Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2016 March 29

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 28 March	30 March >

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 by User:Sphilbrick following author request (G7). (non-admin closure) Geoff | ^{Who, me?} 16:39, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Tealyra

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

Fails Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies) by a very large margin. Schwede 66 23:43, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Article has no independent references; nothing in the article evens suggests notability. MB (talk) 01:04, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The subject's coverage in reliable sources is almost non-existant, thus not notable. Meatsgains (talk) 01:43, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

From author

Perhaps I should save you time. Closed, thank you all.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Rideron (talk • contribs) 02:04, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:25, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:25, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Quebec-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:25, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:25, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 23:15, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Brian Rider

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

Notability per WP:ANYBIO seems doubtful. Created by single-purpose account DigitalWikiMan (subject's start-up company is named "Digital Wingman"), which makes it even more fishy. bender235 (talk) 23:30, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. He got some local coverage ([1] and [2]), but I don't think there's enough here to satisfy WP:BIO. The awards don't look like they would confer notability. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 04:12, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:24, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:24, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:24, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as above, any waves made are small and local.TheLongTone (talk) 14:45, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete run of the mill businessman with no clear claim to notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:17, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as too soon at best, nothing else convincing. SwisterTwister talk 07:19, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Withdrawn by nominator. (non-admin closure) Satellizer (´ ･ ω ･ `) 10:07, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Injured Engine

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

Article topic lacks significant coverage from reliable, independent sources. (?) It had no meaningful hits in a video game reliable sources custom Google search and isn't listed at MobyGames (our best index of offline game reviews). czar 22:58, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Withdraw. The three reviews are sufficient for the general notability guideline when added to the potential book sections. Nice sleuthing czar 02:07, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. czar 22:58, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as my searches found nothing better and this current article is not better convincing. SwisterTwister talk 06:38, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There are too many relevant-looking hits at Google Books for me to feel comfortable in saying that it should be deleted. Here's a sampling: Computer simulations: a source book to learning in an electronic environment (Garland Publishing), which looks like it may have an entire chapter on the game; this article from InCider magazine, which looks like it has a review; Educational Computing: A Guide to Practical Applications (Gorsuch Scarisbrick), which looks to discuss it, albeit on a single page; this article in Kiplinger's Personal Finance of all things; and this article in InfoWorld. Gorsuch Scarisbrick seems to be part of Pearson Education. These aren't great results, but they did give me hope. I searched archive.org, and I found even more reviews. I'm not entirely sure I can link to them, because they seem like they might be copyright violations.
- Home Computer Magazine Volume 5, Issue 4. Reviewed by Rhea J. Grundy on page 39.
- Commodore Microcomputers Issue 37. Reviewed by Mark Cotone on page 14.
- Electronic Games Volume 3, Issue 4. Reviewed by Joyce Worley on page 49.

I started adding these reviews to the article, but then my browser crashed. sigh. I'll try to do it again. Anyway, that's at least three full-length reviews, plus the other coverage. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 07:43, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I added the reviews. I think the article shows significantly more notability now. @SwisterTwister: it's got a few sources now; care to look at it again? NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 08:36, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@NinjaRobotPirate, can you please add the links to the archive.org sources? I think we need more info than the sparse Google Books previews on the first few links to pass judgment, but the reviews would sound good if they are indeed full reviews. Thanks for your help czar 13:39, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, but I don't know how to link to specific pages.

You can click on the text version or view them in a variety of formats. There were a few other hits on archive.org, but they looked like they were likely advertisements, so I didn't bother to read them. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 17:06, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Here: [3][4][5] czar 02:07, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Nice job finding those sources. Grayfell (talk) 02:00, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Sandstein 19:34, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

TJ Harris

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

Creator of the article de-proded without giving a reason. Cannot go to speedy since claim to notability, formed a band but musician is not independently notable. Fails WP:MUSICBIO and WP:GNG. Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:26, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 21:37, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 21:37, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:09, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm the creator of the page. I don't know how to do this talk thingy, it would be way easier if there was a private messaging system. Anyways, TJ Harris formed one band, then joined another, plus did multiple solo performances, and has also performed with other bands like Relentless Flood. He is independently notable. His discography is massive so far. Him and his band have been nominated for a Grammy once. I feel the page should stay up. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chriswaggoner (talk • contribs) 18:52, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Torn/Push This passes a measure used by MUSICBIO, where he has been part of two notable bands, while I cannot see much if any general notability with regards to coverage of him individually. This is a push, unless you can find some more sources, and this makes me torn with respect to this article being included in this encyclopedia.The Cross Bearer (talk) 06:35, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have no idea what you're talking about. I'm new to Wikipedia, plus I don't have a good vocabulary. But, I am most definitely not exaggerating his achievements. He has been the front of two bands, plus, he plays multiple instruments. He has been signed by multiple record labels, plus has performed with another band as a featured artist. Massive discography, massive history, massive amount of band and solo performances. It's all over YouTube. Plus, he has also performed live on a radio station, Air1. I don't know what exactly I can do to ensure that this article won't be taken down. Once again, I am new to Wikipedia and everything, so technical terms aren't my strong point. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chriswaggoner (talk • contribs) 07:11, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I am going to help you understand, the Jesus Freak Hideout interview is one source for notability, and it is in the article. We have a second source, from Singing Success, that builds upon the previous article to increase coverage. We have a third source but all I can get is the link to show they interviewed him at Christian Music Review, for their Kingdom Builder series. I would say with these three sources he passes general notability, which would allow for the creation of his article on this encyclopedia, so now we should keep the article.The Cross Bearer (talk) 09:24, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I already knew about the Singing Success source and was gonna add it later. But it's good you know about that too. I'm trying to finish his "Decyfer Down" section first. Then, I could add his notable instruments, and that he endorses Singing Success. I've gotta type it in a uniform manner, which I'll do really soon. My apologies for the delay, I'm in the middle of my exams which are about to end this week. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chriswaggoner (talk • contribs) 07:16, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You have to start illustrating and proving notability before just throwing up articles, or more of your new pages, articles, and entries will be PRODed or AfDed (e.g. what this discussion going on is called). I would like you to create better articles, so this does not happen time-and-time again. I am more than excited you come to edit this encyclopedia in the Christian music project.The Cross Bearer (talk • contribs) 11:13, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've added information regarding his solo performance of his own single "Walk Love", at Liberty University Convocation. Don't know how to go about adding Singing Success and that Kingdom Builder interview. Thanks for the advice, and please do suggest a good way of adding those two, if you can. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chriswaggoner (talk • contribs) 13:34, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I integrated it into the article, where now you can see how to do it for yourself in future instances.The Cross Bearer (talk | contribs) 03:50, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the help pal. I made some corrections, added a bit more detail to the info as Harris and I are directly in contact, plus I have cited sources anyways to prove my edits. I hope that the article won't be deleted anymore. Please delete the notice if this article is no longer being considered as an 'article for deletion'. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chriswaggoner (talk • contribs) 07:24, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- RoySmith (talk) 22:43, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ummm....The Cross Bearer assured that after we integrate Singing Success and the Kingdom Builder interview in the article, TJ Harris will have passed all required criteria for having an individual article. So, why is the notice still on the page? Is there any requirement not fulfilled? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chriswaggoner (talk • contribs) 13:34, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Church of San Dionisio (Jerez de la Frontera). MBisanz ^talk 03:46, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

San Dionisio, Jerez de la Frontera

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

Duplicates the article Church of San Dionisio (Jerez de la Frontera)

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2016 March 29. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 22:32, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect and merge the two article if anything. Both are approximately the same length and stub class, and technically this is the older of the two articles although the other appears to be the WP:COMMONNAME (from translation of the building registry).--☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(ring-ring) 00:35, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:22, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:22, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:22, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:22, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge -- I would suggest that the target should be Church of San Dionisio, Jerez de la Frontera. This appears to be a fairly typical local church, but being singled out at a conference and having known architects is sufficient to single it out from the mass of medieval parish churches in Europe. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:43, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 San Holo. (non-admin closure) SSTflyer 00:44, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

IMISSU

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

Not a notable song. WP:N is not happy. "A song exist and has views on youtube" generally does not warrant an article. --allthefoxes ^(Talk) 22:29, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not seeing any notability, no charting, no WP:RS (actually, no references at all.) Main claim to fame is having a 7–figure viewership.--☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(ring-ring) 00:59, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The song is not notable nor is it covered in any reliable sources. Youtube views doesn't cut it. Meatsgains (talk) 01:47, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:21, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:21, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect non-notable song to artiste.TheLongTone (talk) 15:01, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect non-notable song to San Holo via {{R from song}}. - HyperGaruda (talk) 17:15, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 23:17, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Taylor 314ce

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:PRODUCT. Basically just an ordinary guitar, with no claim to notability and no need for its own article. The article has been tagged for failing notability and for reading like an advertisement since 2013. Colonel Wilhelm Klink (^Complaints|_Mistakes) 21:58, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 22:19, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Colonel Wilhelm Klink is spot on. Fails WP:GNG and WP:PRODUCT. We have a page about the company, and this ordinary guitar in no way merits its own page. Edwardx (talk) 14:58, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - doesn't meet WP:PRODUCT, and searches did not turn up enough in-depth coverage to show it passes WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 00:18, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- 1/3 of the article is a promotion, and no secondary sources to confer notability, so delete. In veritas (talk) 16:07, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 The Sniper (story). Sandstein 19:35, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Sniper (short film)

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

I find no evidence of coverage meeting WP:GNG for this film. Search results don't yield reliable sources, and the film meets none of the notability criteria available under WP:NFILM. —Largo Plazo (talk) 21:17, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 22:20, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I'd suggest an A7 nomination, but the film festival appearance puts it just above the notability threshold for speedy deletion criteria - which only requires that there be something that could assert that there is coverage out there. However it doesn't pass overall notability criteria for films, as film festival appearances do not give notability and a search did not produce any RS that would establish notability. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 07:03, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:20, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

alts:

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

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

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

Redirect Having given the thing a face-lift and having watched the film, it would seem to be a decent interpretation of the Liam O'Flaherty short story "The Sniper". As this is sourcable, I believe a redirect and sourced mention in the story article is sensible. If it ever gains notability enough for a separate article, this can always be resurrected. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 09:25, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 more or less that he just about meets SOLDIER so I'm closing as Keep. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 22:48, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

George Honour

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

A single award of the DSC is not enough to meet WP:SOLDIER. Neither are the GNG met. Nthep (talk) 21:04, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Not even nearly passing WP:SOLDIER, single primary editor so a COI may be the reason for original creation. -crh23 (talk) 21:16, 29 March 2016 (UTC) Having looked at the sources in more detail, I'm going with Weak keep, as he seems to be sufficiently notable to be mentioned by name in sources not specifically about him, but about the operations he was in. Edited 10:34, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 22:20, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 22:21, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 22:21, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - I have found several books just through quickly searching on Google Books that discuss his work on D-Day as extensive and significant. We could do with more on what he did for the next 58 years of his life (no RS on that, and the sources I've seen don't mention his profession or family), but I think notability is just about established anyway. Blythwood (talk) 04:12, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep, largely per the sources added by Blythwood. I'm not sure what criteria the editors who established the WP:SOLDIER criteria would consider a "significant military event" (even the conversation linked to at SOLDIER doesn't discuss that), but the subject does appear to have played an important role in Operation Gambit, and so could potentially meet SOLDIER criteria #5. Egsan Bacon (talk) 14:07, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 23:19, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mordecai Plaut

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

Plaut is notable only for having a website. Does not seem to meet the guidelines for inclusion. Uses Blogs, commercial adv, etc. Seems to be a hagiographical page. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 20:55, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 20:56, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and WP:BIO. I only see passing mentions in blogs and a book. Yoninah (talk) 20:59, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and WP:BIO, specifically WP:AUTHOR. Not getting much in the way of independent third party sources either, so fails WP:GNG. -crh23 (talk) 21:19, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 22:21, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 22:22, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. Yoninah (talk) 22:26, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as failing WP:AUTHOR and WP:GNG. Arthistorian1977 (talk) 08:26, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not enough coverage in independent reliable sources to show they meet WP:GNG, and definitely doesn't meet WP:AUTHOR. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 00:19, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 23:21, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Khris Kaneff

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

In terms of online sources, I found nothing for this actor/producer beyond his IMDb entry and two passing mentions in reviews of the 2012 film Foxfur (itself of questionable notability). Fundamentally, he falls short of the basic notability criterion and judging by the IMDb entry, he also falls short of the the actor-specific criteria. Pichpich (talk) 19:08, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 22:28, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 22:28, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as questionable for all applicable notability, simply nothing else convincing. SwisterTwister talk 22:47, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There's nothing meaningful in the article, nothing that passes as a claim of notability and nothing that would support a claim found in a Google search. Alansohn (talk) 15:10, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - clearly doesn't meet WP:NACTOR, and nothing in the search engines shows that he passes WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 00:22, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Sandstein 19:38, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

SwordPen Publishers

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

Fails GNG, no major reliable references. Kavdiamanju (talk) 18:40, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:08, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:08, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as not convincing of any notability yet. SwisterTwister talk 01:23, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I couldn't find anything via a search to show that this publisher is ultimately notable. None of their works seem to have gained any sort of coverage, nor has the company itself. As far as the article claims and sourcing goes, the sourcing is almost all primary in one format or another. None of the claims are the type that would give notability as the publisher does not inherit notability from being associated with notable persons and the other claims are fairly misleading. Just about any publisher can get a booth at BEA - the only true requirements center around their ability to pay and whether or not they sign up in time. The BEA booklet mention appears to be just a booth listing and an advert - both of which are things that any conference worth their salt would offer to people paying to exhibit. Even if there was an article on the publisher (which does not appear to be the case) it would still be considered a primary source since articles of that nature are meant to promote features of the conference. The claim of recognition from other publishers doesn't really do anything since it's only sourced to the SwordPen website and looks to be the same as a book blurb, which cannot show notability since it's the type of offhand statement issued in order to promote something and is also not easily verified. The mention in Baby & Kids is a reprint of a press release, so that's primary as well. The only non-primary sources are e-commerce sites (which do not belong in an article at all), a legal filing (which could be argued as primary), and a trademark listing (which could also be argued as primary). If not for the link to Barnett, I'd say that this could actually be speedied as A7. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:24, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:18, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:18, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, does not meet WP:ORG. Have been unable to find any reliable sources that assist for notability. The books listed on its website do not appear to be notable either as I have been unable to find any useable reviews for them either; they have been authored by two people, this publisher appears to be a marketing/promotional vehicle for their products. Wiki is not. Coolabahapple (talk) 15:32, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not deleteHello very-helpful mods! This is the OP of the SwordPen Publishers page. Firstly, as per Wikipedia's guidelines, SwordPen is indeed a company ([[6]])) and is a notable children's book publishing company as well. To Tokyogirl: Being in the BEA is not as trivial as it sounds; the BEA checks out each booth to confirm they are indeed a legitimate publisher. In fact, SwordPen is part of Ingram distributors as well. Furthermore, a legal filing is public knowledge, and is as unbiased and third-party a document as you can get.

I have also added the sources from The Asia Foundation that SP donated to, as well as the lawsuit between SP and Henry Holt, which is backed by DWT, one of the most prestigious law firms in the world.

I am more than happy to provide any and all evidence needed to create a SwordPen page. If there is anything I can do, please don't hesitate to ask me. I know this company, but I am not being paid to post on Wikipedia. It is a notable and up-and-coming publishing company. Thank you all. Please forgive my less-than-perfect Wiki-etiquette, as I am learning the ropes :).

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Bryan Ansell. It's up to subsequent discussion and consensus to determine what if anything is merge-worthy. Sandstein 19:39, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wargames Foundry

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

Fails WP:CORP - unable to find a single news article or in-depth coverage from reliable source to establish notability. Elaenia (talk) 06:43, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 12:53, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 12:53, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Vipinhari || talk 13:19, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, also found nothing. GAB^Hello! 13:38, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. Artw (talk) 19:25, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment appears to be part of the early history of Games Workshop, and so if the article cannot be improved should probably be merged there or to Bryan Ansell. I also not that there's an awful lot of unsourced material thats resently been blanked from the page - if that could be sourced and brought up to standard that might be a basis for keeping the article. Artw (talk) 19:31, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as my searches also found nothing better. SwisterTwister talk 04:58, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge to Games Workshop per Artw. BOZ (talk) 11:28, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
selective merge to ~~Games Workshop~~, Bryan Ansell per Artw. Redirect is perfectly reasonable and a sentence or three should probably move over. Not leaving a redirect for a 10-year old article is unwise. Hobit (talk) 16:59, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- On yet further reading, I'm 99% sure there will be some 10-20 year old RSes out there that aren't on line. I'll ask around. Hobit (talk) 17:10, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - No luck so far... Hobit (talk) 21:50, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I've looked through my magazine archive from those days and either the 1976-77 dates are total red herrings, or else the corporation existed but did not market their products to the general public. Bryan Ansell's corporation in 1976-77 was Asgard Miniatures, who don't have an article yet, although I found enough decent sources that I'm thinking of composing one. It's possible that Wargames Foundry were selling directly to Citadel Miniatures, who were based in Newark at the time which is just up the road from Wargames Foundry's address. I don't think they were a public-facing company in their own right. I'd describe the claims in the article as plausible but not sourceable.
Unless Hobit's researches pull out a RS I don't know about, I think I'm going to have to go with delete. I can also see the argument for a smerge to Bryan Ansell and I would not oppose this outcome; all we'd really be able to merge is a brief mention so the difference between smerge and delete in this case does not amount to much.—S Marshall T/C 13:56, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vipinhari || talk 17:14, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vipinhari || talk 17:53, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Sandstein 15:00, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas Ormson

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

I believe that this article fails WP:ENT. As per this, "Has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions", the subject of this article has only had one role in Coronation Street and appeared as a guest on a daytime show. I cannot see that there is anything worth keeping in this article, I suggest either redirecting to David Platt (Coronation Street) or just deleting this article. 5 albert square (talk) 18:29, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:22, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:22, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and Redirect to David Platt (Coronation Street) as none of this is better for WP:ENTERTAINER. SwisterTwister talk 22:03, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Found some passing mentions. I have added this to the article.--TheDomain (talk) 05:02, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect, fails WP:ENT. Anemone Projectors 07:55, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for role in U.K's first or second most popular series for 10 years solid,WP: ENT are only guidelines, his national newspaper coverage passes WP:BASIC Atlantic306 (talk) 23:44, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vipinhari || talk 17:13, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vipinhari || talk 17:52, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I completely get all the delete !votes. And I understand how strictly applying the guidelines at WP:NACTOR lead you to that decision. That being said, the guy was a regular on a television show for 10 years. A very popular television show. If William Christopher's only role was as the chaplain on M*A*S*H, I'd say that was good enough (and he only appeared in 218 episodes). That being said, I've never seen the show, so I don't know how significant a role it is, but the fact that it's notable enough to have its own Wikipedia page, it's probably a decent role. Although, it looks like most of that article is post-Ormson, so if he was merely a glorified extra for those 10 years, than I'd rethink my !vote. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 00:53, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment @Onel5969: I didn't watch the show when Ormson was it in but it looks like he was in it from a baby to about 10 years old. Most child characters in that age range tend to be "glorified extras" which is why they end up being recast. These 10 years of the character are summarised by a single paragraph in David Platt (Coronation Street)#Storylines, so it looks like that's probably the case. I don't know if he had a speaking part at any point. Anemone Projectors 11:03, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - Response to comment - That's precisely my point AnemoneProjectors, I'm not sure. He may have been a glorified extra, or he might have had a part more akin to that of the Olsen twins on Full House. If it's the former, doesn't deserve an article, if its the latter, he does. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:00, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    - I wonder if letting Coronation Street editors know about this AFD might help. Anemone Projectors 13:48, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 23:22, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Lorene Drive

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

Fails NMUSIC John from Idegon (talk) 23:32, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 23:38, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as searches seem to find nothing better than this. SwisterTwister talk 04:42, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:16, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:16, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vipinhari || talk 17:48, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Yeah, doesn't meet WP:NMUSIC, and searches did not turn up enough in-depth coverage to show that they pass WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 00:54, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 23:30, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Brian Krueger

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

Non-notable individual, no newsworthy references found. Being a VP at Amazon does not infer notability, nor does being a CEO of a non-notable company. A look at the edit history shows a close correlation with someone editing for CollegeGrad which makes me suspect that this is purely self-promotion. Shritwod (talk) 09:32, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 12:09, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. Nordic Dragon 12:30, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as searches found nothing convincingly better. SwisterTwister talk 04:49, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:01, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vipinhari || talk 17:45, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. My searches didn't turn up anything for this Brian Krueger that would lead me to believe he meets GNG. The sources on the article right now are: 1) the company he founded's website, 2) his Youtube page, 3) his LinkedIn profile, and 4) the Amazon.com page for a book he wrote. None of that helps. Egsan Bacon (talk) 18:41, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete an accomplished, yet non-notable businessman. Not enough in-depth coverage from reliable sources to show he passes WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 01:18, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 03:46, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Parth Dave

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

No significant coverage of the actor, with no reliable sources even. SuperHero ● 👊 ● ★ 05:38, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. SuperHero ● 👊 ● ★ 09:20, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. SuperHero ● 👊 ● ★ 09:20, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. SuperHero ● 👊 ● ★ 09:20, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as he only has background characters such as playing so and so's son, and there's nothing better for WP:ENTERTAINER. SwisterTwister talk 04:34, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

Comment: ALL actors, even some of today's most notable, begin with minor roles... and reliable sources confirming his career are available, though sadly not used... so to disagree with the above, through an incomplete IMDB and searches through WP:INDAFD giving us ("Parth Dave" "Master Parth Dave", it appears that he has had enough significant roles since 2003 to meet WP:NACTOR. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 00:22, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry MichaelQSchmidt this is not about the roles he played, this is about whether the subject meets the Notability criteria. Secondly, please do not say again about its roles he played without independent sources. Does it has any kind of coverages in media? If yes then say. Third point we are not promotional agency so do not implement it even mate. Thanks. SuperHero ● 👊 ● ★ 06:24, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, in a lack of individual's coverage notability criteria tell us a discussion then has to be about the roles, and so anyone simply and unfoundedly claiming his roles are unsourcable or insignificant is unhelpful. We do not cherry-pick which guide to understand, but what I do understand after seven years and 60,000 edits is that the inclusion guide WP:NACTOR requires verification of an actor's roles, without demanding SIGCOV of the individual. Those two guides are not set as mutually exclusionary. No evidence beyond supposition that author User:Parthactor is the likely subject, but the user has not edited the stub since November 2010... but it has been edited by many others have since he stopped editing Wikipedia. And while ADVERT/PROMOTION in any article would certainly apply if the article were itself somehow full of unsourcable fluff, rather than sourcable fact, I know you decided to ignore a a reasonable assertion of notability when you wished it speedied. Atlantic306 was correct to decline your requested speedy. Had you given any thought to simply tagging it for sources rather than bringing it to AFD? Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 21:14, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as had prominent roles in feature films, there are plenty of reviews such as [7], and [8], I haven't found anything biographical yet. Atlantic306 (talk) 15:51, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:14, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vipinhari || talk 17:44, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - sorry, I'm not seeing the significant roles in notable films. It only took about 8 minutes to look at all 12 roles, and the only one which even approaches the level of significance is that in Blackmail. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 01:17, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I would have to agree with Onel5969 here. He does not have significant roles in most of the notable films (except for 1 or at most 2) he's acted, fails WP:NACTOR. Doesn't meet WP:GNG—UY Scuti ^Talk 19:40, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Clearly a borderline case, but no agreement about which side of the notability border she falls on. Sandstein 15:01, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jennifer Hammon

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

Failed WP:PROD. BLP article completely unsourced since creation in 2007. Very borderline WP:NACTOR (two "significant" roles would be Port Charles and Allyson Is Watching), but I can find no significant sourcing for this one, so it very probably fails WP:BASIC. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 16:43, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 16:43, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 16:43, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete at best with nothing better for WP:ENTERTAINER, she was a General Hospital character for two years but there's simply nothing convincing to keep. SwisterTwister talk 22:13, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:08, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as had significant roles in Port Charles and Allyson is Watching, found these sources [9] and [10] I think WP:BASIC is only just passed. Atlantic306 (talk) 20:00, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Those don't clear it for WP:GNG. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 02:28, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - I think its borderline.Check out section 2 in the box for instructions to AFC reviewers which defines significant coverage as at least one substantial paragraph here [11], it surprised me as I had thought it had to be more than that. Atlantic306 (talk) 00:37, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    - The thing is, what clears you through WP:AfC is not binding on what happens here at AfD. Put another way, what AfC is telling reviewers is the bare minimum to accept an article for publication in mainspace. But I suspect the AfC people assume that these "single refs" will soon be supplemented by other refs from other editors once the article is published (i.e. they're viewing that "bare minimum standard" as the starting point for an article...). At AfD, OTOH, we're sometimes looking at BLPs that have been entirely unsourced for up to a decade (and which would qualify for WP:BLPPROD if BLPPROD had been "grandfathered" to include them) which is usually a sign that significant sourcing is unavailable for the subject. Note the choice of my words – "significant sourcing". It's not to say that some of these languishing BLPs can't be sourced at all – it's that they can't be "adequately" or well sourced enough to clear WP:GNG (or WP:BASIC). In any case, what happens at AfC is certainly not binding here. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 01:24, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep added a source so no longer unreferenced BLP. Certainly there are other marginally famous actors with wikipedia articles. I agree she barely meets the requirements for notability, but she does meet them. Add to that, there is a tremendous disparity in the number of men's and women's biographies, for me that weighs in favor of keeping and improving this article.Knope7 (talk) 21:13, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- This is precisely a WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument. SST flyer 01:19, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:27, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vipinhari || talk 17:12, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Does not meet the requirements for notability of actors. We do not keep poorly sourced articles on marginally notable people because we have lots of poorly sourced articles on marginally notable people. If you think there are others actors who are not notable and yet have articles (which is probably the case), you are free to nominate them for deletion. And to tell you the truth, if they really are less notable than Hammon, I will also vote for deleting that article as well. Just because we cannot manage to nominate all below par articles that do not meet notability requirements at once, does not mean we should keep such articles as we have.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:30, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Borderline. but keep. — Preceding unsigned comment added by VanEman (talk • contribs) 17:40, April 3, 2016‎ (UTC)
Delete - The WP:OSE argument isn't really valid in this instance. And remember, having two significant roles only means the may be notable (the guideline says "multiple", but does not define it). To be specific, the guideline says: "People are likely to be notable if they meet any of the following standards. Failure to meet these criteria is not conclusive proof that a subject should not be included; conversely, meeting one or more does not guarantee that a subject should be included." In this instance I don't think the two roles she has had guarantee that she is notable. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 01:33, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - Hammon appeared in two significant roles but barely reaches notability. Meatsgains (talk) 23:52, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) ubiquity (talk) 13:55, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Tea Kadai Raja

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

Need reputable, independent sources to show this even exists, let alone is notable. ubiquity (talk) 16:40, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:11, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:11, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

alts with WP:INDAFD: "Tea Kadai Raja" "director Raja" "Raja Subbiah" "Neha Gayatri" "Yogi Babu" "Sharmila Thapa"

and

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

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

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

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

Keep as the film is completed and slated to release in one week, and sorry Ubiquity, a diligent search shows the film's production has coverage enough to meet WP:NFF (paragraph 3). This needs work, not deletion. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 01:49, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Never close early but in this case SOFIXIT applies, Obvious keep (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 21:00, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

List of universities in Ukraine

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

This Wikipedia article is now a parody of an encyclopaedic entry. Content of this page is too uncomplete with many existing universities not listed on this page. For example: many universities in the city of Poltava are not listed here. (On the other hand) it is very likely that now this page is listing universities in Ukraine that do not exist anymore. (Since) 76 higher education institutions and their branches were denied licenses in 2015; looking at this page history they were not removed from this article. On the article's talkpage the hope has been expressed that somebody will fix this article. The change that somebody will fix this article is about 0%. Since it has existed for almost 12 years now and was never fixed. I don't see the point on hoping that somebody will fix it.... This Wikipedia article is now a parody of an encyclopaedic entry and should be deleted especially since Category:Universities in Ukraine is a must better substitute for this page. — Yulia Romero • Talk to me! 16:18, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – This appears to be a content dispute and not a matter for deletion. The list selection criteria are ostensibly sound. The fact the article hasn't been fixed isn't a valid criterion for deletion per WP:NEGLECT. (The right answer is WP:SOFIXIT.) —Nizolan ^(talk) 16:38, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. —Nizolan ^(talk) 16:39, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. —Nizolan ^(talk) 16:39, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and improve per Nizolan above, WP:SOFIXIT. Amccann421 (talk) 16:50, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and improve. While I'm not a big fan of such lists, I believe SOFIXIT is the way to go. //Halibu tt 16:59, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep a list with clear inclusion criteria on a notable topic. AfD is not for cleanup. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 18:18, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 23:33, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Andi Thanoj

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

Previously deleted via PROD in 2011. Fails WP:GNG due to lack of significant coverage in independent, reliable sources, and fails WP:NFOOTBALL as he has never played in a fully-professional league or for the senior national team. Giant Snowman 16:11, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 16:13, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - He has not played in a fully pro league or received significant coverage, meaning the article fails WP:NSPORT and WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik (talk) 18:15, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails NFOOTY as has not played senior international football nor played in a fully professional league. No indication that subject has garnered significant reliable coverage for any other achievements to satisfy GNG. Fenix down (talk) 11:16, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - doesn't meet standards including GNG, plus attracts vandals. C 679 11:46, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albania-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:11, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:11, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:11, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:11, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NFOOTY and WP:GNG. Joseph2302 (talk) 14:45, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 23:36, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Muljan HiGh School

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

Also:

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

These articles share the same text (except for the dates), but one is a high school and the other a primary school. They can't both cover the same grades, so at least one is dead wrong. There are no references for either, so no way for us to correct. I couldn't find any info online except an empty facebook page for the alleged primary school. I think each should be deleted until at least one reference is presented proving that the school exists, and what grades it covers. ubiquity (talk) 15:58, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. ubiquity (talk) 16:10, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. ubiquity (talk) 16:10, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Whenever you see unusual capitalizations, it's useful to check the article creator's edit history. delete and salt per repeatedly recreated Muljan High School. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:19, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

See also redirect Muljan Primary School, itself a speedily deleted article. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:46, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and Salt As per above, this user has repeatedly created this article only to see it deleted again and again. This school fails WP:Notability and, as above, has no sourcing. Since the account is named "Muljan", the same as the school, it's not a stretch to guess that this might be WP:Promotion. Amccann421 (talk) 16:44, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete both. The original primary school article was never deleted, but was redirected. The original high school article was deleted three days in a row for copyright violation (the author does not appear to understand copyright, or, perhaps, English). Their enthusiastic article creation may be a sincere effort to help, but has been more disruptive than beneficial. A source could be found to prove the existence of the high school, but instead of letting the secondary school slide per WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES, this is a time to stick to WP:NSCHOOL. --Worldbruce (talk) 23:06, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per others. VMS Mosaic (talk) 04:05, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete per a mixture of WP:SNOW and WP:G7. I have no problem with this article being re-created once the book releases and gains the necessary coverage to pass WP:NBOOK. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:33, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Birth of a Religion: Altaian Burkhanism - the Religious Form of an Ethnic Identity

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

I doubt that this book is notable and in any case the article is basically a resume of the book's content; as such it risks becoming a POV fork. TheLongTone (talk) 15:11, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - even if the topic is notable, summarising a book like this isn't. And might well be a WP:COPYVIO JMWt (talk) 15:29, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:35, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:35, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per JMWt above, this type of article (75% summary, failing WP:TERSE) is unacceptable, and likely fails WP:COPYVIO. Either way, this seems to fail WP:Notability. The lead even seems to indicate that this book is not even available yet (WP:TOOSOON). Amccann421 (talk) 17:06, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:ISNOT a book reviewer. Particularly when no-one else appears to have reviewed it first. _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 17:28, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It is indeed a simple book overview. Its worth will need to be established by the specialist scholarly community. So deleting the entry at this stage does not seem unfair. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tomsk Univer Istfak (talk • contribs) 20:20, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless notability of the book is established and confirmed by WP:RS Alex Bakharev (talk)

Delete The contributor agrees with the concerns raised and that it is ok to delete the article until the "book" in question becomes avialable User: Tomsk Univer Istfak (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 11:13, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. (WP:NPASR). North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:19, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Connie Jiménez

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

No sources conform WP:RS, WP:ONEEVENT The Banner talk 09:18, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ecuador-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 12:55, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I removed the article's one IC because it failed WP:RS ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 14:24, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:07, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:44, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:45, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Malcolmxl5 (talk) 15:06, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 23:42, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

West Suburban Home School Band

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

Fails ORG. John from Idegon (talk) 04:41, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Vipinhari || talk 13:24, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. Vipinhari || talk 13:24, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as not yet solidly convincing, searches found nothing better. SwisterTwister talk 01:14, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:05, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Malcolmxl5 (talk) 15:06, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non notable band- No evidence of notability, Fails GNG –Davey2010^Talk 16:15, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above, fails WP:ORG. Amccann421 (talk) 16:57, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. MBisanz ^talk 03:45, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Astral Factor

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

Non-notable album: lacks significant coverage in reliable sources. — JJMC89 (T·C) 01:57, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·C) 01:58, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep has coverage in metal and prog rock websites, seems to be notable . These sources aren't on the avoid list [12] and [13], there are others, including disputed drwp. It would help if there was a list of RS for music for each language.Atlantic306 (talk) 19:45, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:04, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:47, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Malcolmxl5 (talk) 15:06, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - per sources.BabbaQ (talk) 17:40, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The two presented sources presented do not establish notability. Metal Norge reviews anything sent to them,^[14] so it cannot be used to establish notability. I don't think either of them can be considered a reliable source. — JJMC89 (T·C) 22:17, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Uncontested. Sandstein 19:37, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nadir Bouhmouch

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

Director with questionable notability-also looks like a too soon (only a couple non notable short films so far, he is pretty young so maybe someday) Wgolf (talk) 00:46, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Just checked-one of them is not a short film, 63 minutes actually. This article does need more then just putting he is a director though if it wants to last that is for sure. Not sure of the notability still of this guy. Wgolf (talk) 00:49, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 03:39, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Morocco-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 03:39, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as none of this currently satisfies WP:CREATIVE. SwisterTwister talk 04:20, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:04, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Malcolmxl5 (talk) 15:05, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete and redirect to List of Iraq War resisters#Conscientious objectors. postdlf (talk) 13:29, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Kevin Benderman

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

Known only for one event, desertion. Seems to be covered under WP:BLP1E. All the important details about this man are in List of Iraq War resisters Bonewah (talk) 14:51, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per BLP1E. Niteshift36 (talk) 15:07, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:BLP1E and WP:BIO. Amccann421 (talk) 17:08, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As being involved in a single sourced event, the notability of which is only going to decrease with the passing of time. _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 17:10, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:04, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:04, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:04, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 23:43, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Project Planning Pro

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

Insufficient indication of notability. The award they won comes from some non-notable site that seems too sketchy to be a reliable source. Without the award, this app just doesn't seem notable. IagoQnsi (talk) 14:50, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:GNG due to insufficient reliable third party coverage, and per nomcrh23 (talk) 15:46, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:39, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:02, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - as per nom and also fails to pass WP:NSOFT from the sources I could find. Mwenzangu (talk) 02:03, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as searches found nothing better, article still questionable. SwisterTwister talk 06:00, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 23:44, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Tiffany Rosenfeld

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

No indication of notability, no reliable sources. IagoQnsi (talk) 14:40, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:BIO: she doesn't appear to be notable. Could be considered WP:PROMOTION. Amccann421 (talk) 17:00, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:01, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:01, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:01, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:01, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as too soon at best, none of this suggests solid independent notability yet. SwisterTwister talk 06:49, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as I can find no significant coverage in independent reliable sources to warrant an article at this time. Gongshow talk 22:48, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Sandstein 19:36, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Tamashii no Mon

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

Can't find a single mention at WP:VG/RS's custom Google search engine. Using regular Google, I found the full Japanese title, Tamashii no Mon Dante no Shinkyoku yori, which also didn't bring up any reliable sources. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 14:13, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:35, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:35, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:35, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:GNG, with no reliable secondary sources to speak of, only wide reaching database-style sites with little actual content. crh23 (talk) 15:59, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:GNG. ZettaComposer (talk) 16:33, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as searches found nothing better and the current article is not better convincing. SwisterTwister talk 06:40, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Ancient and Honorable Order of Turtles. (non-admin closure) Natg 19 (talk) 17:03, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ancient & Honorable Order of Turtles Inc.

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

Not notable, not externally referenced. Promotional Rathfelder (talk) 13:49, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Seems like a hoax, or an unofficial, not-notable society User:Sheepythemouse —Preceding undated comment added 18:51, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Not a hoax, but it is a promotional content fork of the better sourced Ancient and Honorable Order of Turtles. That article discusses the more general subject of "Turtle Clubs" since their inception during World War II, was kept by a strong consensus at an old AfD, and now contains a variety of independent reliable sources. By contrast, the article at issue here describes a particular group that claims lineage from the original, but makes no showing of any particular notability for this particular group. We could redirect but I don't think that's necessary given the unlikeliness of this particular title as a search term, so I agree: delete. --Arxiloxos (talk) 19:38, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You bet your sweet ass we should merge and redirect. Per the official link provided, this article title is the official name of (at least one incarnation of) the organization. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:44, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect what said above. TeeVeeed (talk) 01:01, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Very happy with a merger.Rathfelder (talk) 10:25, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:58, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:58, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:58, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 18:32, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Levantine Rûm nationalism

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

Nothing in news results. The sources are not third party independent references. Greek Legend (talk) 12:24, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

So what is an acceptable source? Since Arabic Newspapers are not "appropriate" to prove the existence of this ideology?100.1.113.235 (talk) 13:51, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You can give Arabic newspaper source if you want, but there must be at least one mention in some English newspaper. I believe the countries where this movement exist, there must be some English newspaper. I couldn't find anything in Google news search. Thanks Greek Legend (talk) 15:09, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – The substance of the article is unsourced. The sources given are only cited to support general statements about the organisations that supposedly uphold this ideology. I can't find anything relevant on independent sources via Google—note that "Antiochenism" is also used as a rare synonym for Nestorianism, which seems to be how it's used in all the relevant results for that term. However, @Greek Legend: Per WP:RSUE, while English sources are preferred, there is no requirement that sources be in English, or that there be "at least one" source in English. If someone can find sources in Arabic (or Greek) I am open to changing my mind. —Nizolan ^(talk) 15:23, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Middle East-related deletion discussions. —Nizolan ^(talk) 15:26, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lebanon-related deletion discussions. —Nizolan ^(talk) 15:26, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions. —Nizolan ^(talk) 15:26, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. —Nizolan ^(talk) 15:26, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. —Nizolan ^(talk) 15:39, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not that you need mention in English sources, but I agree that this is not notable enough to have its own article. Delete. Can agree for merge/redirect if proposed. Capitals00 (talk) 16:04, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per argument made by Nizolan. Also support the WP:RSUE guideline explanation.--MarshalN20 ^Talk 17:04, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Nizolan Hawaan12 (talk) 16:22, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Tried ekathimerini.com and general news and book searches, but I can't source it. As regards the Orthodox Christians of Antakya, may God help them, certainly no one else is.E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:33, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedily deleted by Jimfbleak per CSD G11 (unambiguous advertising or promotion). (non-admin closure) • Gene93k (talk) 12:55, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

LOVE-Dmitry Kuzmin

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

Since Wikipedia is not social network. High facebook likes and zero news results is not notability. Greek Legend (talk) 12:19, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:24, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:25, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. WP:SNOW. postdlf (talk) 11:18, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

GTA SA: Cheat codes

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

Wikipedia is not a game guide, and is not for publishing lists of cheat codes for games. 331dot (talk) 12:02, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Citobun (talk) 12:04, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete non encyclopedic. Sander.v.Ginkel ^(Talk) 14:26, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, blatantly unacceptable. -IagoQnsi (talk) 14:53, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as unsourced WP:NOTGAMEGUIDE. --McGeddon (talk) 16:15, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

~~Speedy~~ Delete - Not really sure what criterion this would come under so won't tag myself but it's an obvious delete. –Davey2010^Talk 16:18, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't see an obvious speedy criterion either; closest I could come was A11 since it could be seen as promoting what the cheat codes are, but that seems a stretch. 331dot (talk) 10:41, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I was debating whether to tag it under G1 as technically there is no meaningful content or history but I knew a pedantic admin would decline it, Anyway as there doesn't seem to be a criterion for this I've struck the Speedy, –Davey2010^Talk 12:11, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete WP:NOTGAMEGUIDE, per above multiple times. Amccann421 (talk) 17:10, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete per nom and above. Next... GabeIglesia (talk) 21:04, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:53, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:53, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Wikipedia is not a game guide.--MarshalN20 ^Talk 15:45, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WP:NOTGUIDE, not a plausible search term for a redirect. Egsan Bacon (talk) 16:36, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete it's just a list of cheat codes with no encyclopedic value. ZettaComposer (talk) 18:21, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 23:46, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Album Artists

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

Notability is not shown by the non-independent/passing mentions in the provided references and I can't find anything else significant, just more incidental mentions. The article appears to have been created for promotional purposes (see the original version, bloated with refs that don't mention the company). —SMALL JIM 10:42, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom -- this has been an issue from time to time with COI and paid editing. The article was started by User:Johnalexwood, who does at least state on his user page that he is a publicist with his own firm. He was also responsible for creating and maintaining articles for several other Scientologists, only one other of which ended up being kept, Christy Lee Rogers, who is a client of both John Alex Wood and Fraser Kee Scott, and should not actually have been kept considering the fact that there are no reliable secondary sources at all for that particular individual, with all information on Rogers available out there based on press releases and promotional items that Kee Scott and John Alex Wood distributed to media, both in the UK and abroad. It gets even more convoluted beyond that with a bunch of articles here that they are responsible but for which I haven't had time to gather any data or evidence, so as far as this article goes, short story is that John Alex Wood, a publicist, started the article using sources that mention neither Album Artists or Fraser Kee Scott, not even in passing. Obviously that is deliberate misuse and misrepresentation of sources, which in and of themselves are not particularly useful since they are entirely based on press releases, with the sole exception of an interview or two with a band like Coldplay, with not a single one of them mentioning Album Artists or Fraser Kee Scott. It is impossible to verify any of his claims, and when pressed for such evidence (off-wiki, by others in the media), he has used a photo of himself with the band, which doesn't in and of itself prove anything. None of the media outlets, including the gossip rags, haev printed any of the claims Kee Scott made in this article by John Alex Wood. Laval (talk) 09:59, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:49, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:49, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:49, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:49, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:49, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There are three references in the current revision that do nothing to establish notability. #1 only peripherally mentions Album Artists as an "inspirational art company" but provides no factual information other than that Fraser Scott is its director. #2 directs to the Album Artists' website, and mentions that "Fraser … runs Album Artists". #3 is a wikilink to World Institute of Scientology Enterprises. Note that [15] for the first two sources is not a reliable source, nor is wikipedia, which is used for source #3. Mduvekot (talk) 21:26, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 19:37, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Cubuntu

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

No significant coverage. I find part of the article ironic "As a result, Cubuntu is a relatively unknown Linux distribution.". Or redirect to Kubuntu as {{R from typo}}. - Champion (talk) (contribs) (Formerly TheChampionMan1234) 10:39, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. - Champion (talk) (contribs) (Formerly TheChampionMan1234) 10:40, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, it has two independent third party refs that are extensive write-ups, not just passing mentions. - Ahunt (talk) 17:15, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Which ones? [16] for instance may be independent but unless high-profile, blogs are generally not reliable. [17] was edited by "kranich" so it is likely the creator. Tigraan (talk) 15:57, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Softpedia is an independent reliable source and the two Softpedia refs cited profile the subject in some detail, this and this one. This meets WP:N. - Ahunt (talk) 16:01, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I am behind a firewall that censors, so I cannot check that right now, but as Softpedia is a download site, I doubt that it is a WP:RS. (Moreover, I would argue that two articles from the same website do not really count as "multiple sources".) Tigraan (talk) 08:03, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Softpedia is a reliable software news site with independent editorial oversight. I agree though that the two articles are from the same news source, so that is not "multiple independent sources". - Ahunt (talk) 12:21, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless sources that pass WP:42 are found, as I could not find them (top search results are WP mirrors). Tigraan (talk) 15:57, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as searches are finding nothing particularly better about this and the current article is still seemingly questionable, delete at best for now. SwisterTwister talk 06:02, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 01:20, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sean Prunty

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

Contested PROD. Concern was "No evidence this footballer meets WP:GNG or has played in a fully pro league." - this is still the case. C 679 10:30, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. C 679 10:30, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 10:40, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails NFOOTY as has not played senior international football nor played in a fully professional league. No indication that subject has garnered significant reliable coverage for any other achievements to satisfy GNG. Fenix down (talk) 12:12, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:48, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:48, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:48, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NFOOTY and WP:GNG. Joseph2302 (talk) 14:44, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NFOOTY. Number 5 7 13:11, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NFOOTY and WP:GNG. [–Davey2010^Talk 22:51, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 23:47, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

RDX Sports

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

This article is constantly being recreated followed by speedy deletion as promotional. As per example see RDX Inc and RDX Inc.. Article remains excessively promotional without showing notability. Peter Rehse (talk) 11:30, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:26, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:26, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:27, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as there's simply nothing to suggest better applicable notability. SwisterTwister talk 04:40, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Malcolmxl5 (talk) 10:10, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - article is heavily promotional and there is not enough coverage in WP:RS to establish its notability. Mwenzangu (talk) 23:56, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Snow Keep. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 22:50, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Kulbhushan Yadav

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

WP:SINGLEEVENT. He could be well mentioned in the main article in Two-three lines like Pakistan claimed to arrest a RAW agent but Indian Govt. denied his links with RAW. MBlaze Lightning -talk! 07:00, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – the event just recently occurred, and it is in the news. The article doesn't assert that he was definitely a RAW agent, but lists the allegation. The capture of a Naval Officer – of any country – is certainly notable and unfortunate, especially if they're engaged in counter-terrorism activities. The fact that he was arrested and accused is what's explained in the article. There is evidence for that. The article also asserts what your comment states: that the Indian gov't denies any affiliation (though that's standard practice). The article should be kept, and hopefully within a month, the article will be amended to say, "He was cleared of all charges and released."
^K_Bⁿ_a^o_t^w_t^le_l^d_e^e
07:09, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
Speedy Keep Passes GNG as it has been mentioned by multiple Reliable sources. His capture is the focal point of a multi nation flash point which may have global repercussions. Iran, Pakistan and India are all focused on this individual. I am not sure how anyone can even dream of him not passing GNG as almost a BILLION people are getting information about him on an hourly basis. FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 07:12, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. Insert CleverPhrase Here 08:34, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: There are reliable sources such as [18], [19], [20] and etc. Mhhossein (talk) 10:49, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 12:33, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 12:33, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 12:34, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, WP:1E and WP:TOOSOON. Userfy if desired. At this point there doesn't seem much beyond the usual Pakistan/India hysteria: someone has been charged with espionage and the other side has denied it. Indeed the refs seem tightly grouped around the accusation and the denials. Now, if this actually amounts to a trial or there are some lasting repercussions -- and notability -- then I've no issue with the article being restored. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 12:46, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Shawn in Montreal:I think WP:1E is the very relevant policy here, too. Mhhossein (talk) 03:23, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.187.227.74 (talk • contribs) 23:49, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:30, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The arrest was covered not only by Pakistani media, but also by the Indian and International media. Passes GNG and RS, Per FreeatlastChitchat. Faizan (talk) 05:01, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep The incident is certainly notable. The fact that India has accepted him as a national—the naval officer who retired prematurely and arrested in another country over espionage is sufficient to warrant its own article. I disagree with WP:1E policy being applied here. This isn't usual India-Pakistan outburst otherwise this too along with many others would have made their ways for separate articles. sami ^talk 10:06, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2016 March 29. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 08:37, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep-The article pass the notability criteria therefore it can be kept.However,controversial and undecided matters may removed.Only claim of Pakistan and Indian response may highlighted in few sentences, other stories may be removed till verification.Zarghun11 (talk) 15:57, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That what has been done! Which stories you are talking about? Be more sepecific please. Faizan (talk) 16:11, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep after recent confession video this article will mirror harsh fact of state sponsored terrorism. Summary of events may also be included here [21] . Pprcgi (talk) 17:32, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article is certainly notable as it touches the significant issue of state sponsored terrorism.--SMahenS (Talk) 19:12, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Rename - This is obviously an important event that needs to be covered in Wikipedia. But it is clearly not a biography article. The person is not notable by any stretch of imagination. I recommend it be changed to an event Arrest of Kulbhushan Yadav and treated as such. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 21:48, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTNEWS: Wikipedia is not a newspaper; minor event and can be covered in Research and Analysis Wing. Esquivalience ^t 22:34, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or move from BLP style to incident style article. No different to many of those listed in the categories Category:American intelligence personnel who defected to the Soviet Union, Category:American spies and Category:American spies against the Soviet Union. Clearly a noteworthy topic AusLondonder (talk) 17:59, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rename as per Kautilya3 and AusLondonder. Seems the most sensible solution to avoid 1E. GAB^Hello! 18:04, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The lead character of a significant incident is certainly notable.--SMahenS (Talk) 17:49, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep it It is a very important international development and both the Indian and Pakistani accounts of the story are presented. Please keep this article. Intellectual123 cool (talk) —_{moved from article's talkpage link sami ^talk 22:12, 2 April 2016 (UTC)}[reply]
Move to close – Admin tools required to move the page to the existing redirect, Arrest of Kulbhushan Yadav. The Masked Man of Mega Might (talk) 01:27, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - He is a notable person and is a part of a huge international incident which will have long term effect on the region. His actions have created numerous incidents and nurtured terrorists organizations which have their own wikipedia articles. So we should have a wikipedia article for him too. One more wikipedia article separately may please be created for "Arrest of Kulbhushan Yadav". There is more to tell. --119.156.61.165 (talk) 07:27, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep: Notability is established through WP:RS and there are enough reliable sources in the article to establish his. WP:SINGLEEVENT do not apply here as he was not arrested in relation with some event and according to sources, he has been involved in multiple terrorist activities. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 14:23, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Sandstein 19:33, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Lists of free press magazines in english language in Florence, Italy

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

"List" of two magazines, neither one probably is notable. This list is unlikely to ever grow beyond these two entries. (I mean, how many "free press" magazines will there ever be published "in English" in an Italian city of less than 400,000 inhabitants?) No sources discussing the topic of "free press magazines in English in Florence". Not notable. Randykitty (talk) 08:17, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:22, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:22, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:22, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete About as notable and useful as List of underwear factories in Truro, Nova Scotia. (For the curious, it would be a list with one entry Stanfield's). Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 16:18, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Unnecessary comment: believe it or not, but I actually have been at Stanfield's (about 12 years ago) and still have underwear that I bought there. We're not supposed to promote any business here, but that underwear is really great... :-) Stanfield's is, of course, multiple times as notable as these two magazines combined. --Randykitty (talk) 16:29, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above. Should have been deleted via A3. SmartSE (talk) 18:20, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 23:49, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

DIIA

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

Promotional and unreferenced Rathfelder (talk) 08:13, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:44, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:44, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete - very promotional to the extent that an email address is included in the article o how to join the said DIIA. Mwenzangu (talk) 00:01, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per WP:G12 high probability (96.1%) that article is a copyvio according to Earwig's Copyvio Detector Mduvekot (talk) 22:59, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. postdlf (talk) 13:22, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

List of Pink Panther cast members

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

Doesn't seem a typical article and is just an incomplete list of names Echetus Xe 08:09, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. —Nizolan ^(talk) 15:48, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. —Nizolan ^(talk) 15:48, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:16, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:17, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:17, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and perhaps Redirect to the series itself as this is unlikely solid as its own article. SwisterTwister talk 22:48, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this is just a WP:INDISCRIMINATE list of names. If final outcome is delete it will need to be removed from the PP navbox as well. MarnetteD|Talk 13:55, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - this is WP:IINFO list of names with no reason why it should be an article on it's own. Mwenzangu (talk) 00:22, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 23:50, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Munisha Khatwani

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

Having searched the net for references, I am convinced that this person entirely fails to meet notability requirements. The article currently relies on one dead link. All I can find is that the person appeared on an episode of a reality show. That hardly constitutes notability. George Custer's Sabre (talk) 06:58, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:42, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:42, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:42, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 04:21, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Only one secondary source does not confer notability. In veritas (talk) 16:16, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as still questionable for all applicable notability. SwisterTwister talk 19:53, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Procedural close. Already deleted on 29 March 2016 by RHaworth (talk · contribs) (G4: Recreation of a page that was deleted per a deletion discussion) (non-admin closure) | Uncle Milty | talk | 11:21, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Good Seven international beauty pageants

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

Edit: Found the AfD that just closed delete by starting this one. CSD'd but if that fails, delete again via AfD.

Legacypac (talk) 06:46, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 23:52, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

RosAsm

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

Similar to the 2007 AfD* (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/RosAsm), there are no sources, and the article is blatantly promotional in tone and content. Also the project appears to be dead (last update on the web site appears to be 2013). There is no indications of notable use, and while there have in the past been a few noisy proponents on usenet (alt.lang.asm, etc.) this was not accompanied by evidence of actual use. Even if this article is kept, vast portions need to be removed (for example, approximately the entire "Features" section), as they are almost entirely promotional or reference manual in style. Rwessel (talk) 06:23, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

*(successful)

FWIW, this article has three year old unreferenced and notability tags, and fewer than 20 edits in those three years. Rwessel (talk) 06:35, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:52, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That is a massive amount of detail about an apparently non-notable program. I'm leaning Delete or failing that, cut down by about 95%.--- Elmidae (talk) 11:34, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The article is very promotional. I think WP:KIBOSH would be a better solution to this one since there have not been any improvements to tone it down while it had WP:CHANCE. Kagundu^{Wanna Chat?} 17:31, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as searches found nothing better. SwisterTwister talk 06:03, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Huon (talk) 20:35, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jerin Varghes

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

WP:BLP of an actor, created by a user named "Thejerintv" and thus a likely WP:COI, with no strong or properly sourced indication of notability per WP:NACTOR. His potential notability as an actor is dependent on a single television series, whose article has listed him in its infobox since last year but fails to include any information about the character he plays in the cast list — thus raising the unresolved question of whether he was really a core cast member, or just a guest actor who's trying to oversell himself as being more prominent than he really was for PR purposes. And because this is an Indian television series, I'm running into the traditional WP:INDAFD difficulty finding sources that verify this properly — although I can't help but notice that neither the series nor the actor has any article at all on hi as far as I can tell via Google Translate. And an actor never gets a "no sourcing required" freebie just because he exists — even if there is a language issue involved, some kind of reliable source coverage still has to be demonstrable somewhere. So I'm willing to withdraw this if somebody with Hindi language skills can properly source that he had a prominent role in Shake It Up, but it has to be deleted if we can't verify that. Bearcat (talk) 05:32, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:35, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:35, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:35, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Varghes main claim to fame seems to be he was an actor in a sitcom on Disney Channel India. The problem is that he is not one of the 8 listed main characters on the page for that sitcom. I am not even sure that we have a reliable source showing he appeared on that show, and no indication it was more than a minor role in one episode. In fact no evidence he was even credited. Nothing near sources anywhere to establish notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:37, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
delete-per nom. Can't find any notability. Wgolf (talk) 19:46, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as clearly nothing at all even for minimal notability. SwisterTwister talk 19:40, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 23:53, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Violet Lim

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

Lacks significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources. Does not meet notability criteria. Citobun (talk) 04:57, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. —Nizolan ^(talk) 06:59, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. —Nizolan ^(talk) 06:59, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – Independent coverage in English seems to amount to the Yahoo Finance interview cited in the article, an Asia One article the text of which seems to have mostly disappeared, and a South China Morning Post article that cites her a few times. Might change my mind if there's more coverage in Chinese but I doubt it (you'd expect there to be English coverage since she's active in Hong Kong and Singapore). —Nizolan ^(talk) 07:04, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I did find coverage of her, but most coverage focusing on her seems to be in self published sources. Apart from the wo sources above, reliable sources mention her only in passing. Not notable or maybe too soon to have an article at this time. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 11:53, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I also noticed that there is a conflict of interest. The article creator Cheriefoo123 seems to be either related to the article subject or is an employee of the article subject. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 11:59, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as clearly nothing for imaginably better notability. SwisterTwister talk 01:27, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy deleted WP:CSD#G3 blatant hoax JohnCD (talk) 21:30, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ibfas

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

Non-notable event. No result in news search. Greek Legend (talk) 03:18, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Either this fails WP:NOTABILITY miserably (highly unlikely for something reputed to have featured Lady Gaga, Tyra Banks, and Cara Delevingne), or this is just WP:MADEUP by an unregistered user (who has previously had an article removed for failing WP:NOTABILITY). A Google search for "International Beauty & Fashion Awards" got exactly one result: this page. Amccann421 (talk) 04:21, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:20, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's clearly a blatant hoax and I've tagged it for speedy deletion as such. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:20, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy Deleted (NAC). SwisterTwister talk 01:31, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Scottish Peoples Party

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

My Google search turns up no sources, even the Facebook link provided is broken. The only mentions I find are fictional. I am in fact wondering if this is a hoax. Happy Squirrel (talk) 02:55, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize, the broken Facebook link was my fault. I've fixed it now; I just had to remove the vertical bar character from the external link. I was in the process of attempting to expand the page. Nevertheless, I agree with you, Happy Squirrel: there's virtually no extant material on the subject. While the author appears to assert that it is a registered party, their own Facebook description contains a disclaimer that it is not yet registered with the United Kingdom Electoral Commission, as is reflected in their absence from the Electoral Commission's online database. In total, including their Facebook profile, thus far I have found only two online entries mentioning the organization.

Delete, vide supra. --Erick Shepherd (talk) 03:29, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. In a nutshell, it's not even registered and there are no third-party sources to reference. Amccann421 (talk) 03:44, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - WP:TOOSOON as the party is not officially registered nor, apparently, yet mentioned anywhere other than on their own website. JMWt (talk) 08:39, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:32, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:32, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:32, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete Looks entirely like a WP:HOAX. Created by a WP:SPA using a single self-published source. As noted, the fact that they are not registered with the Election Commission throws into doubt the only claim of significance that such an entity exists as a political party. Given the absence of coverage, such an organisation would badly fail WP:ORGDEPTH anyway. I note that just after it was created, there was a nomination for speedy deletion, which was contested by the creator of the article on the basis that the subject of the article was a registered political party in Scotland- this would appear to be deception. Drchriswilliams (talk) 15:49, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy delete Anthony Appleyard (talk) 09:07, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The praxisphere

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

Non-notable neologism. Prod contested by article creator. Apparently self-promotion by the neologism's creator. Only evidence of use of the word is by an unrelated company. --Finngall ^talk 02:52, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As per above, no references for any use of the term, page creator appears to be using it for promotional purposes. JamesG5 (talk) 02:55, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable theory, and self-promoting.--MainlyTwelve (talk) 03:01, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable, unsourced neologism --ȸ (talk) 03:04, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete To echo my fellow Wikipedians, this is non-notable and seems to break WP:PROMOTION. Amccann421 (talk) 03:46, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:GNG. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 04:26, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per WP:A11 – Fairly obviously posted by the term's inventor since it says it's "credited to Dr. Martin Trevino Jr" and the page creator is Mtrevjr. I've re-read the article a few times and I'm not seeing the "credible claim of importance". The article consists of an explanation of the term and a short account of the background, as far as I can tell. —Nizolan ^(talk) 17:21, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Tagged as WP:G7 as the author blanked the page (though was reverted). —Nizolan ^(talk) 12:54, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:31, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:31, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:31, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per WP:A11 - blatant self-promotion. Blythwood (talk) 20:33, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Bing. Redirecting to Live Search would just cause a double redirect, so redirection to Bing and hatnote seems like the logical step. (non-admin closure) Esquivalience ^t 01:32, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Live search

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

I redirected Live Search to here but have now realized this page isn't filling a purpose as it is just 2 entries. Could just use a hatnote. MelanieLamont (talk) 17:30, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 04:14, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete perhaps as I myself am better familiar with Microsoft's Live Search compared to the other one, perhaps unnecessary thus delete. SwisterTwister talk 03:36, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:45, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:45, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Live Search with Template:R from cap and add hatnote —Nizolan ^(talk) 06:37, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Supporting Nizolan's suggestion to redirect. Uanfala (talk) 10:36, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

JAD (JAva Decompiler)

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Clear consensus with new sources. (non-admin closure) Slashme (talk) 09:15, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

This article fails the general notability guideline. It has no independent, reliable sources. Sunfoo (talk) 18:34, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 04:14, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This is a well-known freeware Java decompiler. At one point it was quite popular, although due to its author abandoning further development it has become quite outdated (it can't handle new features introduced into JVM bytecode and new Java language syntax introduced in more recent Java versions. It is discussed in reliable sources, for example:

Hamilton, James; Danicic, Sebastian (2009). An Evaluation of Current Java Bytecode Decompilers. Source Code Analysis and Manipulation, 2009. SCAM '09. Ninth IEEE International Working Conference on. pp. 129–136. doi:10.1109/SCAM.2009.24.
Naeem, N.A.; Batchelder, M.; Hendren, L. (2007). Metrics for Measuring the Effectiveness of Decompilers and Obfuscators. Program Comprehension, 2007. ICPC '07. 15th IEEE International Conference on. pp. 253–258. doi:10.1109/ICPC.2007.27.
Kuo, Jong-Yih; Chu, Louisa (2005). Intelligent code analyzer for online course management system. Software Engineering Research, Management and Applications, 2005. Third ACIS International Conference on. pp. 228–234. doi:10.1109/SERA.2005.47.
Miecznikowski, J.; Hendren, L. (2001). Decompiling Java using staged encapsulation. Reverse Engineering, 2001. Proceedings. Eighth Working Conference on. pp. 368–374. doi:10.1109/WCRE.2001.957845.
Tam, V.; Gupta, R.K. (2000). Using class decompilers to facilitate the security of Java applications!. Web Information Systems Engineering, 2000. Proceedings of the First International Conference on. Vol. 1. pp. 153–158. doi:10.1109/WISE.2000.882387.

SJK (talk) 09:45, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:43, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per sources provided by SJK, but move the article to JAD (software). SSTflyer 01:01, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as this seems convincing enough. SwisterTwister talk 04:57, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. CSD A7: Article about a company, corporation or organization, which does not credibly indicate the importance or significance of the subject. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 09:34, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Happywide.com

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

Non-Notable company. Nothing in the news. Greek Legend (talk) 02:34, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete Man, there's a lot wrong with this article. The poor formatting, spelling, and grammar is not for the faint of heart. Clearly also lacks notability. No inline citations or third-party sources. Could very well be considered promotion. Wow. Amccann421 (talk) 03:55, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Uncontested. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:11, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Glow Fixtures

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

Fails WP:COMPANY Greek Legend (talk) 02:26, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete - no reliable sources as per WP:RS to pass WP:COMPANY. In fact it reads like an advert. Maharayamui (talk) 07:46, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 22:36, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 22:36, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 22:36, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nothing for the applicable notability. SwisterTwister talk 01:22, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Ed (Edgar181) 13:52, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Gregory Mathew Malayil

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

Non-notable teacher. Can't find any independent source. Greek Legend (talk) 02:24, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - hard to see that he meets WP:NACADEMIC or the WP:GNG and there are few if any external sources that I can find. JMWt (talk) 09:29, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:12, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:12, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 11:47, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 11:47, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete nothing coming close to indicate he meets the notability guidelines for academics.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:05, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - agree with nominator's summary and the comments so far. The references used in the article are generic pages for institutions and organisations, they make no mention of this individual. I added his profile page a the DVK site as a reference, but there is a lack of independent coverage. Drchriswilliams (talk) 09:35, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Mojo Hand (talk) 13:59, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Empire art space

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

Speedy delete is not working. I think administrators don't look for old articles tagged for speedy deletion. Whatever the reason, I am nominating this for AFD as this space has no reliable sources. Greek Legend (talk) 02:12, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:Notability. This was a small Swedish art gallery that is no longer in business. Upon a simple Google search (hoping to find references to save the article), I found nothing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Amccann421 (talk • contribs) 04:05, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:11, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Museums and libraries-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:11, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:11, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I wasn't able to find anything on Empire art space, its founder or any of the collaborators. Mduvekot (talk) 16:24, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I didn't find anything about this gallery. Arthistorian1977 (talk) 08:30, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. G5 kelapstick^(bainuu) 02:26, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Marcus J. Hyatt

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

Not Notable ^TheSpaceFace _{Let's Chat} 02:09, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Thespaceface:, it was created by a banned user, so I CSD'd it. TheCoffeeAddict talk|contribs 02:17, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 19:37, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

All India Mixed Martial Arts Association

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

Remove. The citations provided do not adhere to the notability guidelines. The claims made in the article do not relate to the facts. Most citations do not disclose any relation with the topic and hence are misleading. Also to be noted is that other sources are directed to private websites that makes the article heavily biased and for promotional use. Haribhagirath (talk) 05:00, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 09:05, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:33, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:33, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as searches found nothing obviously better, delete for now as the current article is still questionable. SwisterTwister talk 04:55, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Malcolmxl5 (talk) 02:05, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The information that I was provided with was that the Association is a legal body affiliated to the Ministry of Sports, that dictates MMA rules and have the power to sanction events in India - which was false. Upon verifying official documents it was proved that the organization was a society of MMA enthusiasts (Societies registration act 1860 - Regd: MH / 8907 / 2004 Nasik District 19/11/2004, Mumbai Registration Act 1950 Regd: F 8373 dt 31/05/2005) Indian Societies Registration Act. As this was out in public many credible media links were retracted. However the body functions as a solutions provider such as providing man power requirements logistics, technical aid, officials and seminars to conduct MMA events. Still there are no credible sources to verify these claims. I have requested the association for notable sources for the claims made. However the association was unable to provide any resources to validate the claims. Also noted was that the existing Wikipedia page was used on facebook to promote the association and its legitimacy. Haribhagirath (talk) 19:15, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Doesn't have the significant independent coverage to meet WP:GNG. Mdtemp (talk) 08:10, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Requesting to check the below cited source. The association is a closed community where every board member has one or two of their family members placed in suitable roles as well. For instance the Women's Development Board is nothing but the board consisting of wives and daughters of the chief delegates. I do not think it is ethical for this article to be on wikipedia. ^[1] Haribhagirath (talk) 07:49, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ http://aimmaa.org/members.html

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Sandstein 18:32, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Montenegro–South Africa relations

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

fails WP:GNG. Based on primary sources. Neither country has resident ambassadors, no evidence of State visits or agreements. The level of trade is small LibStar (talk) 00:34, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:41, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Montenegro-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:41, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:41, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Malcolmxl5 (talk) 02:02, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non-notable topic. SSTflyer 00:59, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sarahj2107 (talk) 11:55, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Kasimir Kaskisuo

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

Seems to currently fail WP:GNG and fails WP:NHOCKEY (all Rookie first team in Div I NCAA isn't notable enough, not drafted, no other awards that I can find or currently mentioned in article). Probably way WP:TOOSOON. Yosemiter (talk) 01:27, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As you wrote, it looks like a case of WP:TOOSOON, with the creation of the article having happened on the same day as the Maple Leafs announcement (which I believe in itself isn't yet enough for notability). --Mr. Magoo (talk) 01:44, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Mr. Magoo and McBarker: Announcement only qualifies as WP:ROUTINE. Yosemiter (talk) 20:02, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Personally I vote to keep. The team has announced Kaskisuo will join the Toronto Marlies for the rest of the season, which would make him eligible for an article. Spilia4 (talk) 19:58, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Spilia4: According to WP:NHOCKEY he needs 90 games for a likely keep. Otherwise he need to pass WP:GNG and at this point I cannot find anything other than WP:ROUTINE. Although, being that he is in the Toronto market, this is likely just WP:TOOSOON if he stays with the Marlies next season (giving him significant coverage) and doesn't get pushed down to Solar Bears (where he would get significantly less coverage). Yosemiter (talk) 20:02, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Yosemiter:Thanks, was not aware of the 90 games rule for minor league goaltenders. Kaskisuo broke the team record for most shutouts in a season (source) but not sure if that would be considered a "preeminent honor". I still say we keep the article until the NCAA awards come out (should be in a week or so) as Kaskisuo has a good shot at being on the First All-Star team. If he doesn't win anything, I agree with a deletion. Spilia4 (talk) 20:21, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Spilia4: Fair enough. He does seem a reasonable candidate for NCHC First Team All-Star. (I may have been in error here since the user who created Kaskisuo's article made a series of TooSoon articles and he made this one including a Copy-n-Paste job of Tuuka Rask's statistics and non-significant sources). I did a bit more searching and found that the NCHC has already announced the All-conference teams. There are no other "preeminent honors" in which he is in contention for so now he must absolutely pass GNG in order to be a Keep. Yosemiter (talk) 20:33, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 22:30, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Finland-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 22:30, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 11:45, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails both WP:GNG and WP:NHOCKEY. Mdtemp (talk) 08:25, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Even if he had made the NCHC all-conference team, that still wouldn't meet NHOCKEY, which very strictly defines NCAA collegiate "preeminent honors" as Division I First Team All-American. Ravenswing 12:55, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Opinion is divided between those who support deletion because the sources are deemed insufficient, and those who support keeping because they consider the sourcing sufficient to meet the general notability guideline. That's a matter of judgment which I can't second-guess as closer (and shouldn't even if I knew something or indeed cared about football), so we're left with no consensus and a "keep" by default. There's also discussion about issues of systemic bias and about the subject's league's importance or professionalism. These parts of the discussion also do not help us to arrive at a consensus. Nonetheless, I'm of the view that our deletion policy's principle of "when in doubt, don't delete" should be taken into account particularly when, as here, we are faced with potential issues of systemic bias, which confirms the "no consensus keep" outcome. Sandstein 12:34, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jenna Fife

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

Scottish League is not fully professional and she has not made an international appearance, therefore she fails WP:NFOOTY. Fails WP:GNG with no ind. coverage going in-depth. JTtheOG (talk) 00:22, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:31, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:31, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:31, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Article needs expansion, not deletion per WP:ATD. The WP:FPL essay is perpetually "incomplete" as noted at the top of the page and largely irrelevant to women's leagues around the world. SWPL is the top-division women's league in Scotland. Adequate references provided. Hmlarson (talk) 03:01, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – WP:FPL is indeed very very incomplete. And not really well defined. This would bytheway put almost all international women's league players up for deletion. Since almost every league in women's football has only one or two really professional teams. This would mean a hugh disparity between men's and women's leagues. Which would mean Wikipedia is actively against women's sports, since in general women's sports (some debate incorrectly) receive less money (and with that less professionalism). My advise is to decide relevance on status of the league, top divisions of countries. Do note that Jenna Fife did play as a youth international (talk) Funafuti1978 (talk) 07:07, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Top division of women's football in Scotland is not fully-professional, nor has she won a full international cap yet, so fails WP:NFOOTY. Note to closer – playing in a top division is not sufficient to pass WP:NFOOTY – the league played in has to be fully-professional, so despite the incorrect claims above (which are disappointing to see despite the editor in question being fully aware of this), WP:FPL is relevant here. Note these recent AfDs on male players who played in the top division in Lithuania, Ireland and Cambodia respectively, which are also not fully-professional. Number 5 7 09:43, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, as she has not played in a full international or in a fully professional league. This article on STV News goes into some detail about the status of Glasgow City, the dominant club in the Scottish league (the subject plays for Hibernian, one of the clubs that tries to challenge Glasgow City). It is not discriminatory as there are opportunities for highly-talented Scottish players to play professionally in other countries (England, Sweden, USA, Germany), which many of them have taken. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 09:49, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ here a list I created some months ago that shows the top European teams based on the Elo Rating system (used for the FIFA ranking as well): [22]. Calculation method here: [[23]]. You can see the top teams are from the following leagues in Europe are (in order of importance): France 1, Germany 1, Sweden 1, England 1, Russia 1, Switzerland 1, Spain 1, Poland 1, Italy 1, Scotland 1, Netherlands 1, Serbia 1, Denmark 1. And maybe at lower level Austria 1, Czech Republic 1, Hungary 1, Turkey 1, Belarus 1, Kazakhstan 1, Belgium 1, Bosnia 1, Romania 1, Iceland 1, Cyprus 1 (all with teams in the top 100). Calling the Dutch Vrouwen Eredivisie professional and the Scottish league not is very strange. Why is sports measured on money in stead of merit? Again that creates automatically more men sports articles than women sports articles, which sounds very biased (talk) Funafuti1978 (talk) 11:14, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Nice article TeeVeeed (talk) 00:57, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOR. If the Scottish league rates relatively high due to results in European competition, those will be largely (if not entirely) based on Glasgow City (who Jenna Fife doesn't play for). They have won the Scottish league for the last several years and have been the Scottish representative in European competition for all of that period. Calling the Scottish league "not professional" is pretty straightforward – it's based on the fact that the players are not paid to play. You ignore the fact that there are ways of this player (and others) becoming notable – they could play a full international or they could join a professional club. She hasn't done either. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 12:31, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's also worth noting that having an article on Wikipedia is primarily linked to notability. In football terms, notability is strongly linked to professional status; with the exception of a few clubs funded by sponsors, most clubs can only turn professional if they have sufficient numbers of people coming to watch them. Implcitily, this means more people will be aware of professional players are they play in front of larger crowds. Women's football is less popular as a spectator sport than men's football, and as a result, its players are less notable. And before the usual gender bias accusations start flying around, I am interested in women's football, have written several articles on it and even attended the 2011 World Cup – however, I recognise that women's football (like non-League football, which I also follow) is less notable. Number 5 7 13:34, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

First of all the list shows Hibernian on position No. 45 of Europe. I would say at least the top 100 clubs are relevant for a sport that is played by millions of ladies in Europe. Furthermore Hibernian qualified for the UEFA Women's Champions League next season (is that not a reason to collect the squad information) – so they are not that unrelevant. The Vrouwen Eredivisie is scored as professional league, I'm close to an ex-player, I can tell you it's not professional from a money point of view just like in Scotland (maybe with Ajax and Twente for some players as a semi-pro option). Those leagues are interchangeable in money. But in merit the Scottish league has simply done better. By only taking the national team caps as relevant. You are making a Moldovan cap more important than a Scottish SWPL player (while the latter is more relevant). In my opinion you should pick the 30 top leagues of the world and do those first (i'm very much willing to help). Scotland should be part of that. Lets agree on such a list – that is more based on merit, that would make me happy. Are you as well starting delete all the hugh works that people for instance did on profiles of the W.League in Australia ? The last argument to not delete would be that it would demotivate me after all things I have added (but I understand in the ruthlessly factual Wikipedia world that is probably no argument :) NEW --> I see now all Glasgow City players are also under suspicion by Jmorrison230582 – so much of them will also be deleted. This is for the team that was in the quarter final of Europe some years ago. On the gender bias, I'm a man, so I'm not naturally biased to be biased (that is biased in your definition). What is clear is that we are not reporting on a sport like "Tiddly Winks". This is women's football, probably in the top 5 of most played women's sports, with millions of players. And we fail to even be able to cover one of the top 10 leagues in Europe with player profiles. Sorry for the long story, but something in me states I really have to disagree with this talk) Funafuti1978 (talk) 14:20, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but I think your idea is a non-starter. Choosing X number of leagues to allow player articles is WP:OR at its worst, not to mention a logistical nightmare as the rankings change. If you want to change the guideline, the place to start a conversation is at WT:FOOTY, then take it to the sports guideline talk page if there is consensus. As it stands, I hope you accept that this player fails our notability guidelines. Number 5 7 15:23, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I just added a few more references from Sky Sports, BBC, The Herald, and the Edinburgh Reporter to re-inforce WP:GNG. There's more out there if anyone is willing to contribute to the article rather than spending their time in another deletion discussion per WP:ATD. Hmlarson (talk) 16:13, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I accept because I have no other choice. But I will stop using Wikipedia. I was a one day enthusiastic about Wikipedia's capabilities of neutral coverage of the women's game. But I now found out that people are more focussed on getting rid of new contributions than on trying to help get women's football on in a quality matter. YOU WON (hope you are happy with it) ! BUT I'M GONE ! Your WP:OR is simply untrue, since I only added some start-up sources. You just don't know which sources in women's football are the solid ones. Further the whole 'professional league' discussion is a shambles. It's trying to scientifically find a frame to exclude women's football, which makes no sense to anyone that knows about women's football more deeply. Ciao !! talk) Funafuti1978 (talk) 16:27, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Funafuti1978: Deletion discussions are often frustrating – but I'd encourage you to keep contributing. Your contributions are appreciated – despite what some might want you to believe. This particular discussion isn't over and nobody has "won." I'd be happy to explain more if you'd like, leave me a message via my Talk page if you're interested. Hmlarson (talk) 16:47, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(e/c) No, it's framed to exclude non-notable football. The fact that many women's football subjects fall into this is reflective of the fact that there is less interest in women's football compared to men's – for instance, in England the women's top division has an average attendance closest that of the sixth level of the men's pyramid (i.e. two levels lower than where we have the cut-off point for male player notability). Wikipedia reflects reality, and is not here to WP:Right great wrongs – this is neutrality. Number 5 7 16:48, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your opinion will always be... your opinion. Hmlarson (talk) 17:22, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not really sure what that's meant to mean, but the differential between men's and women's football referred to above in terms of public interest is a fact. Number 5 7 18:01, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 11:43, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – Fails NFOOTY as has not played senior international football nor played in a fully professional league. No indication that subject has garnered significant reliable coverage for any other achievements to satisfy GNG. The fundamental point here is that this player is someone, regardless of gender, who has played a mere handful of times for her club and only at junior level internationally. It seems from the article that she may well play senior international football at some point as she has already been part of a training squad, but that is some way off. The claims of GNG noted above are erroneous. All that has been provided in the article are routine match reports which discuss team performance rather than the player specifically and other articles where the subject is only of tangential interest. For editors interested in what GNG-meeting sources look like with specific reference to a female footballer who does not meet NFOOTY, they need look no further than this AfD, closed only a few days ago which contains several references to dedicated, lengthy articles on the player in question. Fenix down (talk) 12:22, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Women's football is not in the same position as men's, it doesn't get the same level of media or popular coverage, and its "stars" are not notable (unfortunately). Giant Snowman 17:30, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Clearly that notion is more important to some editors than Wikipedia policy. Good to note. 1 2 Hmlarson (talk) 17:51, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Women's football is of a broadly similar status to men's football in a few countries, particularly the USA, but this is not true of Scotland. The matches of the national team are fairly well covered by the main outlets (some games are televised on BBC Alba), so the international players (many of whom play professionally elsewhere) are reasonably well known. At club level, you get a weekly roundup of matches on the BBC Sport site (eg last weekend) and very little coverage of individual players. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 08:13, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

To give further context, the Scotland women's team played at home tonight in a competitive international match (UEFA Euro 2017 qualifying). Pretty important match as the team may qualify for a tournament for the first time ever (the men haven't qualified for nearly 20 years either). Attendance? 1,300. Rightly or wrongly, there simply isn't the level of interest or coverage in women's football in Scotland. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 21:03, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Unfortunately I can't see anything that indicates this person should have an article on Wikipedia. No third-party non-trivial coverage of the subject seems to exist. Even in specialist publications like Women's Soccer Scene and She Kicks I can't find anything other than her name listed in line-ups or passing mentions in match reports. I agree, as mentioned by Funafuti1978, that Wikipedia mirrors the general media's apathy towards women's football, and therefore has a gender bias in football articles, but independent reliable sources are needed for biographies of living persons, and if they don't exist neither can the article. @Funafuti1978 don't lose heart, as Hmlarson says, your contributions are greatly appreciated. Women's football coverage on Wikipedia is weak in places, and any help with improving that is always welcome, it just needs to be focused in the right area. I'm more than happy to help if you need any pointers, just leave a message on my talk page. — Gasheadsteve ^{Talk to me} 13:25, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Tangentially related discussion of men's women's football taken to User_talk:Funafuti1978

Comment First of all the fact that only men are discussing this, shows that Wikipedia, football and debate in general is still a men's world (sorry to bring the gender comment again – eventhough I am a man). Second of all it looks like discussing is more important here than making Wikipedia a bigger success. We are not talking about low level amateur players wanting to be covered on Wikipedia here, we are talking about top division players from one of the worlds top 25 women's soccer countries (FIFA Ranking / EWCR Ranking): Scotland. In my opinion players from the following top divisions should be covered:

North America: USA – NWSL (easy)

Asia: Japan – Nadeshiko League (doable) Korea Republic – WK League (doable) Australia – W.League (easy) China – Chinese Women's National League (tricky)

South America:

Brazil – Campeonato Brasileiro (easy) Chile – Primera Division (tricky) Colombia – Colombian League (tricky)

Europe:

Germany – Frauen Bundesliga (easy) France – Femeinine Division 1 (easy) England – WSL 1 (easy) Sweden – Damallsvenskan (easy) Norway – Toppserien (easy) Netherlands – Vrouwen Eredivisie (doable) Italy – Serie A (doable) Spain – Primera Division (doable) Denmark – Elitedivisionen (tricky) Switzerland – Nationalliga A (easy) Iceland – Urvalsdeild (easy) Scotland – SWPL (tricky) Russia – Supreme Division (doable) Ukraine – Premier League (easy) Austria – Frauenliga (easy) Poland – Ekstraliga (doable) Serbia – Prva Zvenska (tricky)

Players having at least one appearance in those competitions are mostly far better players than national team players from Vietnam, Jordan, Bulgaria, Faroe Islands, Haiti, Venezuela or Zambia who are featured and allowed to be covered on Wikipedia. What is unclear is that the money above merit argument for leagues is not there for national teams. Are those national teams all fully professional? Mostly they are absolutely not. Are they well covered in their countries, mostly absolutely not. So Wikipedia is favouring the real unprofessional above the semi professional. Then another thing, in the Vrouwen Eredivisie (a leagues someone decided to be professional on Wikipedia – which it is not – can someone finally explain why SWPl is an issue and Vrouwen Eredivisie not?) there are women teams that train more than their professional men counter parts. Which means the ladies loose more time on their sports while combining it with studies, while the men earn more for less work. Professionalism isn't only related to money – it's also related to the effort you make to reach your goal. It is quite clearly the men in this discussion have never even been close to women's football, than they would have known what time the ladies in these top divisions invest to reach the top. Funafuti1978 (talk) 14:40, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think it would be best not to derail this specific AfD with a wider discussion on female football notability, that would be better at WT:FOOTY or WT:FPL, but I think you are focussing far too much on the subject specific guideline. You need to consider two points: firstly that the reason NFOOTY at least sort of works is that it acknowledges international footballers as being players, regardless of gender who have played at the highest possible level. Secondly, and this is the key thing, NFOOTY is always superceded by GNG. If an individual, regardless of gender is not receiving significant coverage specifically about them then it doesn't matter what level anyone perceives them to play at, the lack of coverage means they are not notable. The opposite is also therefore true by definition. Fenix down (talk) 14:52, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What I agree with is that there needs to be a framework. I also understand the current framework works well for men's football – since if you guys say it does I believe so (all though some in the list are a bit arbitrary – most look right). But it is simply sure it does not work for women's football for all the above reasons – since only 1 league would really fit that model (which is NWSL – probably the only fully 'money-wise' professional league in women's football). But in what women need to do for it – there are far more professional leagues. And in strength it could be that on some days clubs in Bundesliga, Damallsvenskan, Feminine 1 would simply beat NWSL clubs (who are professional). So in my opinion the only measurement is merit and results. I picked a combinaton of the leagues from the top 25 teams on the FIFA Ranking (that have a organized league pyramid) and the highest performing leagues in the continents that have a club competition (Copa Libertadores Feminino and UEFA Women's Champions League – based on EWCR). That should be good enough to cover the world of women's football in a proper way. If we would have a sensible rule I would have defended it with you, but the current rule qualifies only 1 league (NWSL). And next to that everybody is breaking the rule online – see Vrouwen Eredivisie profiles, W. League, Bundesliga profiles etc. Which is the best proof the rule does not work. Or you need to do a hugh clean-up operation. Then on your second point, the amount of articles about players. I think that is not the biggest problem, I just did not do a full research on those players yet. Women's football at a good level is well covered in regional and country-wide newspapers – but not in all countries those newspapers have good online sources. Furthermore UEFA, FIFA, FAs, official club websites should be trustworthy sources. Funafuti1978 (talk) 15:48, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete reluctantly. Wikipedia goes on reliable sources, and unfortunately those reliable sources don't give much coverage to women's football- that's a problem with the coverage, and not with Wikipedia being biased. If people want to debate the guidelines, then that should be done at the appropriate venue, for example WT:NSPORTS or WT:FOOTY. However, we should be applying the guidelines at the moment, which say that she doesn't pass WP:NFOOTY, and I don't believe she passes WP:GNG either. I also don't agree with the logic of "she plays in a country's top league, and is therefore notable"- it's simply too broad. Joseph2302 (talk) 17:48, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Stop the discussion. Delete the thing. You already have hurt too much. You have made it again.

Keep: This is most certainly part of a wider discussion on female football notability. Once again, Wikipedia erases women as irrelevant and their accomplishments less notable. It's a circular argument; women are not notable because there s not a lot of coverage, there is not a lot of coverage because women are not notable. Time to stop this nonsense. Within women's soccer, of the individual is highly ranked, she's notable. End of story. Montanabw^(talk) 04:34, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- @Montanabw: The idea that playing in a top division makes you notable is not credible, as it would mean players in the top division in countries like Andorra or San Marino are notable. We have deleted probably hundreds of articles on male players from the League of Ireland Premier Division (the top level league in Ireland) because the league is not fully-professional (one is in the examples of AfDs I gave above) – this is not something focussed on getting rid of articles on female players. Number 5 7 12:19, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Highly ranked and therefore notable. VanEman (talk) 17:34, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- @VanEman: Being highly ranked does not make someone notable if the league or sport they play does not confer notability on its players. This is the whole point of the WP:NFOOTY guideline (otherwise we end up with tonnes of articles on semi-professional and amateur players). Number 57 18:18, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - If Number 57 wants to keep treating a "guideline" as a hard and fast rule and death sentence, why bother going through the exercise of having experienced editors like us use our good judgment as we look at these articles?VanEman (talk) 18:40, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    - @VanEman:The point of a guideline is to show what community consensus on notability is – and that is that players that play semi-professional football are not notable. Do you have a guideline or policy-based reason for your judgement? Number 5 7 18:51, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I'm tired of the WP:BIAS and misogyny where we develop guidelines designed primarily by males to minimize the article for top female players compared to top male players. Plays in top division of football in Scotland. Nfitz (talk) 20:37, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- @Nfitz: As you are aware, we delete numerous articles on male players in top divisions because they don't meet the criteria either. Do you have any evidence to back up your claim that the guideline was specifically designed to minimise the number of eligible female players? Also, it's a shame that we can't get through a debate about a female footballer without accusations of misogyny, chauvinism etc; perhaps a new version of Godwin's law is required... Number 5 7 20:51, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The evidence is clear, simply from the much larger number of article for current male footballers compared to females. The guidelines that let this happen are misogynistic. It's 2016 – just because the UK is backwards, doesn't mean we should be. Nfitz (talk) 21:06, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Nfitz: There are more articles on male players because there are more professional male players. The same is the case for politicians because there are more male politicians. Regardless of what year this is, this is reality. Also, please withdraw your personal attack. Number 5 7 21:09, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've made no personal attack – though I really hadn't expected anyone to support misogyny in this day and age. There are many sports listed in WP:ATHLETE where we don't apply the "fully-professional" league rule, and allow for "professional" in other sports (such as Canadian and American football). If we are willing to have different rules for other types of football, then there's no reason we can't apply different rules for different genders. The concept of applying the same rules for female footballers as we do for male footballers is misogynistic – when we could choose to apply the rules for female footballers to be the same as American footballers. I don't think establishing the rules this way was in itself misogynistic – but failing to change it when the WP:BIAS is demonstrated, is misogynistic. Nfitz (talk) 21:45, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Nfitz: You have accused editors of misogyny, and if you do not withdraw it, you will be reported at ANI. Applying the same rules to both genders is unbiased; having different rules would be biased. The fact is that fewer female footballers are notable because there is less interest in it as a spectator sport. This may reflect badly on society, but it is a fact. It would be grossly unfair to male footballers who play in semi-professional leagues to deny them an article when females in similar leagues are allowed them. Number 5 7 21:49, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have not accused any individual of misogyny; I'm not sure why you are distracting from the point. How do you justify that we can apply different rules to American Football, but can't apply those rules to Women's football. Yes, there is less interest in it as a spectators sport. But in other sports where there is less interest as a spectators sport, we only require that the league is profesional – not fully professional. That's where we are being misogynistic. Nfitz (talk) 22:01, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Nfitz: Because they are different sports. This is the same sport. ANI report to follow shortly, I will notify you on your talk page. Number 5 7 22:06, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Number 57:But with different genders. ANI report for what? I'm accusing us all of misogyny – myself included as I've gone along with this in the past. I've been just as much a misogynist on this as anyone. I've only just realised the implication, because we apply different standards for other male-dominated sports. I think you are misinterpreting my meaning here. Nfitz (talk) 22:10, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Nfitz: Gender should not matter – notability of footballers is directly linked to interest in the sport. Number 5 7 22:16, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Of course gender matters. You are saying that a sport such as american football where we accept that because of the smaller player base, that it doesn't have to be fully-professional, but reject the same for Women's football based simply on gender? We need to fix this – it is clearly and blatantly wrong, and is WP:BIAS. Nfitz (talk) 22:26, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Nfitz: On the contrary, I would say the bias is in the American Football guidelines. The size of the player base has no real impact on notability as far as I am aware. Number 5 7 22:31, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That was simply an example, that I chose going down the list of sports – and it's the first sport listed. There's certainly others. Ice hockey, Basketball, Cycling, Equestrian for example. We could very easily choose to change Players who have appeared, and managers who have managed, in a fully professional league, will generally be regarded as notable. to men who have appeared, and managers who have managed, in a fully professional league, will generally be regarded as notable; while women who have appeared, and managers who have managed, in a professional league, will generally be regarded as notable to recognize the huge differences between the two sports. Nfitz (talk)

But what makes a female player in a semi-professional league notable when a male counterpart is not? Number 5 7 11:35, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – systemic bias is, as its name suggests, systemic. The SWPL is not a professional league, and otherwise there is not enough coverage for this to pass WP:GNG. It's not a problem of "misogyny"; Wikipedia treats players from both genders equally in that only players in fully professional leagues are kept regardless of gender, and Wikipedia cannot WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. SSTflyer 11:41, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. WP:NFOOTBALL says Players who have played, and managers who have managed in a fully professional league, will generally be regarded as notable. Her team is part of the Scottish Women's Premier League, so she is notable. — Maile (talk) 13:23, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- The Scottish Women's Premier League is not a fully professional league. SSTflyer 13:40, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

See debate above. — Maile (talk) 18:06, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment To everyone that is voting Keep because she plays in a top-tier league, all you have to do is provide a citation from a reliable (and fairly recent) source that confirms that the SWPL is fully professional. If nobody provides ones, than this article will be treated like any other footballer who only has appearances in a non-professional league (men or woman) and will be deleted. A simple citation, and we can add the SWPL to WP:FPL. JTtheOG (talk) 23:31, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Coverage of career among multiple types of sources goes back as far as 2012 for this notable individual. — Cirt (talk) 12:53, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- @Cirt: This sort of coverage can be found for thousands (if not tens of thousands) of semi-pro and amateur footballers (I estimate that there are probably around 10,000 semi-pro players in England alone); as an example, I created an article on a player who plays for the club I support (at the eighth level of men's football). Whilst he's one of my favourite players, I would not say he is a notable footballer in the wider scheme of things. Number 57 14:19, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - Then why did you create the page for him ? — Cirt (talk) 14:24, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    - @Cirt: I created (it in my userspace I should note) to try and illustrate the fact that it's quite easy to find enough material on non-notable footballers to create a well-referenced article. Number 57 14:46, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      - I'm confused, you created a page with information about a living person, in your userpace, with no intention of using it in Wikipedia article mainspace ever ? — Cirt (talk) 14:49, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        @Cirt: Why is it confusing? I said I was just doing it as an example. Number 5 7 14:50, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        Seems like WP:POINT to me. — Cirt (talk) 14:53, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        @Cirt: I'm not really sure how having an article in my userspace for illustrative purposes is being disruptive. I was hoping you might actually consider my substantive point about career coverage. Number 5 7 14:56, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        So how long will you keep the page about that person ? — Cirt (talk) 14:57, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        @Cirt: I guess until this debate has ended. Can you actually respond to the point raised though? Number 5 7 14:59, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        And what if other people on the Internet come and read your page and are confused and don't know you only created it for the sole reason of illustrating a POINT in a deletion debate? That sure smacks of WP:POINT, at least to me. — Cirt (talk) 15:02, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        @Cirt: I have to assume that you are studiously refusing to respond to the question raised because you're unable to do so in a way that would support the retention of the Jenna Fife article, which I guess illustrates the point perfectly. Seeing as it's served it's purpose, I'll delete it now, but the closing admin is welcome to have look at the history if they wish. Number 5 7 15:07, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        Your use of "point" betrays you. Thank you for saying you'll request the page be deleted. Much appreciated, — Cirt (talk) 15:14, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        @Cirt: Any argument made in a debate is a "point"; are Nfitz and Fenix down being disruptive because they have referred to points? It's disappointing to see you resorting to that level of wikilawyering. Number 5 7 15:24, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        I'm not the one that created a page about a person purely to make a point at a deletion debate. — Cirt (talk) 15:27, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        @Cirt: And it would seem the illustration served its purpose as intended, so I'm not sure how it was disruptive; the article was written as if it were a normal football biography, so even if someone had stumbled across it, there wasn't anything there that was problematic. Number 5 7 15:33, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        It's problematic to create a biography page that you never intend to add to the encyclopedia. But only to use as a point in a deletion debate. — Cirt (talk) 15:43, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        @Cirt: Well, I think we'll have to agree to disagree on that point, if you'll pardon the pun. Number 5 7 15:46, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        In the future, please do not add biography pages on Wikipedia purely to make a point. Thank you, — Cirt (talk) 15:48, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        @Cirt: I'll do whatever I feel is necessary and non-disruptive to illustrate my argument in debates. Number 5 7 15:51, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        Please do not create a WP:BLP only to make a WP:POINT in a WP:AFD again. That is a violation of WP:BLP, WP:POINT, and WP:AFD. It is disruptive and a violation of multiple site policies. Thank you, — Cirt (talk) 15:53, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        @Cirt: Again, we'll have to agree to disagree, as I don't believe it is a violation of any of those policies. Number 5 7 15:58, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Number 57: I thought it was a helpful example, and I don't think it violated any project policy, certainly not BLP or POINT. I have no idea why Cirt decided to play WP:ICANTHEARYOU about it, but it proved your point. Rebb ing 04:06, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks Rebbing. The issue actually ended up at the BLP noticeboard where everyone agreed it wasn't a problem. Number 57 07:43, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - Wow. Glad to hear a definitive answer, I guess. Rebb ing 08:25, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I'd have to say I also strongly agree with statements by Hmlarson (talk · contribs) and Funafuti1978 (talk · contribs), above. Cheers, — Cirt (talk) 15:02, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Doesn't appear to pass NFOOTY and I'm not seeing significant coverage by reliable third parties. Niteshift36 (talk) 16:17, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ If SWPL is the top women's league in Scotland, whether it's fully professional or not, then it's WP:NFOOTY that needs fixing, not this article. Professionalism might be a guide to the notability of leagues generally, but it's not a defining factor in sport (or else the olympics will be in trouble) and it's not working as a guide here, for women's football in Scotland. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:37, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- @Andy Dingley: The Olympics isn't in trouble because Olympians are representing their country. This rule is also applied to footballers (male or female) via WP:NFOOTY – i.e. all international footballers are notable. The question is the notability of players who are not internationals. If we went down the top division route, it would open Wikipedia up to tens of thousands of articles on players who played in the top division in countries where football is not popular enough to make it as a spectator sport. Number 57 16:46, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - delete per Number 57. You're right. I hate football anyway. Let's delete as much as possible – works for me. WP is oversupplied with articles on women too, so that's a double result. Thankyou for your guidance here. Andy Dingley (talk) 17:06, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: Starting to look like WP:BADGERING of many of the "Keep" commenters, over and over again, with endless ceaseless replying to them, which may unfortunately have the impact of wearing people down or at least being a disruptive annoyance and waste of community patience. — Cirt (talk) 16:49, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't think it's unreasonable to query the comments of editors whose !votes do not appear to be based on the guidelines; it just happens that there are quite a lot in this debate (as far as I can see, not a single keep !voter has cited a guideline or policy (apart from one mention of WP:ATD), which I hope is taken into account by the closing admin). Number 57 16:59, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - This user has twenty-nine (29) replies in this debate. Apparently it is a very important issue to this person to reply to all these other comments on this AFD over and over again. — Cirt (talk) 17:01, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Related AFD: see also related afd at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brogan Hay. — Cirt (talk) 19:00, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Update: I've done a bit of research as part of a Quality improvment effort for this article. Please compare version after research and quality improvement efforts — to prior version. Thank you, — Cirt (talk) 21:19, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – I think @User:Funafuti1978 hit the nail on the head with "trying to scientifically find a frame to exclude women's football". Especially when we consider that the largely semi-pro Scottish (men's) second tier gets a free pass. As well as articles for male amateur players like Andrew Leach, where the only "coverage" is listings in obscure stat-compendiums not available to the general public. Talk about double standards! This is all underscored, as others have said, by some ugly WP:BADGERING which is certainly misogynistic at times. Bring back Regi Blinker (talk) 23:03, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete We have notability standards that this person doesn't meet. It's unfortunate that coverage of Women's football isn't the same as Men's football coverage in sources but that doesn't mean we bend notability rules ("Men's football" is really a misnomer as Premier League allows women to compete, as does MLB, NFL, etc, which is not the same as Olympic rules where there are clearly Men's and Women's sports). If this were a badminton player, they would join the ranks of both Men's and Women's badminton notability as the sport doesn't generate coverage. And if it were Tennis, the notability standard generates about equal coverage of Men and Women Singles professional tennis players that we don't dip into the lower rankings (note that doubles players don't get near the coverage, regardless of gender). Framing this as a gender issue misses the point that it's about notable footballers as discussed in reliable sources and there is no gender requirement. If she were a "Scottish League semi-pro tennis player" there would be no discussion as it's an obvious "delete." --DHeyward (talk) 01:30, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Update: More quality improvement effort to the article: Please see this updated version of the article after further amount of research. Thank you, — Cirt (talk) 01:37, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Clear Keep GNG clearly matters in this case – the revision that Cirt points at clearly has enough significant research to surpass the basic requirements for notability. Sadads (talk) 01:49, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you, Sadads (talk · contribs), much appreciated ! — Cirt (talk) 01:51, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as failing GNG and NFOOTY. The coverage referenced in the article and available online is more routine than significant.

I'm unhappy voting to send a decently-written, verifiable woman's biography to the dustbin when we have so few, but external bias is not a valid retention criteria. In my view, it would be both unfair and unwise to keep a biography of a woman when a comparable biography about a man would likely be deleted. Perhaps our notability criteria are too strict: I think it would be to the Project's advantage to retain interesting, credibly-sourced, unbiased articles such as this even when their subjects aren't notable. But this is not the place for that discussion.

However this closes, I'd like to say that I salute Cirt's efforts in expanding the article. Rebb ing 08:25, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your kind comments about my quality improvement efforts to the page. — Cirt (talk) 11:43, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the football project need to work harder to be more inclusive of such bios. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:39, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The furore surrounding this has prompted me to write an essay. Comment or additional questions welcome. Cheers, Number 5 7 17:57, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – per GNG and using IAR for NFOOTBALL. This isn't a matter of righting wrongs. Cirt's excellent contributions to the article demonstrate that Jenna Fife has significant coverage in reliable sources, thus proving her notability to have an encyclopedic article (as to whether that notability is "high" or "low" is a completely different discussion). What needs to be fixed here is the WP:NFOOTBALL guideline; this case demonstrates that it has shortcomings. The fact that players from top flight leagues in countries like Andorra are also being removed because they don't meet the NFOOTBALL notability guideline is another example of the guideline's faults. There should at least be room for case-by-case analyses of notability.--MarshalN20 ^Talk 19:10, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - When it comes to women's football (and women's sports in general), they receive woefully inadequate compensation and coverage compared to their male counterparts. Therefore, there is an inherent lack of fully-professional women's football leagues. Because of this, we have to use common sense and not blindly follow WP:NFOOTY. I have reviewed the whole of Fife's coverage and have come to the conclusion that she meets WP:GNG. — Jkudlick • t • c • s 03:57, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As per nom. Fails GNG and definitely fails NFOOTY. I agree that the SWPL is not a fully-professional league. — Omni Flames (talk contribs) 05:57, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 23:55, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

List of Big Box Stores in Michigan

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

List of national big box chain stores which happen to be "common in Michigan", with no reliable sourcing to support why being common in Michigan would be an especially noteworthy distinction for a big box chain store to hold (or even, for that matter, how common they actually are or aren't in Michigan anyway.) I can't find any comparable list for any other US state or Canadian province, and I can't for the life of me see any plausible reason why this list would be encyclopedic at all. Delete per WP:NOTDIRECTORY. Bearcat (talk) 00:20, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I'll reiterate the above: fails WP:RS and WP:NOTDIRECTORY. Amccann421 (talk) 04:20, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:19, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:19, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:19, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:19, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Shopping malls-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:20, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - as per WP:NOTDIRECTORY. Kagundu^{Wanna Chat?} 18:15, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as per WP:NOTDIRECTORY and this list is not especially Notable. This looks like clutter to me, and I am aware of WP:Paper and tend to favor Inclusion. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 14:44, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete—per WP:NOT. Imzadi 1979 → 18:30, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Mojo Hand (talk) 13:55, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jane Rutter (politician)

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

WP:BLP of a person notable only as a local city councillor in a city not large enough to confer notability on its city councillors (only major metropolitan global cities on the order of London can give their councillors an automatic inclusion pass), and sourced exclusively to primary sources with no indication of the reliable source coverage necessary to get a non-metropolitan city councillor over the "more notable than the norm" hump. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 00:00, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 22:28, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 22:28, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Local councillor in a fairly small town. NN. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:20, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Members of city councils for cities the size of Winchester are not default notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:24, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - locally notable leader and fails WP:BLP. Kagundu^{Wanna Chat?} 18:24, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Searches found nothing useful. Local council leaders are often not notable, let alone an opposition backbench councillor. AusLondonder (talk) 01:57, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

[1] ttp://aimmaa.org/members.html

[1]