23:22, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 23:22, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails GNG. Kierzek (talk) 15:44, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non notable phone application. Safiel (talk) 21:43, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Uncontested. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:24, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

C. B. McGrath

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

Assistant college coaches are not generally notable. DGG ( talk ) 22:48, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nothing at all for any applicable notability. SwisterTwister talk 23:19, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 23:19, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 23:19, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. Rikster2 (talk) 17:32, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - doesn't meet WP:GNG or WP:NBASKETBALL. Rikster2 (talk) 19:09, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per GNG. Jrcla2 (talk) 12:57, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Sex strike#Colombia. (non-admin closure) — Esquivalience (talk) 01:37, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Crossed Legs Movement

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

No evidence of lasting significance; NOTNEWS DGG ( talk ) 22:46, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor ^Talk! 08:04, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Colombia-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor ^Talk! 08:04, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect as {{R to related topic}} to Sex strike#Colombia where the incident is mentioned. I have copied a couple of references from Crossed Legs Movement and slightly expanded the suggested target. Sam Sailor ^Talk! 08:42, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to related topic; not notable as a stand alone separate article. Kierzek (talk) 15:47, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect as suggested by Sam Sailor. As indicated in the article, the strike in Barbacoas was not the first time such a means of protest had been used in Colombia – and certainly not worldwide. The 1997 strike by girlfriends of the guerrillas is just as famous in Colombia, and the 2006 strike by girlfriends of gang members in the city of Pereira was the first time the term "crossed legs strike" was used in the Colombian media. The 2011 strike was clearly influenced by both these events and the idea for the name of the "movement" came from the 2006 strike. So it makes sense to cover these events together to indicate how the protests have developed. I can find reliable sources in Spanish in Colombian newspapers and journal publications which I can translate to support a unified article. Richard3120 (talk) 15:57, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect per above. Meinnaples (talk) 15:17, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Sex strike#Colombia. Already seems to have been merged. This is perfectly fine example of a notable topic that is covered in more detail at the target. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 19:42, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Uncontested. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:25, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Daipam Model Academy

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

I can not prove existence by any reliable source--there is no available source except a totally non-informative facebook page with some photos. DGG ( talk ) 22:45, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:10, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:10, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:V, with no independent, reliable sources available. Cordless Larry (talk) 05:40, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Does not meet WP:GNG; only weakly verifiable per source searches. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:23, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy Keep per WP:SKCRIT#1, nomination withdrawn and no votes for deletion. Cavarrone 18:10, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jumbulingam 3D

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

Non-notable film, no coverage, per WP:NF BOVINEBOY2008 22:36, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete-per nom. I did put up the notability tag before-which looks like someone removed. Wgolf (talk) 22:42, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:11, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:11, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I'm finding some stuff, but it looks like the title is spelled "Jambulingam". Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 03:54, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and move to Jambulingam 3D. I found two reviews, which are enough to pass NFILM for the time being, and I get the impression that there might be more in Tamil, so I've asked for help with locating sources from WP:INDIA. I'd also recommend moving this to Jambulingam 3D since the bulk of the coverage uses an A instead of a U. There are some places that spell it with a U, but I figure we should go with how the title is predominantly spelled. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:11, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Before is alwaysy the best route:

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

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

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

director 1:(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

director 2:(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

director 1:(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

director 2:(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:INDAFD: Jumbulingam Jambulingam Ambuli Gokulnath Anjena KirtiHari Shankar Hareesh Narayan MPL Films

STRONGEST Keep per due diligence finding sources enough under both spellings to show this released and reviewed film as having enough coverage to meet WP:NF...IE: [3][4][5] offered by the delightfuly diligent Tokyogirl79 and [6][7][8][9][10][11] as a few offered by myself. Notability is a lock. WP:BEFORE is so much fun when it finds SO MANY results. What say Wgolf? Bovineboy2008? Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 05:21, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and I retract the nom due to the diligence of Michael and Tokyogirl. BOVINEBOY2008 11:44, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment-this is what happens when one misspells the title so you then think this is non notable as you can't find it. Wgolf (talk) 15:24, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed... mis-translations to English of non-English titles often has the same results... which is why WP:INDAFD tells us to try different spellings. In my own searches also include production and cast members. It is quite satisfying when my google-foo pays off. But in this instance I found results with both spellings using the WP:INDAFD search tools. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 15:43, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Changing my vote to Keep thanks to some good detective work. Wgolf (talk) 02:46, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Agreement that the subject does not meet the notability standard for an article in the encyclopedia. Noting the copyvio issue also. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:28, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Virginia Sand

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

Geology professor at a small university. No "significant coverage" in independent sources. The only two references are newsletters. There is nothing indicating that she had made any significant contributions to the field of geology or other research/contributions to merit an article. This is the only article created by the user who created it. AHeneen (talk) 22:01, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable. According to her obituary, Joshua Pringle is her grandson. The original version of the article that he created is pretty much verbatim from the obituary, so there's a copyvio issue also. — Gorthian (talk) 17:47, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:SPA created article without establishing WP:N, WP:PROF or WP:GNG.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 05:00, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- RoySmith (talk) 02:27, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Pi Kappa Chi

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

Subject fails WP:ORG and WP:GNG. Unsourced article fails WP:V. -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:01, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This might be a notable organization, but the article has zero sources so far. In addition, the article claims that Daniel David Palmer was among the founders of the fraternity in 1961, although by then he had been dead for 48 years. If sources are added to support the content of the article, I would consider changing my recommendation. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 00:26, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nom. Searches find that this fails WP:GNG. ThePlatypusofDoom (Talk) 11:36, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete No references work according to discussion, and no indication of notability. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 20:59, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Pi Kappa Chi claims it was founded in 1961 by David D. Palmer.[12] David D. Palmer died in 1913. The fraternity is likely a hoax. QuackGuru (talk) 04:43, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - David D. Palmer is the grandson of Daniel David Palmer. So the grandson is the founder and he died in 1978, not 1913. I found some sources that mention Pi Kappa Chi, so I don't believe it's a hoax. Dr. Lessenco was a member of Pi Kappa Chi chiropractic fraternity..., he became a member of Pi Kappa Chi, a chiropractic fraternity, Logan University-College of Chiropractic, Most popular organizations: Pi Kappa Chi.... Doesn't seem to be notable for anything other than existing though.-- Isaidnoway (talk) 14:48, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User:Isaidnoway, David D. Palmer is not the grandson of Daniel David Palmer. David D. Palmer is Daniel David Palmer. The grandson is B. J. Palmer who died on May 27, 1961. The website claims it was founded by in 1961 by Dr. David D. Palmer along with a handful of focused young men. It is a hoax. It was added here. QuackGuru (talk) 17:42, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like you linked to the same site that I did, which clearly says in the lead paragraph: In many ways, the early history of chiropractic is the history of three generations of Palmers. Daniel David Palmer, usually called D.D.; his son, Bartlett Joshua Palmer, called B.J.; Mabel Heath Palmer, B.J.'s wife; and B.J. and Mabel's son, David D. Palmer, often called Dr. Dave. And then if you scroll further down, it also clearly says David D. Palmer, the grandson of chiropractic's founder. And then there is this source which identifies B.J. as the son, Whatever else may be said about the founder, D.D. Palmer, and son, B.J. and this one which identifies David D. Palmer as the grandson of D.D., both had passed away by the time D.D.'s grandson, David D. Palmer, So I don't understand exactly what the "hoax" is here, can you explain?-- Isaidnoway (talk) 18:27, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User:Isaidnoway, I made this change. QuackGuru (talk) 18:42, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. A clear consensus that this is not suitable for the encyclopedia. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 21:53, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

List of english football clubs who have never graced the top flight

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

Pure listcruft, not covered in reliable sources, and so fails WP:GNG. Aside from that, the title is also wrong- the current title could include any team in any league or non-league division. Joseph2302 (talk) 20:56, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No sources and the list should be bigger i guess. Pure trivia info. Kante4 (talk) 20:58, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The list lacks notability. Meatsgains (talk) 21:03, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I guess the title is wrong and some of the sources are not reliable but I am still working on the page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Willll4 (talk • contribs) 21:09, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. — Jkudlick • t • c • s 21:10, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. — Jkudlick • t • c • s 21:10, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - What is the encyclopedic value of such a list? If the list were made complete it would be immensely long. This fails WP:LSC. — Jkudlick • t • c • s 21:14, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's meant to be a list of all teams that have been in the Football League at any point, but never the top division. Though the current article name allows any team in the English football pyramid to be added. Joseph2302 (talk) 21:17, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The title is also incorrectly capitalised (needs a capital E on English) and "graced the top flight" is pure journalese and not an encyclopedic choice of wording -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:15, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep I don't see any reason why this page should be deleted. The majority of the sources are reliable, the list is still being added to so the list not being big enough is no reason, the title may not be 100% correct but in the opening paragraph it says about having to have played in the league and it's an interesting page as their are many teams still to be added to the list also if this page is nominated for deletion then many other pages like List of unrelegated association football clubs and List of football clubs in England by competitive honours won should be deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aston Vanilla (talk • contribs) 21:39, 22 May 2016 (UTC) — Aston Vanilla (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

None of the sources are independent, reliable sources- they are all primary sources, or Wordpress, which isn't reliable. Joseph2302 (talk) 07:20, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep After reading Aston Vanilla's comment I feel strongly that it shouldn't be deleted. Willll4 (talk 23:05, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This is the article creator, so he'll obviously vote keep. Joseph2302 (talk) 07:20, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note 2: I've reinstated the user's comment, since they're allowed to comment, it's just their sockpuppets that aren't. Joseph2302 (talk) 21:22, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Seeing someone only create an ~~article~~ Account to vote at an afd always gives me an odd feeling... Kante4 (talk) 03:59, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I presume you meant create an account rather than an article. The fact that Aston Vanilla has only edited this AfD and the article on Rotherham United is.........interesting..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:22, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You are correct, my mistake. Kante4 (talk) 08:05, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:17, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - SPI opened on Aston Vanilla here... JMHamo (talk) 07:52, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Though I very much like the title. Clearly an unwieldy and impossible list that could feasibly include thousands of sports teams --Super Nintendo Chalmers (talk) 08:36, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Checkuser note: Aston Vanilla is a Confirmed sock puppet of Willll4.--Bbb23 (talk) 12:31, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as impossible listcruft. Rarely a good idea to attempt to document things that haven't occurred. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 12:55, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - great topic for a night down the pub with your mates, less so for an encyclopedia. Giant Snowman 21:19, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I reckon you could get a good pub drinking game out of it. Joseph2302 (talk) 12:32, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - this list could have hundreds of clubs but it is purely list cruft and fails the general notability guideline - Yellow Dingo (talk) 12:03, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The list could be endless and arbitrary. You could include anything from teams in the Championship to U-5 teams playing in some youth league. Smartyllama (talk) 18:40, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - total cruft, unclear how this could ever be encyclopedic. Fenix down (talk) 06:21, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 03:26, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

North African Arabs

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

Poor article and unreferenced and not an encyclopedic article. With empty sections and some of the people mentioned are not originally from North Africa. AyOuBoXe (talk) 19:22, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Article needs major cleanup and work but the subject is notable and covered in reliable sources. Meatsgains (talk) 21:12, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
This Article is unnecessary and theres an article talking about Arabs AyOuBoXe (talk) 22:00, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Be Aware! This page is put up for deletion by a Berberist which has deleted many important information of many good pages on wikipedia about arabs. I already blocked AyOuBoXe of the page because he has deleted much reliable information without any sources or explanation. This is just a childish act of a North-African Berber which is playing games on Wikipedia and trying to remove the history of North-African Arabs. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alhaqiha (talk • contribs) 23:06, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
This article are created by some pan-arabists his name is alhaqiqa

This person vandalized many times the berbers article
The North African Arabs article is created to abuse berbers and to distorting facts
In a section of this article "Berberisation and Berberised Arabs" they write Racism in North-Africa !!
There is an article "Arabs" so there is no need to create another article

Dear wiki editors, I want to make clear that the page North-African Arabs is created (not by me) just like all the other wikipedia pages to share information and knowledge. The user Ayoubox is a pan-berberist himself, and simply wants to see this page gone for his own purposes. It is in my interest to share interesting information about North-African Arab history, culture, literature etc. This ethnic group has developed it's own accents, cultural elements etc. in North-Africa. The claim that I "vandalised" the page about berbers is not true. I have added evidence based sources with information about the Neolithic and Holocene expansion from middle-eastern farmers. Also have I deleted some non-usable sources like www.foxnews.com. In fact, If you take a look at his contributions, you will notice aswell that he removes information without any evidence, explanation or talks. The page is also not created to "abuse berbers", it is simply intimidating that this kind of information about racist berbers which they try to hide is going to be out in the world. There are many interesting documents and medieval books like the one from the jewish spaniard "Ben Maimonidas" which talks about racism during the berber Almohad, Almoravid and Merinid empires. Also are there many articles about nationalistic racist ideas created by the riff berbers to take over and ethnic cleanse the country. The page still has to be added though, maybe there can be an alert for people to help edit this page. I want to thank Lemongirl942 for restoring my comment on this page which was deleted by Ayoubox.

Alhaqiha (talk) 18:50, 23 May 2016 (UTC) user:Alhaqiha[reply]

He take only the appropriate research to his interests and he did not give importance to the research that shows the opposite of what he wrote.

I know how it is his exclusionary thinking
North Africa are all Arabs this is your thinking
His article was established for a clear objectives who is falsification of facts
for example :Arabian jewelry of North-Africa
There is nothing in north africa called Arabian jewelry and there is no sources that arabian jewelery are in morocco
Andalusian stone !!!? He take it from an arabic blog or what ?
Diamonds are not even used in moroccan jewelry so where is his sources

"Through out the centuries, many Arabian tribes have settled in the Maghreb, or new tribes were created. The tribal system is upheld mainly in the countryside of North Africa. Still, many people originally belong to a tribe which bonds the people culturally and religiously. In the different countries in North Africa exist the following tribes."

Where is his sources
He create the tribes articles and he put them in this article whitout any sources
I doubt that his source is http://moroccan.tribes.free.fr/ ?This site does not reliable
No one of this Umayyad governors are born in north africa so how they become arabian north africain ?
And Abdallah al-Battal he was not even an arab he was a mawla of the Umayyad family.
So his origins are not arabian
So if you want to invent a history that does not exist. go to the arabic version of wikipedia
He primarily denied that the majority of the Arabs of Morocco were originally arabized berbers
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Berber_cuisine&diff=706813324&oldid=698200370
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Msemen&diff=719139038&oldid=709007574
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tajine&diff=720230712&oldid=720230322
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Couscous&diff=710023347&oldid=709955267
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kenitra&diff=710513240&oldid=708062189
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Oujda&diff=710512969&oldid=710420282
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=A%C3%AFt_Benhaddou&diff=713909157&oldid=713381426
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=University_of_Al_Quaraouiyine&diff=721414887&oldid=721414778 (arab or berberian!!!)
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Berbers&diff=720736117&oldid=720592554
AyOuBoXe (talk) 21:53, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ You claim that I'm the one with distorted thinking? Well your way of editing shows the extreme opposite. North-Africa is a multi-cutural part of the African continent. It also has arabs living in it for 1400 years wether you like it or not. You say that I thinkt that North-Africa only has arabs, which is not true. I have added information and links into the page with berbers to prove there is also an existence of other ethnic groups in North-Africa, not only berbers which you try to claim. You are the one which has a great problem accepting others in North-Africa, that is why you want the page North African Arabs to be deleted and keep deleting arab related information from North African wikipedia pages. There is no "falcification of facts", if I have sources than it is reality that you simply cant accept or don't want to see.

In North-Africa there is more than enough arabian jewelry, maybe that you have never seen it before!! And indeed, there is an Andalucian stone, but you dont know anything of it because it is not part of your culture anyways. That you have never heard of it doesn't mean it is not there!! Go search for yourself. And ofcourse diamonds are used in the jewelry!

The tribes I have addes are real tribes, and the website is an evidence based website. I dont understand why you find so much interest in my use of sources when the sources you use are foxnews.com or blogs. If there are other problems which you find hard to cope with on this page, you simply go to the "talk" page and discuss wether it should be there or not. The fact that you want to ban a whole page proves your racist berberist agenda. The pages on wikipedia about North-African topics are dominated by the berbers, I can see in every page that berbers try to claim it to be theirs. That is false, many dishes, buildings, and cities are founded by other ethnic groups, not everything is berber. That only proofs that your people have vanalised everything on wikipedia, and now all these pages are filled with berberist nonsense, claiming everything and deleting all arab related information!! And if I add website links in which you have vandalised wiki pages, I will need 3 pages. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Arabs_in_France&diff=prev&oldid=721725102
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_Arab_scientists_and_scholars&diff=prev&oldid=721705137
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Msemen&diff=prev&oldid=721702521
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Category:Algerian_historians&diff=prev&oldid=720592042
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Category:Moroccan_historians&diff=prev&oldid=720591888
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Category:Tunisian_historians&diff=prev&oldid=720591790
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Arabs_in_France&diff=prev&oldid=715587167
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Arabs_in_France&diff=prev&oldid=715586551
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Demographics_of_Algeria&diff=prev&oldid=700282035
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/North_African_Arabs&diff=prev&oldid=721607343

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Alhaqiha (talk • contribs) 14:00, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 (talk) 01:10, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 (talk) 01:10, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 (talk) 01:10, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Middle East-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 (talk) 01:10, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I have struck a duplicate keep (diff) --Lemongirl942 (talk) 14:27, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Checkuser note: The nominator has been blocked for Confirmed abuse of multiple accounts.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 19:18, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The term seems to appear in numerous books (GBooks search). The article does not seem bad enough to warrant WP:TNT. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:48, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Notability established. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 03:27, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mapathon

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

Unreferenced draft that is really only a definition and not an encyclopedic article. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:45, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. clpo13_(talk) 21:45, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – The subject passes WP:GNG. Source examples include, but are not limited to those listed below. I have added some sources to the article. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:46, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

References

BBC News
Popular Science
Vice
The Hindu
Hindustan Times
Business Standard
The White House

Keep per sources provided by Northamerica1000, It needs expanding quite abit but notability's certainly there, Anyway meets GNG. –Davey2010^Talk 10:23, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:21, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Clear consensus to delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 21:43, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

List of legal loopholes

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

Article is hopelessly unencyclopedic. What is to one reader a "legal loophole" is to another reader an intended exception. The practice of using the term "loophole" pejoratively to criticize a disliked application of law further complicates any sort of reasonable inclusion criterion based on WP:RS, and a list of "applications of law that have been criticized as legal loopholes" is hopelessly unencyclopedic. RJaguar3 | u | t 18:08, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 18:38, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, not even a definable subject.Pincrete (talk) 19:08, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per WP:LSC, lists must have unambiguous selection criteria. As RJaguar3 explains above, this article cherrypicks laws that the list's author(s) finds disfavorable. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 23:51, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Note the numerous references in the article which clearly and unambiguously call the special laws, exception,or provisions "loopholes,"so that list membership is well established. It does not have to be "unintended" to be a loophole. Edison (talk) 03:02, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - likely to mislead laypersons. One lawyer's loophole is another attorney's exemption. This could be a list somewhere, but I don't want to be associated with it. I will post a note on WP:LAW to get more opinions. Bearian (talk) 20:44, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: All the above get it right on the head. The term "legal loophole" is in itself divisive, suggests the use of the "loophole" is nefarious and contrary to the spirit of the law or to legislative intent (to the extent that such a thing can be presumed to exist). I can't think of an instance where the term "loophole" being applied to a law, part of a law, or some interpretation of the law is not divisive and open to broad interpretation. While we should comment on the controversy where there is one, using a loaded term like this isn't the right way to do it. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 21:25, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I would agree that the inherent POV and OR issues trump the examples described in the media. I think it's conceivable that something on this topic could be written, but it would have to be much different than this article. If such an attempt were made, it would be better to start over from scratch. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 19:53, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete - soapboxing. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 20:14, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Bible = God’s Letter to Humankind

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

Not a neutral encyclopedic article but an unreferenced polemic. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:09, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Created several times under various titles by various accounts - see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/ToddP355/Archive. Eligible for speedy deletion as block evasion. --bonadea contributions talk 17:14, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Opinion violating WP:NOTESSAY, block evasion. ThePlatypusofDoom (Talk) 17:17, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is an essay-style article with no facts and lack of reliable sources. — Music1201 ^talk 18:55, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete G5 as a blocked user. At any rate, it's definitely inappropriate for an encyclopedia. clpo13_(talk) 19:01, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per everyone At the risk of being in 'category two' on the day of judgement, "sorry, I was just following policy". Pincrete (talk) 19:32, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was procedural close. The two simultaneous discussions of this person are not necessary. (non-admin closure). Sir Sputnik (talk) 13:30, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Duwayne Ewart

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

This individual does not appear to have played for a first-tier professional team. See association football notability guidelines. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:21, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Mz7 (talk) 19:51, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Duwayne Ewart

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

This player does not appear to have played for a first-tier professional team. Play for national youth teams is likewise not ipso facto qualifying, and there is no evidence of general notability guidelines. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:18, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - In the interest of preserving the discussion, I am copying the nominators rationale from Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Duwayne Ewart (2nd nomination). Sir Sputnik (talk) 13:35, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This individual does not appear to have played for a first-tier professional team. See association football notability guidelines. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:21, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The guideline you link to makes no reference to a "first-tier" professional team, it only requires that the subject have played in a fully professional league -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:28, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 13:35, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - He has played in the USL, a fully pro league per WP:FPL, meaning the article meets WP:NSPORT. Sir Sputnik (talk) 13:35, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - meets WP:NFOOTBALL; needs improving, not deleting. Giant Snowman 21:23, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Easily satisfies notability standards, and do remember that AFD is not cleanup. Smartyllama (talk) 13:09, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Passes NFOOTY, has played in a fully professional league or in a match in the competition proper (i.e. not qualifying rounds) of a cup competition which involved two teams both from FPLs. Fenix down (talk) 06:16, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per GiantSnowman - I couldn't put it any better myself - It does simply need improving and it does meet NFOOTBALL. –Davey2010^Talk 10:26, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Theroadislong (talk) 08:10, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Pengwern Boat Club

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

Fails WP:GNG non notable boat club. Theroadislong (talk) 14:05, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please consider that this is a club which holds one of the oldest rowing regattas in the UK which is attended by thousands of people, has been in continuous existence since 1871. It has compeated at Henle Royal Regatta since 1914. It also operates from an important listed building in a prominent location in Shrewsbury. [[User:TJatHAURC|TJatHAURC] —Preceding undated comment added 14:53, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

Keep. While not of the top flight of British Rowing Clubs, I think it is clear that this Club is notable. It runs an important Regatta, has a long history and rows at the top level. --Bduke (Discussion) 04:06, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy keep per WP:SKCRIT#1, nomination withdrawn and no votes for deletion. (non-admin closure) Cavarrone 08:17, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Vulcano Buono

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

I prodded it with the following rationale: "The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline and the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (companies) requirement. " It was deprodded by User:VMS Mosaic with a rather unhelpful rationale "This is an enormous mall, and no, I'm refuse to ping anyone, period." (despite the fact that I explicitly asked to be pinged back in the PROD). Anyway, with regards to the shopping mall, the company doesn't seem to pass muster. There are some sources, but primarily in Italian, which is not a disqualifier, except I am having trouble judging their reliability - from what I can sell the coverage seems passing and mostly local (WP:AUDIENCE). In English I found two brief articles about the building itself ([13], [14]) but they are short and seem more or less on the blog level. This project is tagged on talk page for WP:ITALY, so hopefully some Italian-speaking Wikipedians will contribute with discussion of Italian sources, because the English one don't seem sufficient. Bottom line, being a "cool building" (or a big shopping mall) is not enough to be in the encyclopedia, we need proof that the building/company have in-depth coverage in reliable sources - and I am having trouble seeing that here. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:03, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:06, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Shopping malls-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:06, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:06, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:06, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, as pointed in this article in Il Sole 24 Ore Vulcano Buono is not just "a big shopping mall" but the biggest mall existing in Italy, with over 450,000 square metres, 8,000 parking spaces and over 9 million visitors at year, which are astonishing numbers (at least in Italy). Other examples of coverage include articles from La Repubblica [15], Corriere del Mezzogiorno [16], La Repubblica again [17]. Plus several hundreds of book sources [18]. Yes, they are in Italian, but as the same nominator said this is not a disqualifier. The article needs some work, but it is easily improvable. Cavarrone 15:59, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. A Google book search on the site and architect, "Vulcano Buono" Piano, shows quite a few results [19]. Your prod rationale, as repeated here, goes thusly: "The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient...". But the deletion policy asks editors to observe a higher standard than an article's current sourcing: Wikipedia:Deletion_policy#Reasons_for_deletion, item no. 7: "Articles for which thorough [emphasis added] attempts to find reliable sources to verify them have failed". Checking book results is part of a thorough attempt, and if you feel you can't trust those books' reliability due to not knowing the language, there are a lot of Italian speakers around - see Category:User_it-4 - you could have asked them first as part of your thorough attempt. Please consider withdrawing this nomination. Thanks to User:Cavarrone for expanding it. Novickas (talk) 14:38, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Withdrawing nom. Thank you to User:Cavarrone for expansions and valid arguments that saved this article. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:01, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Notability not established. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 03:29, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Team Phidippides

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

No evidence of satisfying Wikipedia's notability guidelines. None of the cited references is an independent source (and two of them are also dead links). Searches for sources didn't come up with anything much better: for examp-le, teh first hits in a Google search for "Team Phidippides" were the Team Phidippides web site, Twitter, Facebook, this Wikipedia article, YouTube, Flikr, LinkedIn, and a web page of an organisations that sponsors Team Phidippides. (A PROD was removed by the author of the article, an account with the username "TeamPhidippides".) The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 09:22, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Whatever this team is, the sources present do not help it meet WP:N. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:59, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I highly doubt the shell eco marathon is classed as a professional race series as the two teams that have articles are University student run teams. Seasider91 (talk) 11:21, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Notability not established. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 03:44, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Cleveland Allaby

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

Minimally sourced WP:BLP of a person notable only as a non-winning candidate for office. While there was once a time when being a non-winning candidate for the leadership of a political party was accepted as sufficient notability under WP:NPOL, that is no longer the case -- a person no longer qualifies for a standalone article on that basis if they don't have any other strong claim of notability (such as actually holding another political office) alongside that. And since the only source here is a single glancing namecheck of his existence in a transcript of a legislative debate, WP:GNG has not been met either. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 05:31, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 (talk) 12:17, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 (talk) 12:17, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nothing at all for the applicable notability. SwisterTwister talk 04:37, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor ^Talk! 09:06, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete He was a failed candidate, no claim to notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:07, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:DIDNOTWIN. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:32, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Uncontested. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 21:38, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

List of Consuls-General of Australia in San Francisco

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

fails WP:GNG. consuls are not the highest level diplomats and simply creating a list of them doesn't confer notability. Similar recent AfDs include Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Consuls-General of Australia in Mumbai and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Consuls-General of Australia in Milan. Let's see if people turn up with WP:MUSTBESOURCES arguments. LibStar (talk) 07:12, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 16:21, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Consuls are no inherently WP notable.E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:26, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Grahame (talk) 01:31, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The consulate is highly likely to be notable (as one of the longest-established Australian diplomatic posts, and in a city which has had important trade, military and tourism links to Australia), but the position itself isn't. Nick-D (talk) 02:00, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Uncontested. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 21:37, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Venom Vicious

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

No news sources at all for this guy, Does not satisfy WP:GNG or WP:NMUSIC. Insert CleverPhrase Here 05:47, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, I just don't see anyway for this to meet WP:GNG or WP:NMUSIC anytime soon. FWIW, author also appears to be a undeclared COI editor (ie: the subject himself), if the selfie picture in the article is any indication (uploaded as own work). Image is also used on his YouTube channel (venomvicious7). Chrisw80 (talk) 00:01, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and I myself would've likely reviewed this myself, nothing at all for any applicable notability. SwisterTwister talk 00:23, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Google results are mostly for an unrelated 1980s cartoon. Filtering that out, it's just social media. Without any coverage in reliable sources, he fails WP:NMUSIC. It looks to be too soon for an article yet. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 22:04, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Consensus is for article retention. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:38, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mad Sheep Ridge

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

We normally keep most geographic features, regardless how sparse may be the information, but I'm not sure this is significant enough to be included DGG ( talk ) 05:24, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It is a valid stub referenced by USGIS NIS. As you wrote, we normally keep most geographic features, regardless how sparse may be the information. Gjs238 (talk) 11:52, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep perhaps as I myself was actually finding these recently and never thought anything particularly else of them, since they are applicable enough for landmarks. SwisterTwister talk 19:48, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Geographic features are notable, and the solution to a stub article is to improve it, not delete it. Smartyllama (talk) 18:50, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Michig (talk) 07:50, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yue Xu

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

trivial notability and clear promotionalism. The sort of sources being used here are promotional press releases, not reliable sources. By every indication this is a probable paid editor who refuses to declare themselves who has contributed many such articles, most of which have been deleted; I am checking the others. DGG ( talk ) 03:19, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom (User:DGG). Also, the sources are trivial and it seems most of the content of the sources is not related to the title of the article or to the content. This article seems to be mostly a promotional attempt for a TV show as sources discuss this show, or dating, or other items unrelated to the subject WP:INDISCRIMINATE, WP:SOAPBOX. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 03:55, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as I myself reviewed this, there's nothing at all to actually suggest the needed notability. SwisterTwister talk 05:14, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG. The best sources I found are this and this, although the latter is a tabloid. Most other sources either simply quote her or mention her in a single sentence. This is not enough. Although the article has more sources (such as [20]), most of these are primary sources or WP:SPS. The subject wouldn't pass WP:GNG at this time. Neither would she pass WP:ENT --Lemongirl942 (talk) 05:18, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Michig (talk) 07:48, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Antonymistic

First, Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Second, I can't even find evidence that this word exists, other than fewer than two dozen likely ad hoc coinages that Google comes up with, none of them describing people. Largoplazo (talk) 02:38, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:NOTADICTIONARY applies. I'm pretty sure this exists, as I looked it up before prodding it and otherwise would have speedyed it, but as the nom says it is a very uncommon phrase. Insert CleverPhrase Here 03:13, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:NOTADICTIONARY is applicable in this case. This is an actual word. A google web search reveals one source from several links on the search page, that use the word to describe opposite occurring circumstances during some sort of archaic period. [21] - it seems to be related to antonym. Also, this does not seem to be a widely used word, but that is not relevant to this discussion ----Steve Quinn (talk) 04:07, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The article's creator gave us technonaut too, a few years ago. A quick search reveals no person, concept, place, or thing by this name. This is not a subject and is unverifiable. The usage, primarily only by Louis Israel Newman, indicates that a redirect to antonym may be appropriate. Uncle G (talk) 10:08, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Obviously WP:NOTADICTIONARY. I would come up with "antonymous" for the adjectival form, if pressed. It's not an encyclopedic subject, in any case. Would not be opposed to redirect to antonym. MisterRandomized (talk) 10:12, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --Dcirovic (talk) 15:21, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
~~Transwiki~~ Delete WP:NOTADICTIONARY ~~it should been transwikied into wikitionary.~~ KGirlTrucker87^{talk what I'm been doing} 16:40, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- It's only in running prose with a consistent meaning in the writings of one person. It's a protologism at best, and I suspect insufficiently attested. Anyway, the definition that Wiktionary would want is not this content, which doesn't match Newman's usage. Uncle G (talk) 20:50, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTADICTIONARY and a not a notable word. ThePlatypusofDoom (Talk) 18:47, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Given the dearth of hits on Google, this seems to be made up by the article creator. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 22:46, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete--Ymblanter (talk) 08:21, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jamel Farrell

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

Appears to be self created Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 02:04, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Appears to be a subject that is not notable - trivial sources. It may be self-promotion or colleague promotion, and neither qualifies for inclusion.--- Steve Quinn (talk) 04:20, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does not meet nobility requirements for a football player. Hasn't played for a fully professional league. There are refs that he signed for Sporting Kristina plays in the Kolmonen (Fourth tier in Finland), not the Veikkausliiga (First tier). However, there are no refs that he played for Rayong United F.C., top league in Thailand. Park View FC is a team in the Sunderland Sunday League (division 4). London Bari F.C. plays in the Essex Senior Football League Bgwhite (talk) 06:04, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Anarchyte (work | talk) 12:59, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Raceroom

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

No indication of notability. No references. Anarchyte (work | talk) 01:55, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Anarchyte (work | talk) 01:57, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per nom. RA0808 ^talk _contribs 12:26, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom - if it were a recent release and we could expect references, that's one thing. But a three year old game? If it were notable, we'd have more to go on. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 15:26, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Covered by multiple reliable sources.[22][23][24][25] - hahnch e n 20:08, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per Hahnchen - a quick Google search finds a lot of sources discussing the game, as Hahnchen pointed out. Notability is permanent and given the coverage it has received I'd be hesitant to delete this. NottNott|talk 12:20, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Nominator is banned from editing. (non-admin closure) st170e^talk 03:13, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jamia Nadwiyya Edavanna

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

Notability - ArtsRescuer • Talk me 13:14, 15 May 2016 (UTC) — ArtsRescuer (talk • contribs) is a confirmed sock puppet of Shafinusri (talk • contribs). [reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:15, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 15:43, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 15:43, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 15:44, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Notability not established. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 03:45, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Po mone modi

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

Information can be included in Narendra Modi under Criticisms. Not sure if this comes under Criteria for Speedy Deletion. Ahmer Jamil Khan^Who?_Chat? 04:52, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 (talk) 12:18, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as failing GNG. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 04:33, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete its a twitter hashtag!! it deserves at most a single line in criticisms of Modi ChunnuBhai (talk) 08:19, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That's not necessary either given recentism nature of this. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 08:41, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:02, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:43, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:43, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The WP:RECENTISM essay works well here. Anarchyte (work | talk) 09:50, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Notability not established. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 03:46, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Vichinthanam

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

Notability - ArtsRescuer • Talk me 09:52, 7 May 2016 (UTC) — ArtsRescuer (talk • contribs) is a confirmed sock puppet of Shafinusri (talk • contribs). [reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. clpo13_(talk) 17:23, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. clpo13_(talk) 17:23, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - local periodical. Bearian (talk) 17:32, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Only "local" in the sense that it is distributed throughout a state with 33 million inhabitants. We certainly don't demand that any periodicals in the West can only have articles if they are less "local" than this, so why do you consider that that is a valid argument for deleting an article about a periodical in India? 86.17.222.157 (talk) 21:59, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete at best actually as I only found a few links, certainly nothing outstandingly better and the current article has nothing else with which to keep and improve. We can wait until someone who knows both English and Malayalam improves this anew. SwisterTwister talk 05:54, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nakon 04:32, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete per SwisterTwister. The publication may be distributed "through" a state with 33 million inhabitants, but that doesn't indicate how many of those inhabitants it is circulated to. There is no indication of whether this publication is more like a newspaper or a magazine. The article's lead paragraph contains a seemingly self-contradictory statement, "This is considered as the official mouthpiece of Kerala Nadvathul Mujahideen even though the organisation highlights the monthly named Al-Manar as the official publication". The article also violates both MOS:OVERLINK and MOS:UNDERLINK within the space of four words, when it says that the publication includes such content as "Story of a khurafikkutti". --Metropolitan90 (talk) 02:01, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Some of the keep !votes assert notability, but do not specifically or directly cite Wikipedia guidelines and policies to qualify the assertion. However, this does not necessarily make other points in the rationales for retention invalid. Ultimately, there is no consensus for a particular action to be carried out. Also of note is that a suggestion exists herein for a new article named Australia–Kiribati relations to be created, with content of this article moved to the new article. This proposal was was endorsed by another user in the discussion. Further discussion about this possiblity can continue on the article's talk page. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:44, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

List of Australian High Commissioners to Kiribati

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

fails WP:GNG. the sources mostly primary merely confirm there have been ambassadors. LibStar (talk) 06:42, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The list of people to hold the highest diplomatic foreign office representing one of Kiribati's more important international relationships is plainly notable, and our coverage of international relations in the Pacific (a much, much covered topic in academic sources, and something on which we need a lot more of, not less) would be a lot worse were these to be deleted. These nominations are increasingly seeming more and more like a violation of don't disrupt Wikipedia to make a point, seeing as after failing to get consensus in earlier bids LibStar is now escalating to nominating more important diplomatic positions. The Drover's Wife (talk) 11:23, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

refer WP:ADHOM. LibStar (talk) 15:38, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This article is more than notable given that the Australian mission in Kiribati is one of the very few in the island nation. The nominator appears to be having an issue with WP:POINT, I would agree with them if there were many pages about non-notable individual ambassadors. But there aren't, this is a list and it doesn't automatically follow that it isn't notable enough to recommend deletion.Siegfried Nugent (talk) 15:51, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- I've now cleaned this page up, adding and referencing extra details and info. I don't see why this should not remove the deletion nomination now.Siegfried Nugent (talk) 03:13, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting for comments after cleanup and sources have been added Nakon 04:30, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nakon 04:30, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 (talk) 12:22, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 (talk) 12:22, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:00, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I think this is encyclopedic. The High Commissioner has ambassadorial rank in a Commonwealth nation. Aren't ambassadors presumptively notable, or am I missing something? The sourcing is an issue, because there's hardly any press coverage on the holders of this office. But really? I am inclined to break the rules on this; I think we need a formal guideline on ambassadors. MisterRandomized (talk) 06:56, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ambassadors are not inherently notable. There have been previous attempts to create a guideline that have failed. LibStar (talk) 07:06, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

yes, so you keep saying, and for individual ambassadors i agree. But the importance of this post, both for Kiribati and AusAID, has been established. Rather than rehashing what you've already said above, try to engage with my changes. Siegfried Nugent (talk) 23:34, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Because: Ambassadors are not inherently notable. None of the commissioners listed are bluelinked; If this post were particularly important to Australia, some of the diplomats who have held it would probably be bluelinked. Moreover, Kiribati is an independent state, but, pop. ~100,000. With no natural resources and no industries, it is dependent on foreign aid; since much of this aid comes form Australia, I get that this post is important to Kiribati. On the other hand, the welfare commissioner responsible for the welfare of the poorer neighborhoods of Sao Paolo or Kinshasa does not get a Wikipedia article. Nor do we have lists of the Ambassadors posted to Fiji or Grand Fenwick. Really, the only argument for keeping this article is the assertion that ambassadors are inherently WP notable. They aren't.E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:14, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If you actually looked at the article you'd see that two of the office-holders are actually bluelinked. Notability also does not depend on who it is notable for: if it is notable for Kiribati, then it is notable. Siegfried Nugent (talk) 23:34, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I read the page. Note that the blue-linked commissioners were resident in Nauru. None of the Commissioners who have served since a separate doplomat was sent to reside in Kiribati are blue-linked, but this is a very minor point vis a vis this discussion.00:13, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

Also, what is a 'welfare commissioner'? I also find it hardly helpful at all to equate actual sovereign nations like Fiji or Kiribati to a fictional nation, that's actually quite insulting. There is also in fact page for Australia's High Commissioner to Fiji here.Siegfried Nugent (talk) 23:38, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I truly am sorry. That was snarky, and I pride myself on avoiding rudeness. However, I stand by my point. Kiribati is in the unfortunate position of being heavily dependent on foreign aid, this had the lamentable but unavoidable consequence of making the notionally equal relationship between two nation states effectively that of a powerful hegemon and a dependent. I do not know to what extent the relationship between Fiji and Australia may differ, but that office appears to have a different title, rank and sphere of authority. (plus see WP:OTHERSTUFF) As far as this article goes, interested editors might do better to create an article on Australia–Kiribati relations, which would include the info on this page along with a history of the relationship and the nature of the current ties between the two states.E.M.Gregory (talk) 00:05, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal If User:Siegfried Nugent or some other editor volunteers to create one , I would support redirecting this article to a new article on Australia–Kiribati relations. Nugent, I hope you'll do it.E.M.Gregory (talk) 00:08, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- I endorse. I think that would allow us to save this article's content and sidestep the issue of the notability of an individual High Commissioner. I cannot imagine a good argument to contest the notability of Australia-Kiribati relations. MisterRandomized (talk) 02:30, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I have added additional sources. I know that the wiki guidelines do not identify ambassadors as inherently notable. Given this article's subject (appointments to this post) has been reported in media over decades, I believe the list is notable and worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia. I also would argue that deleting this page could be seen as an example of systemic bias, which identifies:

a dearth of articles on neglected topics; and
perspective bias in articles on many subjects.

We all have no trouble agreeing that a List of ambassadors of Australia to the United States is notable, but are less ready to accept other lists of this type. Clare. (talk) 12:23, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a reason for keeping. LibStar (talk) 15:50, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with clare, there is a clear indication that bias may be present here simply because Kiribati is not a large or, relative to its position, as important in certain areas as other countries. The fact that this high commission and its heads are one of only a handful of diplomatic missions in this country is a good reason for establishing notability. The Australian High Commission is important to Kiribati, and it should be notable on that basis.Siegfried Nugent (talk) 05:53, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:36, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Enterprise Learning Strategy

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

mere list of business jargon dicdefs. DGG ( talk ) 04:10, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as I happen to notice this earlier, nothing at all acceptable and convincing. Notifying taggers HappyValleyEditor and IagoQnsi. SwisterTwister talk 04:15, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 04:15, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:57, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It reads like it was written by paid editors, or as an ad. It might fall under WP:G11. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Calicodragon (talk • contribs) 01:54, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I agree, the content is a bunch of jargon and could have been written by paid editors or advertisers. Also, I could find no acceptable independent sources that discuss this subject. And, it seems there is no clear definition or description of what this is anyway, in the business jargon world on the web --Steve Quinn (talk) 04:42, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Notability established. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 03:48, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Boeing 737 rudder issues

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

WP:OR/WP:FORK. The article claims to be about longstanding rudder issues on Boeing 737s. However, there is only one sourced accident that was the result of a rudder malfunction. There are five others listed as "suspected", but they are either unsourced, alleged, or sourced to a different problem. There is only one incident documented that led to the issue being discovered and repaired. Therefore, there are conclusions and connection being drawn by the article, which is not in keeping with Wikipedia policy. The sourced incidents already have their own articles, which further indicates that this article is a fork to make exactly the statements this article is making. MSJapan (talk) 02:14, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 (talk) 03:28, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, there are 2 accidents whose final reports have attributed the cause to be due to rudder failure. I think this article needs to stay, and that it needs revisions so that it doesn't appear that this rudder issue is as inconsequential as you might think it is. I am not an aviation person, but I have researched this issue a great deal, and the rudder problem is a very complicated problem. That's one of the reasons why it took TEN YEARS for United Airlines Flight 585's accident cause to finally be attributed to the rudder controls. I will explain as best as I can:

Originally, monitoring systems in the Flight Data Recorders (FDRs, colloquially known as "the black boxes") did not include rudder controls, so even if a crash was definitely due to a rudder control issue, usually there was no way for investigators to know this after the accident, and therefore, with certainty all they could report was that they "suspect" that was the direct cause of the accident. Also, the rudders operated in such a manner that, after the accident, if they survived intact, there was no way for the investigators to tell, on inspection, that anything had malfunctioned with them. That was a huge problem, because accident investigators rely on data from the FDRs, the Voice Data Recorders (if present), and the condition of the parts of the plane after the accident. They can't tell that the rudder was malfunctioning, so again, even if the cause of the accident was definitely a rudder control, in an official report, they can only suspect it, they can't give a definitive answer without definitive evidence. It was only after the crash of USAir Flight 427 in 1994 that investigators became aware of this rudder issue, and were able to go back and reopen past investigations, such as United 585, to determine if the accidents matched USAir 427, and if so, they could say with greater certainty that the rudder was involved.

I think this article should be retained, and expanded, hopefully by someone with more industry knowledge than I have, to give this topic the in-depth explanation it deserves. There are accidents that are highly suspected of being caused by rudder control problems, but without definitive evidence, in a report, investigators can't say that. I'll give an analogy: it's like you set your lunch on the table, but go answer the door or go to the bathroom, and when you come back, it's gone. Only you and the dog are home, but he doesn't look like he's just eaten your food: he doesn't smell like your lunch, you don't see any of your food in his mouth or around his belongings, there's not one crumb left to give you any idea what happened to it. You are 100% sure the dog ate it, because it didn't just vanish into thin air. BUT, if you had to put into a legal document what happened to it, you can't say you know the dog ate it, because you have no proof of it, you have to say you just strongly suspect the dog did, because all evidence points to it. You have to stop short of blaming him outright, because you don't have the evidence that rises to the level of a definitive report. This article needs to go into that, it needs to explain in more detail why the rudder control problems were so hard to prove. And, because this *was* a huge issue in proving or disproving the cause of more than one accident, including the longest investigation in NTSB history, and was the cause of changes to avoid future accidents after hundreds of people died due to these catastrophic events, I think it's an important topic to keep, and to expand upon so that all of this is clear. Kelelain (talk) 18:58, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

STRONGLY OPPOSE for the reasons given by Kelelain above. This article needs to be improved, not deleted. This is a significant topic in the aviation industry, and it is widely accepted that these rudder issues were the cause of two fatal aviation accidents. I will make it a priority to improve it myself. Shelbystripes (talk) 20:05, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have updated the article, which is now more detailed, thoroughly sourced, and makes clear that this involved multiple aircraft and a significant loss of human life. Hopefully this addresses the issues that were raised in the original AfD request. Shelbystripes (talk) 21:34, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:55, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - the sourcing is somewhat better (some fora/selfpub needed to go per RS), but I would note the following items which have not changed: the major incidents cited and summarized in this article have their own main articles already. The content used in this article re: those incidents is almost exclusively {{WP:PRIMARY]] from the NTSB reports (to the tune of 18 references from the same report). Setting aside those summary portions as indisputable fact, all that remains is a list of "suspected incidents", and that is where the fork (and WP:OR) issue lies - a number of incidents are being tied together with some suspected incidents (which were not rudder issues), plus Silkair (which was not a rudder issue) and I don't see any source cited that draws that conclusion. Therefore, the article is still in violation of WP:OR by drawing conclusions for the reader that were not made in the sources used, and it still appears that the article is FORKED to enable those conclusions to be made. MSJapan (talk) 17:40, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP (restated from above) You appear to be unfamiliar with WikiProject Aviation articles. The final NTSB report is frequently relied on as a source for these articles, as the only reliable sources with detailed, accurate, and specific information about an aviation accident or incident in the U.S. If there are sources containing discussion or debate or which question the official report, then those sources may also be used, but those alternate sources often do not exist. Also, you keep using "FORKED" in a way that does not match its meaning at all. If you're concerned the page has too much OR or other problems, then add an appropriate template banner calling for improvement, but no valid reason for deletion has been given and deletion is an inappropriate remedy for an incomplete but useful article on a real topic that resulted in nearly 200 lives lost. Shelbystripes (talk) 00:51, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:34, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Reply - First of all, you can only vote once. Second of all, when you have 1267 edits in three years, don't tell an editor with over 12,000 edits and ten years in that "it doesn't mean what you think it means." Having just seen the same situation in another article, I'm pretty sure I know what it means. Considering that the individual incidents already have articles elsewhere, this article is a content fork, period. Furthermore, the material is forked here to facilitate OR insofar as the conclusions and connections being made in the article. OR is a policy violation, period, so whether I "understand" aviation articles is irrelevant to the issue, and guess what? If I take out all the OR, we're left with three paragraphs rehashing incidents which already have more in-depth articles elsewhere, thus a content fork. The article is about rudder issues on a class of aircraft, and nowhere in the sources is it stated that these incidents were related. As a matter of fact, the article was created with no support for its claims whatsoever, and since that time, people have trying to fit data to the title instead of realizing the premise of the article is the problem. MSJapan (talk) 20:52, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The AfD was relisted, and I was restating my position after the relisting and new rationale. Per WP:CLOSEAFD, an AfD is not to be resolved or closed by vote count anyway, so there is no harm in restating my position below the relist/update. Do not edit my responses. You can reply to them, but you should not be editing what I wrote. In addition, you are factually incorrect when you say that there are only "three paragraphs" left after removing OR. I would know, because I wrote much of the material on the page. The NTSB synthesized the facts from multiple aviation incidents mentioned into a single, coherent narrative; I did not. I cited to the NTSB's work doing so. Putting that aside, you should not jump immediately to assuming content on the page is also OR. As a first step, you should be marking content you suspect may be OR with a tag such as {{OR}}, {{citation needed}}, or {{dubious}} to facilitate discussions or solicit citations in support. Also, I realize now that you meant WP:CONTENTFORK (not WP:FORK, as you originally said), but I disagree with this assessment as well. If anything, if the overlap in subject matter is your concern, you should be proposing that those aviation incident articles be merged into this one. I'm not sure I'd agree with that, but it would make more sense than this. I don't care if you have over 12,000 edits, that has no bearing on the fact that this is an inappropriate deletion request. Shelbystripes (talk) 17:08, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Also, it is ridiculous to judge a 7-year-old Wikipedia page based on its content when it was originally created. Most Wikipedia pages begin as stubs. The proper debate topic is whether the page currently meets Wikipedia standards, not whether it could have been deleted 7 years ago. And even then, my response would have been the same as it is now: Can the page be improved instead of deleted? The obvious answer is yes. Shelbystripes (talk) 17:19, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I for one found this article to be very helpful for whatever that is worth. Yes all the accidents have their own pages but this page ties them all together. There was indeed a serious rudder issue that conclusively caused 2 accidents and another incident. Also the Silk Air crash was found to be a rudder issue by one investigating team so that makes 4 accidents or incidents connected to the rudder issue. Also under the suspected list 3 of the listings do not have a page of their own. I can see taking out Copa Airlines flight 201 because it was not caused by a rudder issue but other than that I think it should stay. Very helpful article.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.230.178.179 (talk • contribs)

Keep I think the article includes some valuable information, but suggest the inclusion of more references.--Jetstreamer ^Talk 18:32, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Seems to meet WP:GNG for an article and covers a notable topic. - Ahunt (talk) 16:32, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. (non-admin closure) SSTflyer 03:04, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dreamless

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

I'm nominating deletion because of WP:NALBUMS. According to this, notability isn't inherited and requires independent evidence. There is only one independent reference on this page, which is to a Facebook post sharing the video with a comment. This is hardly going to add any credence to the album. The article states it has received 'critical acclaim' - no evidence to support this either. 'Create a whole new sound' - surely this is promotional material, and unsourced material at that. This article was published 28 April and it was released on 29 April 2016 - an album that hasn't even been released yet (WP:TOOSOON). I've previously proposed deletion for this article but the author objected, so I'm now taking it to AfD. st170e^talk 14:41, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:40, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:40, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It's been a long time since I've involved myself in one of these discussions, so apologies if I'm doing it wrong. I would like to argue against deletion. While the article may be poorly cited at this time, there are many independent reviews out there which could be added. This album was fairly highly anticipated within the metal community, and it's likely it will debut on the Billboard 200. If the article is not deleted by Thursday, I will perform a cleanup of promotional material and add third party sourcing in line with Wikipedia's guidelines. --2601:18C:8800:4600:502E:AC1C:2F10:22FD (talk) 22:00, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

'It is likely it will debut' - WP:TOOSOON. Unless there are verifiable and independent sources, how can you prove notability? The article still hasn't been changed since I've listed this for deletion. 'This album was fairly highly anticipated' - I take issue with this because there is no evidence for this claim. st170e^talk 01:11, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as the reviews seem enough. SwisterTwister talk 07:23, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please see my above comment User:SwisterTwister. I don't see any reviews of the like on the article that warrant inclusion. I don't think now is the right time for the article to be published. Maybe in the future, yes, when there is demand for it (i.e. through independent sources proving notability). There are next to no sources on this article and it is clear that this article was originally created for promotional purposes. st170e^talk 01:11, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Music1201 ^talk 01:02, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:TOOSOON per nom. Article status certainly can't be determined on speculation regarding its debut on the Billboard 200 and unsourced hyperbole like "highly anticipated". The band itself isn't really notable either as their article has no third-party sources and its content is mostly ripped off directly from Allmusic. sixtynine ^{• speak up •} 01:12, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Poor article quality does not mean the subject is not notable. --Michig (talk) 07:32, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:53, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Per WP:BEFORE, the following could have been found: Sputnik Music staff review, Allmusic review, The National Student review, The Music review, Metal Hammer (Germany) review, blabbermouth.net article with some detail on the album. --Michig (talk) 07:32, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Do sites like The National Student and blabbermouth.net (which reads more like a press release) really qualify as viable sources, though? sixtynine ^{• speak up •} 01:55, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I concur with the above: it's all great having reviews but is having a few reviews from a few websites worthy of making an album notable? I've had a look at the artist's article on here and the article itself only has one source. Again, I want to reiterate that this article was published the day before the album's release, WP:TOOSOON is the reason why I flagged this up. The reviews you've submitted are short, and although show some coverage of the album, it still does not meet the general notability guideline where it specifies significant coverage. But that's my two cents. st170e^talk 03:05, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You surely can't argue that Metal Hammer etc. are not reliable sources. If the album has received significant coverage from reliable sources then yes, it's notable. AfDing this the day before the album's release seems rather hasty - why not wait to see what coverage emerged? The band's last album charted so it was always likely that this one would, and it has - 154 on the Billboard 200, 6 on Top Hard Rock Albums, 10 on Top Independent Albums, 15 on Top Rock Albums. So the article on the band only has one source - that's an indication of a poor article and has no bearing on the notability of the band. --Michig (talk) 06:07, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Waiting to see what coverage emerges goes against WP:CRYSTAL and WP:RISING. Articles should be notable upon creation; they shouldn't be notable-pending-further-coverage. I also want to point out that notability is not inherited. The band's last album charted - yes - but that doesn't mean that the band's next album should automatically get an article that severely lacks sources. It's way too soon for that. st170e^talk 14:28, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Common sense should trump any essay you care to quote. Since AfDs run for a minimum of 7 days, it was obviously not going to be unreleased by the time the AfD finished. I agree it would better if people waited until sources are there before creating articles, but at worst an album article created slightly prematurely should be merged to the artist article or moved to draft space. We don't have to wait to see if this album charts - it has already charted and it has already received sufficient coverage. --Michig (talk) 16:40, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing irritates me more in AfD discussions than someone saying that an article should be saved because there are sufficient citations out there, yet they can't be bothered inserting them into the article. Anyway, one of the sources therein is Facebook, which is not notable. And no one said Metal Hammer wasn't a notable publication, so please don't put words in people's mouths. But a measly student newspaper, for instance, is not sufficient coverage for a metal album. sixtynine ^{• speak up •} 01:59, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody has argued that the sources in the article at the time it was nominated were adequate, including Facebook. AfD is for determining notability, not for forcing article improvement. Don't blame other people for not adding sources while an AfD is ongoing while you weren't even prepared to look for sources. --Michig (talk) 06:19, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Lots of reviews from well-known sources, plus the album charted, 154 on the Billboard 200, 6 on Top Hard Rock Albums, 10 on Top Independent Albums, 15 on Top Rock Albums. Plus, it has been released.--Seacactus 13 (talk) 20:44, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Time is up on this debate after its relisting so I am therefore closing it with general consensus to keep the article. There has only been one redirect contribution but a second relist would not be beneficial considering there has been no further discussion in six days. (non-admin closure) st170e^talk 01:43, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

List of Clannad characters

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

These series characters, as a set, are not independently notable from the main series, as shown through their lack of significant coverage from reliable, independent sources. (?) As such, it would be sufficient to say anything we need to say about the characters in the character section of the parent article, which is a GA and already covers the characters. A redirect or merge would only make sense if the sourcing warrants adding more to the existing character section. czar 15:12, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. czar 15:13, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. czar 15:13, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. czar 15:13, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I assume the creator of this article got their information from watching the show, which I believe would count as a reputable source? If the creator of the article User:Juhachi could indicate where their information came from, it would help this AfD discussion and perhaps close it.Sheepythemouse (talk) 21:06, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The show wouldn't go towards meeting the WP:GNG though, since it's not "third party". Sergecross73 msg me 04:30, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Depending on the website, there may be plot summaries or links to official sites that do Sheepythemouse (talk) 22:59, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I refuse to believe that Clannad, one of the most famous visual novels ever due to the quality of its storytelling and depth of character, has no RS coverage about its characters. A cursory Google search shows many hits in Google News and Google Books, and Clannad reviews will probably explore the characters in more detail. Unfortunately I'm on a filtered internet connection right now and thus am unable to access said sources. There's real life stuff I need to get done but I'll try to expand the article before the end of the week. If not, I request userfication if delete is the final consensus. Satellizer el Bridget ^(Talk) 23:15, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I think in total the reliable source coverage of the characters is enough to support an article, and the characters are an important enough aspect of the franchise to warrant us having a separate list article. One source that talks about the characters in detail is Anime News Network's podcast on Clannad [26]. Other sources also provide a lot of information on the characters, such as the Fandom Post's three part article series on Clannad [27], [28], [29], or the various reviews of the game and anime (such as the ones linked in the Clannad article). The list currently links to the official character page, [30], which is a reliable (though not independent) source, and could also be used to source basic descriptions of the characters. Calathan (talk) 05:07, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Some great sources, thanks. Satellizer el Bridget ^(Talk) 13:44, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I found references towards the characters in old issues of Newtype USA plus references in two different books by [31] [32] by Dani Cavallaro. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 17:31, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:36, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect instead as although this is starting to suggest Keep as its close, I simply am not seeing how it can be its own convincing article, obviously best known to the series itself. SwisterTwister talk 01:02, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per my and Calathan's points above. Satellizer el Bridget ^(Talk) 11:31, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a standard character list covered by WP:CSC #2. VMS Mosaic (talk) 02:53, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete--Ymblanter (talk) 08:11, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Chlara

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

I found nothing noticeably better at all from my searches for this troubled article, there's simply nothing at all convincing of the applicable notability and improvements. SwisterTwister talk 23:01, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 23:01, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 23:01, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, OP is correct, not notable. Insert CleverPhrase Here 09:50, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

~~Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.~~
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mhhossein (talk) 13:30, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Relisting comment: This discussion was located at the May 14 Afd log page, and was not listed at the May 21 log page. As such, this should be considered as the first relisting for the discussion. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:43, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:33, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no indication she passes the notability guidelines for musicians.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:06, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:29, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

John Hedley (musician)

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

I also considered PRODing as there's basically nothing imaginably better for the applicable notability and improvements and the best I've found are simply passing mentions. Notifying taggers Edward321 and Boleyn. SwisterTwister talk 23:02, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 23:02, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 23:02, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no indication of enduring notability. Insert CleverPhrase Here 09:57, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

~~Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.~~
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mhhossein (talk) 13:34, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Relisting comment: This discussion was located at the May 14 Afd log page, and was not listed at the May 21 log page. As such, this should be considered as the first relisting for the discussion. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:42, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:32, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Seems to be a locally well-known guitarist who doesn't even come close to meeting any criteria in WP:MUSBIO or certainly those of WP:GNG. MisterRandomized (talk)
Delete: a well-connected and well-respected session musician no doubt, but that's not enough to meet WP:MUSICBIO. Richard3120 (talk) 18:23, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. (non-admin closure) SSTflyer 03:03, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Skam Records

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

Came her after nominating Quinoline Yellow (musician) for deletion based on not meeting notability guidelines. The record label fails as well. Very limited sources online and nothing in-depth to satisfy WP:CORPDEPTH. CNMall41 (talk) 18:45, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:19, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:19, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:19, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. These were easily found: [33], [34], [35]. I'm sure there's more out there. --Michig (talk) 20:18, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Thanks for the links. The CMJ is not in-depth and don't see them as reliable, the "Rough Guide to Rock" only mentions them with a group and does nothing for notability, the last CMJ article talks about them related to the electronic movement and is not close to in-depth. Of course, that's just my opinion. --CNMall41 (talk) 23:34, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Well, I'll say this label was pretty important in the 90s electronic music scene (esp in England). Boards of Canada, Gescom (the founder), Autechre, Jega, etc. all had releases through it. That said, there are two challenges: first, it was the early days of the web (and pre-web) so sources are harder to find, and second, I don't think there was ever a ton of information about the label to begin with, owing to a very much underground ethos/aesthetic. I don't have time to do a good search for sources (i.e. the harder to find ones that haven't survived on the accessible web), but as yet I haven't found enough to justify keeping, unfortunately. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 16:29, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Simply nothing convincing with what is needed to keep and improve this article. SwisterTwister talk 04:36, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 22:18, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:29, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: It's a tough one and I'm a bit torn here: Rhododendrites admits "I don't think there was ever a ton of information about the label to begin with" which highlights the problem in getting this to pass notability. Even if we went back to paper issues of NME and the like (and I could do that, they're in the British Library), I still think we'd struggle to find anything much more on this record label than what Michig has already uncovered. Boards of Canada and Autechre are certainly key figures in the UK electronic scene of the 1990s but their main work was released on Warp Records, so interviews and articles about these artists are also unlikely to mention Skam, and if they do, it's likely to be one sentence along the lines of "their first single was released on Manchester-based Skam Records". Richard3120 (talk) 15:23, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of French supercentenarians. (non-admin closure) SSTflyer 03:02, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Olympe Amaury

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

As with many other such longevity articles contains nothing to justify a stand-alone article. Consists largely of OR, trivia and longevity fanfluff. Fails WP:GNG and WP:PERMASTUB DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 00:21, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor ^Talk! 08:50, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor ^Talk! 08:50, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect Yet another WP:NOPAGE situation. E Eng 10:39, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Restore Redirect to List of French supercentenarians. Per WP:NOPAGE. Taking out the unsourced longevity trivia (12th oldest, succeeded by, etc) leaves you with a name, age, country and that she had a husband, children and grandchildren. Nothing of interest here. She belongs on a list as per the guidelines at the WP:WOP wikiproject. CommanderLinx (talk) 00:47, 23 May 2016 (UTC) This editor has made few or no other edits outside this topic.[reply]
Comment Funny how this was "conveniently" excluded from Article alerts... 104.56.23.57 (talk) 02:27, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, even the bots are in on the conspiracy. E Eng 07:58, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete with a redirect to the list of French Supercentenarians. Where she stood in the mythical competition to be especially old and how many progeny she had are simply not enough to justify a stand-alone article. Both policy and the guidance at the World's Oldest People wikiproject counsel that this belongs on a list only. David in DC (talk) 17:59, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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