Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2016 January 12

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 11 January	13 January >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:12, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ethanz Ride

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

Completely unsourced article about a band with no strong claim of notability under WP:NMUSIC. The claim that they played the Vans Warped Tour is unverifiable in any reliable source coverage even on a Google search — so even if it is true, the likelihood is that they got to play a few songs on the local stage at one stop on the tour, which isn't enough to make a band notable on that basis. And the claim of inclusion on a compilation album is also unverifiable in any RS coverage, as well as being clobbered by the fact that it wasn't a notable compilation album (even discogs.com doesn't have a listing for it). And at any rate, it's not the claim to passing an NMUSIC criterion that gets a band past NMUSIC — it's the sourcing that can be provided to verify the accuracy of that claim, so a completely unsourced and unsourceable article wouldn't get to stay on Wikipedia even if it claimed every criterion in NMUSIC. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 23:55, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. sst ✈ 00:04, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. sst ✈ 00:04, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as utterly non-notable. I also gave the google search a go, and found nothing to change my first opinion.Bahb the Illuminated (talk) 00:40, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I don't see significant coverage in reliable sources. Google results are limited to events listings. Los Angeles media seem pretty quiet about them. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 14:13, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and I would've frankly PRODed instead as simply nothing suggests better satisfying the applicable guidelines. SwisterTwister talk 21:13, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom fails WP:BAND and WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 13:19, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:14, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Seiji Tanaka

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

While Crisis 2050 is listed in his Media Arts DB, I could not find an entry for Crisis 2050 in ANN. In ANN it points to some crew person in Demonbane and a theme song performer. So this is difficult to claim notability. Also no equivalent article over in JA Wikipedia. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 23:16, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 23:16, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 23:16, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 23:17, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I cannot seem to find any significant coverage in reliable sources. He has some passing mentions here and there, but often just restricted to listing his name among the credits for something. I do not, however, have the ability to search for sources in Japanese; so if such can be found, I would be amenable to keeping. Vanamonde93 (talk) 16:53, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:GNG in the absence of any reliable third-party sourcing or in-depth coverage, and the work for which is supposedly famous does not appear to be notable enough to warrant its own Wikipedia article either. --DAJF (talk) 05:11, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:GNG, no place really to redirect this person. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 16:00, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:18, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Social Outcasts

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

the group was formed a week ago, with four low level wrestlers. Entirely too soon for this to get it's own article. MPJ-US 22:29, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete - spam for non-ntable group. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 23:28, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 23:44, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per RHaworth clearly non notable group formed just a week ago .Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 05:36, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:TOOSOON, fails WP:GNG, will never be as notable as The J.O.B. Squad... or maybe even 3MB.LM2000 (talk) 22:54, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Judging from that lineup, try never as popular as Bill and Randy Mulkey. Whatcha gonna do when Mulkeymania runs wild on you, bruddah? I wasn't paying much attention during the Monday Night Wars. Didn't The Rock come out just about every week to cut promos on jabronis like these? RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 02:29, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Way too soon, give it another 4 to 5 more weeks until this page can be made, let alone be notable or relevant. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:B825:4B80:700C:C5CB:6F38:42ED (talk) 01:57, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That's a rather strange way of looking at it. Notability is determined by the lead time needed for the WWE's hype/publicity machine to kick in after the initial buzz? Otherwise, I'm clueless as to how your rationalize doesn't fail WP:CRYSTAL. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 02:29, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - currently fails WP:GNG. Nikki♥311 09:50, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:22, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Irfan Alam

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

I initially tagged this for G11 given its former state before I nominated it but considering it was somewhat better before but still promotional and unacceptable, here we are. Searches apparently found some links with "Irfan Alam India" at Books, browsers and WP:INDAFD but nothing solidly better. Notifying the only still considerably active tagger RadioFan. SwisterTwister talk 22:29, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 22:30, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 22:30, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Notability just isn't being demonstrated here. The existing article is so promotional sounding I dont know that its worth saving if notability could be demonstrated. We see a lot biographical articles on "entrepreneurs" in the Draft space lacking in references to reliable 3rd party sources, this is no different. Claims here just aren't backed up and appear to be taken from the subject's Linked In page (not a reliable souce). The only reference in the awards and recognition section is related to reality show. Those which might help establish notability such as Business World’s “Most Promising Entrepreneur Award” are not footnoted and I'm having difficulty finding refs to support them. I did move the economic times article citation to a more appropriate place in the article.

--RadioFan (talk) 18:12, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Searches did not turn up enough in-depth coverage to show that it passes WP:GNG. Would also qualify for deletion as per WP:DEL4. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 03:34, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as per @RadioFan's sound rationale. Quis separabit? 13:29, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per RadioFan.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 00:10, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 07:04, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

List of places in Karachi

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

This list appears to be vague and WP:INDISCRIMINATE. It is essentially an unsourced directory of places in and around the city of Karachi. Recommending deletion as Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Regards, Yamaguchi先生 (talk) 22:01, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. sst ✈ 00:06, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. sst ✈ 00:06, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. "Places" is a term we use throughout our categories and lists, as in Category:Lists of places by country, and such a list is easily limited to notable entries so as to make it discriminate. "Unsourced" is not a problem; only unverifiable is. And whether a notable place is or isn't "in Karachi" should certainly be verifiable. The only question I see is whether this would be better presented as a subsection in a Pakistan-wide list, or as a list of lists of different kinds of places in Karachi, or just cleaned up as is. postdlf (talk) 18:20, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. This list might make an excellent category. As a list, it's no bueno. J^♯m (talk | contribs) 07:41, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- See WP:NOTDUP. postdlf (talk) 15:49, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - "Places in [a major city]" is a totally, totally inappropriate topic for a list. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 16:06, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify, I have no objection to a list of a specific type of places, including lists of populated places, but "places" is crazy. I'm startled to see that there are a number of other such ill-defined extremely broad lists around, and not sure what next steps should be... — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 16:10, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy delete by Jimfbleak. (non-admin closure) NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 14:16, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ABIO

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

Fails WP:N J^♯m (talk | contribs) 22:15, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. sst ✈ 00:07, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. sst ✈ 00:07, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Tagged as A7 & G11 as this is applicable. SwisterTwister talk 06:16, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 00:03, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A. V. Ragsdale

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

Fails WP:N. J^♯m (talk | contribs) 22:09, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. We keep articles about state representatives per WP:POLITICIAN. And even though he served in the 1890s he still has a bit of online presence: see [1] and [2]. --Arxiloxos (talk) 22:48, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Passes WP:POLITICIAN was a member of the Washington House of Representatives.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 03:23, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep clearly passes the inclusion guidelines for politicians as a member of a state house of representatives.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:05, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was a snowball close as keep. Consensus is that the subject meets WP:POLITICIAN. Noting also that the nominator has asked for a SNOW close and there are no other arguments for deletion. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 16:36, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A. K. Clarke

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

Fails WP:N. J^♯m (talk | contribs) 22:08, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as it still meets WP:POLITICIAN. Connormah (talk) 00:23, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep meets WP:POLITICIAN as elected member of national legislature.E.M.Gregory (talk) 01:24, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think Washington is its own country. J^♯m (talk | contribs) 07:32, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

E.M. Gregory admittedly used the wrong word for what level of government Clarke served at, but WP:NPOL #1 does confer the same automatic notability on members of state or provincial legislatures as it does on members of national ones. Bearcat (talk) 19:39, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Per above. Just several more citations and it should be a tip-top article. Parsley Man (talk) 02:28, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You're joking, right? Several more citations and it would be a worthy stub. J^♯m (talk | contribs) 07:32, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Passes WP:POLITICIAN was a member of the Washington House of Representatives.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 03:20, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the rest; meets WP:POLITICIAN, as an elected member of the legislature. This is ready for a close, I think. Vanamonde93 (talk) 17:30, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have to agree. Despite a few boilerplate comments that indicate some commenters haven't even looked at the article in question, I think I've learned a bit about the AfD process here. Thank you all for coming, let's SNOW this one closed. J^♯m (talk | contribs) 07:32, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. clpo13_(talk) 17:36, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. clpo13_(talk) 17:36, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The article definitely needs improvement for both sourcing and substance, but members of state legislatures are considered notable per WP:NPOL #1. Keep and flag for improvement. Bearcat (talk) 19:39, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 00:03, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A. I. Adams

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

Fails WP:N. J^♯m (talk | contribs) 22:07, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:POLITICIAN. More bio information here: [3] --Arxiloxos (talk) 22:58, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Passes WP:POLITICIAN was a member of the Washington House of Representatives.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 03:22, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. clpo13_(talk) 17:34, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. clpo13_(talk) 17:34, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The article definitely needs improvement for both sourcing and substance, but members of state legislatures are considered notable per WP:NPOL #1. Keep and flag for improvement. Bearcat (talk) 19:40, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Obviously passes WP:POLITICIAN. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:30, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep: Undeniably passes WP:POLITICIAN as others have noted. Orthodox2014 (talk) 16:25, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep per WP:SK#1. The nominator is essentially suggesting a merge, which can be discussed on an article talk page. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:48, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A.M. Crunchwrap

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

Should be merged with the Taco Bell article if it is important enough to be on the wiki at all. J^♯m (talk | contribs) 22:05, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:27, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sairu

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

It is not clear from the article which of her cosplay activities are Wikipedia notable. They need to be covered by reliable third-party sources independent of the subject, not blogs or fan articles. It does not say who officially sponsors her or how she goes about her occupation; the ones that are listed are not sourced, and would just pick from a pool of local models in the area anyway. Has she won any notable contests? Appeared on covers for notable magazines (not cosplay blogs)? No equivalent article at Wikipedia Japan, French. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 21:37, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 21:39, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 21:39, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Belgium-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 21:39, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 21:39, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment As she is a model, please consider if she meets WP:NMODEL. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 21:48, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete looks like a self/fan promotion article. Edit and contribute history's show us a single purpose account wrote the article and it sets off flags. Cosplayers and models are ten a penny and we are not their agent or pr company.SephyTheThird (talk) 22:45, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I find it hard to distinguish the subject's notabilty because of the original author's persistent vandalism of the page. That author (Wikisaichan) is a single-purpose account, who alternates with a single-purpose IP (118.1.138.55) making similar edits. They consistently add inappropriate material, remove maintenance tags, wreck the formatting, and refuse to engage on the Talk pages (either the article's or the User Talk page). As an example of how it makes assessment difficult, I just checked the first 12 references in "Career", and they are all either dead links or do not mention anything that supports the statement in the article. I have removed this sort of thing all too often in the past, only to have it put back by this editor. At that point, the will to live was fading so I had to stop - but I'm sure you get the point. The only half-way reasonable references seem to be the interviews in 3rd-strike.com and the Mercenar blog (though I can't evaluate the Japanese sources).--Gronk Oz (talk) 04:50, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and Salt - I went searching for the NHK and TV Tokyo interviews and found only one source in Japanese that wasn't a minor Japanese rock band with the same name, and that happened to be a semi-nude modeling DVD which is unbelievably used as a reference in the article. There is no WP:NMODEL or anything else to speak of here in the form of Japanese sources and with regards to this article I recommend the use of tactical nuclear weapons. Jun Kayama 05:33, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as the references do not prove notability. The main two editors do not seem to cooporate. Ana r chyte 09:32, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I love the cute Chi picture but that isn't enough to show how she is notable, delete per WP:NMODEL. I do not believe this needs to be salted as there is always WP:ANI for disruptive editing. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 15:58, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. All villiages get kept per GEOLAND (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 00:04, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mārkalne Parish

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

It's unreferenced. I can't find any reliable sources for it. Blackbombchu (talk) 21:12, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Latvia-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:32, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: WP:GEOLAND applies, and the lv:Mārkalnes pagasts Latvian wiki article has more content and sources. ^~~Hydronium^~Hydroxide^~(Talk)~~ 11:57, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:GEOLAND, the Latvian census bureau acknowledges the existence and population of the place, and reports it stand alone. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 00:17, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. per SK1 - No valid reason for nomination .... "Simply not notable" isn't a valid reason!. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 22:33, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Haron Shakava

Simply not notable. — Swastik Chakraborty (User talk) 21:00, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep – Footballer notable per WP:NFOOTBALL as he has played in tier 1 international match (World Cup qualifier) and he also scored. Qed237 (talk) 21:12, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Qed237 (talk) 21:17, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Nevermind the fact that the nomination is one of the explicitly enumerated arguments to avoid in deletion discussions, the article meets the WP:NSPORT since Shakava is a Kenyan international. Sir Sputnik (talk) 21:19, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. The arguments made to retain the article have presented policy backed reasoning; these arguments state that the lists are notable to the world and also pass WP:GNG's requirements. One of the key pieces to the disagreement on the requests for deletion seems to be a lack of understanding, particularly on how important this information is outside of the Unites States. As we are not the Unites States Wikipedia, but instead the worldwide English Wikipedia, it is important that we recognize the global perspective of this site. That being said, the main point brought up by the requests for deletion is that this article falls into the essay WP:LISTCRUFT's domain. - Even though this argument stems from an essay, not a policy or guideline, it is used regularly as a de facto guideline in this arena. Therefore, we shall look at the requirements for this essay to fall into said category:

The list was created just for the sake of having such a list
Not applicable to this list.
The list is of interest to a very limited number of people
Not applicable to this list. (This information is useful to a worldwide audience.)
The list is a violation of Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information
Not applicable to this list.
The content is unverifiable or the underlying concept is non-notable
Not applicable to this list. The lists' information would be notably inclusive on the parent articles.
The list cannot be expanded beyond a handful of terms
Not applicable to this list.
The list is unlimited and/or unmaintainable
Not applicable to this list.
The list has no content beyond links to other articles, so would be better implemented as a (self-maintaining) category
Not applicable to this list.
The list is unencyclopaedic, i.e. it would not be expected to be included in an encyclopaedia.
This determination is made in a continuously evolving system and is too vague of a point to be taken into account in these discussions; we are not a paper encyclopedia. Therefore, this point is not applicable to this list.
Determining membership of the list requires adoption of a non-neutral point of view, and reliable sources for avoiding it are not available.
Not applicable to this list.
Determining membership of the list involves original research or synthesis of ideas.
Not applicable to this list.
The list's membership is volatile and requires a disproportionate amount of effort to keep up to date.
Not applicable to this list.
The list attracts the addition of little that is of clear importance or even relevance in the context of the topic.
Not applicable to this list.

So as we see this seemingly easy argument for this article to not be retained, does not hold up to a test of site-wide consensus. Therefore, the request for these lists to be deleted, is denied by the community and the greater backed policy consensus. These lists are found to be notable to the worldwide community, and are therefore retained. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 22:09, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

List of international goals scored by Zlatan Ibrahimović

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

Non notable list of goals Qed237 (talk) 20:43, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages because of the same reason, not notable for it's own article:

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Qed237 (talk) 21:00, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all: Obviously, a notable article. What else do you mean by notable list of goals, User:Qed237? He is the all-time top goalscorer of Sweden and you are saying this article is not notable? See this before you nominate any such article for deletion. — Swastik Chakraborty (User talk) 20:47, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

So why are you nominating List of international goals scored by João Vieira Pinto who is a more notable player than Sunil Chhetri. Qed237 (talk) 20:57, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Because of his tally of goals scored. Pinto had scored only 23 goals whereas Chhetri has scored 50 goals already. — Swastik Chakraborty (User talk) 21:05, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

And where do you draw this arbitrary line? Do you have any sort of consensus saying a certain limit is okay? Qed237 (talk) 21:09, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't drawn any consensus line. I think a country's top goalscorer should have an article like that, nothing else. — Swastik Chakraborty (User talk) 21:13, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Like " He is Sweden's top international goalscorer of all time.[1]" for Zlatan's list? Are you deliberately wasting our time? The Rambling Man (talk) 21:53, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. Human3015^{Let It Go} 21:18, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Human3015^{Let It Go} 21:18, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Human3015^{Let It Go} 21:19, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: This list of goals is clearly not notable enough to warrant its own article -- samtar ^whisper 21:20, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
There are four lists, and at least the Ibrahimović list is a justifiable fork from the main biographical article. Or do you disagree? The Rambling Man (talk) 21:36, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - notable and relevant list of one of the worlds best football players and his international goals. --BabbaQ (talk) 22:16, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@BabbaQ: People consider Peyton Manning to be one of the greatest NFL players of all time, but why haven't we seen "List of touchdowns scored by Peyton Manning"? That's because throwing a touchdown is so minor. Manning holds the record for most NFL touchdowns thrown by a quarterback, with 539. That's something that can be noted in the Peyton Manning article. If we compare that to a list like "List of goals scored by Ronaldo", it's really not much different. CatcherStorm ^talk 02:53, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A touchdown in NFL does not have the same significance as a goal does in soccer, due to the scoring system of each sport. --SuperJew (talk) 21:12, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

delete - I admit to a certain personal bias here, but I really cannot see how this is anything other than listcruft. The information about how many goals a player has scored surely belongs in the article about them, and as for which specific games they scored in, that is unencyclopedic trivia. --bonadea contributions talk 11:18, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Not at all. In some cases, the coverage of international goals from a player is global, e.g. in the case of Ibrahimović. His article is large enough such that a fork can be created to cover his international goals. Whether or not you have a "personal bias" (which is bad in these discussions), this kind of article, particularly related to a country's top scorer, is fully justifiable. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:38, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all: Baseless article. --ArsenalFan700 (talk) 13:54, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
This means nothing at all. Can you expand, preferably relating to the deletion criteria please? The Rambling Man (talk) 21:36, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all - these kind of lists can be notable, but there is no indication why these particular players deserve such articles. Giant Snowman 18:10, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all there's no policy or guideline based reason from all those who oppose, they just don't like it. Most of these list articles are rubbish, which would lend a tendency to delete, but referencing them and adding a bit of prose would make decent articles. Most of this lists are reasonable forks from long main bio articles and are justifiable as standalone. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:52, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. Is there some kind of competition around here to make the biggest point by nominating stuff we actually believe should stay, just because someone else nominated something we like for deletion? Get a grip folks. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:53, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all "Non notable list of goals" is a pretty meagre justification for deletion. With the exception of Chhetri, all have substantial parent articles that could not reasonably contain this list, which is, in my opinion, encyclopaedic content. Chhetri is more of a borderline case, and I would not object to a merge in that case. Harrias ^talk 21:12, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Top-scorer of his country. Deserves a article and no guideline where to draw a line... Kante4 (talk) 21:20, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all Encyclopedic content, and notable with Ibra and Chhetri top scorers for their country, and Zidane, Ronaldo and Ibra with very successful, well-known (as in they would be familiar to most people, also who don't follow soccer) and referenced careers on club and international level. --SuperJew (talk) 21:33, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all There have been various conversations on this in the past, and no doubt an article which simply lists goals could be non-notable, however, in terms of number of goals, profile and most importantly, reporting by reliable sources, these are fairly clearly valid articles as I see it. A discussion at WT:FOOTY about what the line for such articles could be would be far more useful than debating short lists here over and over again. Macosal (talk) 03:03, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I'm of the personal view that these "list of goals" articles (along with cricket's "list of centuries" articles and several similar) are WP:NOTSTATS violations; but that they've become so widely used that it represents a soft consensus to the contrary, so I'm not going to challenge that (i.e. WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS as a basis for not deleting). I'm merely going to agree strongly with Macosal that the soccer project needs to propose and agree upon a formal guideline for when these pages become valid. Aspirex (talk) 06:02, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Additional thought: The List of international cricket centuries by... series of articles is probably the best analogue for the soccer goals articles. The problem as I see it is simply as follows: it is customary for all players have a table on their page which lists all of their goals (or centuries). When that table becomes so long that it impacts the readability of the main page, it gets SPUNOUT into its own page. As a page in its own right, the spin-out probably doesn't meet notability guidelines. So we're stuck between three unfavourable outcomes: an article with an unreadably long table, or a non-notable spin-out, or the content being lost for players with lots of goals but retained for players with very few. Maybe the best solution is to merge every "List of goals..." article to the player page, and format the table as a default-to-hide collapsible table – that would allow any relevant commentary to be covered in prose, means the content wouldn't be lost, but wouldn't affect the readability. But I suppose that's far beyond the scope of this AfD. Aspirex (talk) 11:15, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - Indeed, it is beyond the scope of this individual AFD. However, it is worth remembering that MOS discourages collapsed tables, see MOS:COLLAPSE for more information. There's not reason that this kind of list can't have a decent prose introduction covering the goals, e.g. List of international goals scored by Wayne Rooney is one such example. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:06, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    - A collapsible table is still the least of four evils. Aspirex (talk) 06:04, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      - No, it's an absurd cop-out, to advocate contravening the manual of style. It would render any article with such a flaw ineligible for FA, for a start. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:27, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Serious doubts regarding notability - I am a regular editor of articles about American college sports, pro football (American, that is), pro baseball, and Olympic swimming. Admittedly, I only occasionally edit American soccer articles for our national women's team members. I'm not an expert. That said, I find it rather odd that anyone would think to list every score of any athlete's career . . . why not a list of all 714 career homeruns of Babe Ruth? Or all 420 touchdown passes of quarterback Dan Marino? Or all 61 of Roger Maris' homeruns during his record-setting 1961 season? Or all 90 of Hope Solo's shutouts as a goalkeeper? Why not all of the 4,409 plays that contributed to Emmitt Smith's 18,355 rushing yards in the NFL? At some point we cross the line from sports alamanc-like data to mere trivia of the most trivial character . . . . We are an encyclopedia, and by its very nature an encyclopedia must summarize events, emphasizing the most noteworthy highlights over listing every occurrence. These appear to be obvious violations of WP:NOTSTATS. There are also serious notability questions present here: WP:GNG requires that an article subject receive significant coverage in multiple, independent, reliable, secondary sources in order to qualify for a stand-alone article. WP:LISTN requires that the subject of a list be notable as a group. The only sources for these articles are lists of goals from the football/soccer statistics website RSSSF; most sports projects typically discount sports stats websites as either trivial or WP:ROUTINE. How about some coverage of these international goals -- as a group, not as individual scores -- from mainstream news sources like Le Monde, L'Equipe, O Estado or O Globo? Please feel to link several two or three of the best examples of what you believe is significant coverage of the career goals of each of Ronaldo, Zidane and Chhetri? Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 07:13, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I think scoring goals for your country is somewhat more of an achievement that hitting home runs for your club, or throwing touchdowns for your franchise. "Shutouts" are not usually considered that exceptional, after all a goalkeeper could "make a shutout" without actually needing to touch the ball. An international goal can only be attributed to a single individual. And that the most successful players score maybe 50 or so in their entire career puts some perspective on the other mega-stats you've mentioned. I can't speak for sources for these individuals, but in the case of Wayne Rooney, multiple reliable sources cover his international goals and the long and dreary wait for him to break the existing record. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:01, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
TRM, you wrote, "I think scoring goals for your country is somewhat more of an achievement that hitting home runs for your club, or throwing touchdowns for your franchise." If you're unfamiliar with Babe Ruth, I would urge you to read the Wikipedia article, then do a quick Google search on "Babe Ruth 714," and see how many full-length books you find on the subject. Wikipedia notability is defined by significant coverage in independent, reliable, secondary sources, not our perception of the subject's importance. If scoring football goals for one's country is the notable achievement you suggest, then it should not be so hard to produce two or three feature newspaper articles that discuss in depth each of these three footballer's international scoring histories, right? I will also add that nothing stops interested editors from summarizing these athletes' international scoring histories in their Wikipedia biographies. What is at issue is whether these complete lists of individual players' scoring histories merit stand-alone articles based on the Wikipedia concept of notability per WP:GNG and WP:LISTN. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 15:56, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sure you're right about Babe Ruth, I have little inclination to pursue a search on that, and outside the microcosm of American baseball, the record is somewhat meaningless. Association football and its records span the globe, the whole planet plays "soccer" and as such these kind of lists have global interest. But honestly, we're talking about apples and oranges here. International goals for footballers are rare, whereas home runs, touchdowns, shut-outs in local games are commonplace. To be the top scorer for your country is super-rare, i.e. there's one, per country. The summaries were included, but they got expanded, then forked out. There are examples of these kinds of lists which have decent introductions, independent and good references discussing the goals as a whole. I have already told you that I'm not able to do that for these examples, my Swedish, French, Portuguese etc is not as accomplished as I'd like. While you can call for GNG and LISTN, if they're allowable for incorporation in a biography, you have you answer as to why they can stand alone for biographies that are too bloated. As an example, I'll point you at Wayne Rooney's list, which, naturally I crafted and made superb, almost legendary. Rooney's goals for England were extensively covered as he approached, and eventually took, the record. If you give me a year or two to learn Swedish, Portuguese, Spanish and French (mais oui!), I'll try to source the other lists in the same way. It would be odd if the leading scorers for those nations didn't have a similar amount of interest and covereag. On another note, there are dozens of cricket century lists too, do you object to those? It would be useful to know what's coming up. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:50, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all: As per The Rambling Man. Also, these are very informative and encyclopedic lists. In Cricket we do have lists of "centuries" and "5 wicket hauls". Some of them are featured list. In football we can have list of goals of notable players. All of them are notable. Chhetri is top goal scorer of India. He too deserves list. So, there is no problem in keeping all of these.--Human3015^{Let It Go} 18:32, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Zlatan's list is notable in its own right as he's Sweden's top goalscorer. But I see where Qed237 is going with this; it may get out of hand. Is there anything to stop me creating List of goals scored by Dixie Dean in 1928? I wouldn't say Zidane's goalscoring record for the national team defined his career, like it has done with Keane, Henry and Rooney. He is France's 4th highest goalscorer (which is impressive for a midfielder), but he was the face of a multicultural team. His role was that of a creator, regardless of how many goals he scored. Lemonade51 (talk) 22:14, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Therefore they shouldn't be nominated in the same AFD? --SuperJew (talk) 22:23, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps not. My stance is this; there has to a clear and cohrent criteria for lists such as these. Otherwise there's nothing to stop clumping lists together for AFD. We've already established that Zlatan is his country's top goalscorer, which, de facto, meets the notability cretria. Zidane, by contrast, is not his nation's top goalscorer. He has the name, but for me it would tread a fine line between noteworthiness and achievement. His biggest achievement for his national team wasn't scoring goals (yes, he was a big-game player, he scored twice in a WC final), but he isn't (only) remembered for goals. He wasn't destined to score, but to orchestrate. Zidane was the symbol of blanc-black-beur, l'effet Zidane so they say in France. Sure, more prose would make things a lot better, but can't justify keeping a list with two sentences, and no context. Lemonade51 (talk) 22:57, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A yearly list of goals, if it has been discussed as a topic in secondary reliable sources, would be perfectly legitimate. But I doubt you'd find that. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:27, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all - Zlatan and Chhetri on the grounds that they are their countries record international goalscorers and Ronaldo and Zidane as generally recognised world class players. Fenix down (talk) 15:55, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all - As per consensus from previous deletion discussions on similar articles. Spiderone 09:38, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - When will someone decide on these articles' fate? — Swastik Chakraborty (User talk) 05:46, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all Ronaldo and Zidane are clearly world's top players in World's most popular sport and Zlatan and Chhetri are the there countries leading goal scorers.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 10:07, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all Scoring a goal is not a major acheivement, so I believe all of these fall under WP:LISTCRUFT. Joseph2302 (talk) 18:19, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: In a sport where the average score for a team is 1 or 2 goals, scoring one of those goals is a major achievement, and being the topscorer for your country even a more major achievement. --SuperJew (talk) 19:03, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep or Merge: Per other's arguments and past discussions on the WikiProject Football talk page. Inter&anthro (talk) 20:59, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all - Can't see how this is anything other than fancruft. This would be akin to an article on List of playoff touchdowns by Peyton Manning, which would be just as inappropriate. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:40, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Not at all, touchdowns in a subsection of a specific national sports tournament are not as notable as international goals in a global game. Unless, of course, you can find evidence that reliable secondary sources deal with his touchdowns during playoffs. I doubt that'd exist. But it's clear that a country's top international goalscorer's goals are notable. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:59, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. There is clearly some disagreement here, citing similar lists for other footballers and even an FL. However, the rough consensus is that we do not keep lists of a footballer's international goals by default, and the current level of coverage around João Vieira Pinto's goals have not passed the threshold for standalone list inclusion. Der yck C. 22:36, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

List of international goals scored by João Vieira Pinto

Not a notable article at all. — Swastik Chakraborty (User talk) 19:00, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as useless. How do we need a list of goals? Legacypac (talk) 19:12, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Qed237 (talk) 21:17, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Portugal-related deletion discussions. Human3015^{Let It Go} 21:21, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Human3015^{Let It Go} 21:21, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Human3015^{Let It Go} 21:21, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A list of notable achievements by a notable individual, meeting WP:SAL. To say it's useless and not needed is silly, as another 40 lists like this exist and at least one of them is a Featured List. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 07:47, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Goals scored in an international match should not have their own article. Baseless article. --ArsenalFan700 (talk) 13:54, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - these kind of lists can be notable, but there is no indication why thus particular player deserves such an article. Giant Snowman 18:11, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: As per Lugnuts. These are encyclopedic lists. Pinto is notable enough. --Human3015^{Let It Go} 18:35, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Lugnuts argument is fundamentally flawed by the assumption that scoring at international level is an inherently notable achievement. There is no consensus that that is the case. Like GS says, these lists can be notable, but a list for a person who is only the eighth highest goalscorer for his country where there appears to have been no discussion of his international goalscoring prowess outside of stat sites does not indicate notability to me. Fenix down (talk) 15:58, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Merge: Per other's arguments and past discussions on the WikiProject Football talk page. Inter&anthro (talk) 21:00, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Can't see how this is anything other than fancruft. This would be akin to an article on List of playoff touchdowns by Peyton Manning, which would be just as inappropriate. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:41, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per rationales of GiantSnowman and Fenix Down. In the absence of significant coverage of the scoring history of the subject player, the notability requirements are not satisfied and the gnashing of teeth about "how important" is the list miss the point completely. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 11:07, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - There is no evidence that this footballer has a list of goals that is notable enough for it's own article. Qed237 (talk) 12:11, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:31, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Peshawar Zalmi vs Islamabad United Rivlary

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

This is article about rivalry between two cricket teams in Pakistan Super League. But this tournament not even started yet. We don't know if these 2 teams will become rivals or not. As of now parent pages of these tournaments are not well developed. As per WP:CRYSTAL this page should be deleted. One can recreate it if their rivalry becomes popular. Human3015^{Let It Go} 06:23, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I procedurally closed an AfD of a duplicate article, and have copied the rationale over to this one. Pinging Anjana Larka and Human3015, who commented on the previous AfD. ansh 666 20:40, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. ansh 666 20:43, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. ansh 666 20:43, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. ansh 666 20:43, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. ansh 666 20:43, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Ansh666 for doing it. I did not got your ping, thanks for talk page message.--Human3015^{Let It Go} 20:45, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete rivalry should be in the field, no such thing yet. Umais Bin Sajjad (talk) 03:30, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: There is no rivalry between teams. Anjana Larka^Talk 07:37, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and Fails WP:NRIVALRY.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 19:30, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Appears to be misspelled. Or is it really a "rivlary" instead of a "rivalry?" J^♯m (talk | contribs) 07:50, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Nice catch, though mostly irrelevant; if the article is by some chance kept it can just be moved. ansh 666 08:28, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 00:04, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dubashi

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

Fails WP:NFILM, unable to find significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent. JMHamo (talk) 19:36, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Have added significant coverage in major Indian dailies. Coverage that continued years after the film opened.E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:00, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Here: [4] my search on Hariharan Dubashi at theHindu.com. Other Indian papers also covered this film.E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:11, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Human3015^{Let It Go} 21:39, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Human3015^{Let It Go} 21:39, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep seems to pass NFILM after edits, but Indian cinema isn't one of my interests so I did not dig much deeper.Bahb the Illuminated (talk) 01:00, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article at present mentions several reliable references.--Dwaipayan (talk) 18:19, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy deleted . Materialscientist (talk) 04:31, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Doğu Abaris

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

Nothing in the news and any verifiable source on English. All IMDB records are uncredited - can't be verified. I didn't propose speedy only in case if someone finds some references in Turkish. Arthistorian1977 (talk) 19:10, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:28, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe any of this content for a moment and have tagged it as a hoax. Drmies (talk) 04:28, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 07:02, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Enemy Combatant Citizenship Revocation Amendment

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

I could not find a reliable source to verify that this was even a failed bit of legislation, but even if such an amendment to the US Constitution was offered up in Congress at some point in the past, it does not appear to have gained secondary coverage required for notability. It smacks of being a hoax, since constitutional amendments introduced in Congress, or lobbied for by some national organization always get some news coverage. Edison (talk) 19:08, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Human3015^{Let It Go} 21:43, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Human3015^{Let It Go} 21:43, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

delete nn piece of legislation. Staszek Lem (talk) 22:44, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
delete After a thorough search, I could not find any federal legislation (constitutional amendment or regular statutory; contemplated or proposed) by this name. Drdpw (talk) 02:57, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. — foxj 13:05, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yitzchak Kossowsky

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

A nonotable rabbi. Staszek Lem (talk) 18:39, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Unreferenced, and WP:CLERGY states "The Chief Rabbis of nation states with large Jewish communities are notable by virtue of their status."; he wasn't that highly ranked of a rabbi, so with no sources, he fails the significance test. Not all rabbis are notable. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:42, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG - other than hits to this Wikipedia article, not a single other hit on any of the search engines. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:58, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Obvious Keep - The list here has far more names added and some on the other list aren't on this one so IMHO copyvio is irrelevant here. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 22:38, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

List of jazz standards

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

This appears to be a comprehensively indiscriminate collection of song titles with no clear criteria for inclusion or exclusion. Many of the songs are not notable enough to have an article. I also appears to be copy vio of http://www.jazzstandards.com/compositions/indexa.htm It was previously deleted by discussion. Legacypac (talk) 18:29, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:29, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:29, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:30, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:CLN as complement to Category:Jazz standards and per WP:LISTPURP as index of articles. If a consensus has established that this classification is impossible to support with reliable sources such that the category should also be deleted, please point us to that discussion. Even if "many" of the listed songs are not notable, I don't know why the nominator considers that relevant here. postdlf (talk) 19:37, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Where are the source that say each song is a "standard"? How are the songs selected for the list? Legacypac (talk) 19:40, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

* Wikipedia:WikiProject Jazz notified. AllyD (talk) 19:41, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep This is extremely useful for finding standards. In fact I've printed it off myself. It's gradually getting very comprehensive too, more comprehensive then even the jazz standards site now, calling it a copyvio is utterly ridiculous, the lists are not even identical!. It's also BS that most of them are not notable enough to have an article, they mostly all are. Most entries were added after a quick search for standard or "jazz".♦ Dr. Blofeld 19:54, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep per Dr. Blofeld. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 20:01, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I did a few checks that showed they are the same, and if the only source is a site named like the article... Legacypac (talk) 20:04, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No, they are not the same. Count how many are on the standards site and how many are in the list. Numerous ones which appeared on albums or standard books I have were added which are not on the standards website such as Across the Alley from the Alamo etc...♦ Dr. Blofeld 20:08, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep --Doug Coldwell (talk) 20:24, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - useful list. Period.BabbaQ (talk) 21:00, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, a very useful list. Needs fixing -- sourcing, etc. -- but still useful in its current state. Eman235/talk 22:15, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. If anyone feels there is further discussion to be had on the name, content, and general scope of the article, that may be continued on the article's talk page. m.o.p 22:56, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Taharrush gamea

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

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

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

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

This page will be transcluded into other pages. Only level 4 subsections make sense in this context.
For a better readibility, first level comments in the main subsection should rather start by: * '''comment'''.
Using new subsections for engaging more specific discussions would also be great.
Thanks in advance. Pldx1 (talk) 16:34, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
This comment is no more relevant. Someone else suppressed the subsections and moved some messages across the page without leaving a descriptive comment. Moreover some messages have been moved to the talk page, and are NO MORE accessible from the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2016 January 12. Not taking responsability for this.
Pldx1 (talk) 08:16, 19 January 2016 (UTC) [reply]

No evidence apart from recent hype that this is actually a thing — goethean 17:34, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"No evidence"? There are, of course, indictments, arrests, in Sweden as well as in German cities. Government officials describing the phenomenon. And, indelicate to mention, but that's a pretty narrow - not to say sexist, perspective. You might want to speak with young women who live in the Middle East, South Asia, and elsewhere outside Western Europe. This not new in the world, it's merely new in the recent experience of Western Europeans.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:24, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This article is correct and true and must stay.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.129.196.126 (talk) 19:01, 12 January 2016‎(UTC)

*Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2016 January 12. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 17:51, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Human3015^{Let It Go} 18:33, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

redirect to "recent hype", which is not a hype but a problem. A searchable term. Staszek Lem (talk) 18:56, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not an eligible solution since the Swedish press is also all over this Aerabic term because of an outbreak of groping and sexual intimidation at a teen rock concert last summer. Swedes are pretty horrified by the idea of gangs of men surrounding and groping 14- and 15-year-old concertgoers.E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:45, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

- P.S. About being actually a thing, yes it is, in some sexist and sexually-repressed cultures, see e.g. "Eve teasing". You have to admit that we (wikipedians) are 98% ignorant amateurs (outside of our area of expertise/training), therefore unfortunately I don't know a better redirect target for a generic article about this type of sexual violence. Also the transription "gamea" from "jamai" is quite inept. Staszek Lem (talk) 19:07, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - BTW, the piped link "recent hype" is a link to New Year's Eve sexual assaults in Germany. That wasn't clear. I've spelled it out. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:15, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:15, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What is the rationale for deletion? If it does not warrant a standalone article, wouldn't it be better merged with street harassment or sexual harassment? (I would have added the term to one of those articles instead of creating this one but, like Eve teasing, it didn't seem a great fit with either.) — AjaxSmack 02:57, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- AjaxSmack, what was your rationale for creating[5] the article in the first place? You based your addition entirely on news articles published in the last 48 hours. Why didn't you just write about this in the suggested articles? At best, this seems to be a neologism. Peter ^Isotalo 12:09, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - I came to Wikipedia looking for information on the practice and couldn't find it so I boldly created a stub as I have in several other cases over the years. With the limited sources available to me, I wasn't sure exactly how it related to street harassment or sexual harassment. The idea was the stub could be fleshed out by those with more knowledge of the subject and/or that it could be merged with the appropriate article. WP:NEOLOGISM does not apply. As e.g. guanxi is not simply "connexions", sources posit that taharrush gamea is substantively different from generic street harassment or sexual harassment. And Wikipedia is hardly a vanguard "to increase usage of the term" in this case as is illustrated by sources and links noted below. I can understand if you feel the term should be a redirect but I'm still not sure why it needs to be deleted. — AjaxSmack 23:56, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP : It is a more generic phenomenon, not a hype. Zezen (talk) 04:54, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If this article is correct, or at least based on reputable sources and until it is then disproven, it should remain.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.26.144.203 (talk) 06:11, 13 January 2016‎ (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Widespread coverage in the media, even important authorities know about it. Then everyone should.--Gerry1214 (talk) 06:17, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete : This is just another name for group assault like the term "Wilding", which had many headlines at the time - but is now a mere mention under "other" on a disambiguation page. --Versa geek 06:44, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

STRONG KEEP: Another case of manipulative deletionism. No need to even elaborate. Ahriman2014 (talk) 07:35, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP: Deleting a well-researched article on mass phenomenon would constitute political censorship. Tiphareth (talk) 07:59, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

DELETE “Taharrush gamea” is simply Arabic for “collective harrasment”: the term is used very recently in the press about the event in Cologne because the perpetrators seem to be migrants, but no study — sociological or otherwise — talk about it being a specially Arabic phenomenon. When it happens in an English-speaking country, it's called “harrasment”; in French it's “harcèlement”; in German “Belästigung” in Arabic it's “تحرش”: we should not create an article for every language. --Superbenjamin (talk) 09:30, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This article needs to undergo a serious scrutiny. I have removed plenty of content that was completely unreferenced, based on obviously unreliable sources like Infowars.com (run by conspiracy theorist Alex Jones), or that used sources simply reporting on recent sexual harassment without making any connection to this term. The remaining attestations are all directly related to the news reporting relating to New Year's Eve in Köln. At the very least, this seems like a politicized neologism. Peter ^Isotalo 10:21, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
ABSOLUTELY DELETE: The concept of collective rape being a uniquely Arab or Muslim phenomenon, or even having some form of casual acceptance in Arab culture specifically, is so obviously a fabrication that I can't comprehend how anyone could even consider for a second that it's factually accurate, let alone objective, neutral, or depoliticized. This article doesn't describe a phenomenon distinct from already-existing concepts of collective rape - unless you happen to be viewing it through a very particular lens. Deadwreck (talk) 11:33, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

— Deadwreck (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

I would support an article on the phenomenon of group sexual harassment (groping, surrounding a victim, verbal threats and verbal sexual harassment) carried out by gorups that does not escalate to the point of gang rape. The phenomenon is real, and terms for it in sundry languages can be included.E.M.Gregory (talk) 12:56, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Reliable sources indicate this is a notable phenomenon. Kelly ^hi! 14:00, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, although I would prefer an English name for this phenomenon. The fact is tha tcoverage of this is now massive [6] and multiple incidents [7] have been revealed, some are enumerated in the Cologne article. As a topic, it passes WP:GNG.E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:51, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- This is not how Swedish media are reporting on the issue. There's a very heated debate, but nothing about it being organized. It also seems to be limited to a single festival (We Are Sthlm).[8] A criminal investigation was just laid to rest,[9] but there is going to be an investigation about whether the problem actually exists or not[10] (besides the "normal" festival raping that has been going on for years[11][12][13][14][15]) One 15-year-old has been charged so far for groping at We Are Sthlm.[16] And no one seems to be using the term "taharrush" about any of it. Peter ^Isotalo 16:53, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as neologism. Article relies entirely on sources from the past few days. Google Trends indicate it's extremely recent,[17] and there's pretty much just a single hit on Google Books.[18] It might be relevant to redirect it to New Year's Eve sexual assaults in Germany, but a standalone article is extreme recentism and sensationalism. Peter ^Isotalo 17:05, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Not a persuasive argument. The question is whether this term is in substantive use now. New York Times, [19]; The Spectator [20]; The Daily Telegraph [21]; the BBC [22]].E.M.Gregory (talk) 10:40, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Significant coverage in multiple reputed sources, and such coverage is likely to increase.--Dwaipayan (talk) 17:48, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is a highly notable and specific phenomenon (not a rape!), which is now widely covered in numerous publications and in many different countries, for example [23], [24], including political debates in connection to other events [25], etc. My very best wishes (talk) 19:03, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: These also: Source Abdelmonem, Angie, Angie (2015), ”Reconceptualizing Sexual Harassment in Egypt”, Kohl: A Journal for Body and Gender Research 1 (1): 23–41 (PDF) and the german article.--Empiricus-sextus (talk) 21:33, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete absolutely unnecessary article--Opdire657 (talk) 23:20, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: and kudos to Empiricus-sextus. We have done some work on the German article, which was in a similar poor state before. There are two reasons for a keep: First, Taharrush is a about a strategy started by Egyptian police forces and hired thugs to use sexual harrassment as a means of politics, denying (activist) women access and participation at public rallies and demonstrations. This has been covered in various research papers, NGO studies and serious media. Second, the behavior has spread as well to young men in their prime using it as an everlasting spring break on the cost of young women and girls in public spaces. Thats been covered by similar high quality sources. That said, its not a mere sort of sexual harrassment but a new type of molesters flashmob with a political cloud in Egypt, including some changes in the penal law. Therefore keep - in the updeted version. Polentarion Talk 01:38, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. In addition, judging from this Gender Research paper, it appears that "taharrush" is a social activity/activism by Muslim men to achieve public humiliation of women. Making this publicly (i.e. in the public space) is required for humiliation. Here is another scholarly source about it. My very best wishes (talk) 02:38, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This source does not define the phenomenon as you do. The article makes it very clear that the phenomenon at hand is called "sexual harassment" and refers to it in its Arabic form in order to specify the legal struggle of defining harassment. The very title makes that plain enough. The article by the way does not refer to "Muslim men" but to the gendered nature of space in Egypt. As it stands, neither the term "Muslim" or "Islam" are present in the document, and the word "Islamic" is employed as a quote of one of the parties of a conflict. There may be sources providing a defition of a hypothetical phenomenon such as the one you provide, but this clearly is not one. 88.105.128.78 (talk) 09:25, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

STRONG KEEP The article is well-sourced and is not biases. It discusses a real activity that people will seek to understand.Kmccook (talk) 02:49, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'd like to discuss the fact that Taharrush gamea is presented as a distinct and somehow new form of sexual harassment:

Sources in the article use the term Taharrush gamea as the local term for “collective harassment” in Egypt: nothing justifies creating an article for a mere translation.
Scientific articles study the phenomenon of sexual harassment in the Egyptian context, especially during the Revolution and as a political tool, but the fact these studies exist does not mean sexual harassment is specific to Egypt. Sexual harassment is a universal phenomenon with particularities in every country/situation: if the topic of the article is sexual harassment in Egypt, it should be called Sexual harassment in Egypt. Nothing in the sources point to taharrush as a distinct concept from Sexual harassment or as something typical of Arab or Muslim countries.
All sources about Taharrush being spread in Europe are VERY recent (not more than a few weeks) and most of them are based on a single report from the German police.

It is also necessary to recall that harassment or rape of women in the public space by men or groups of men is a well-documented phenomenon in Western societies ([26], [27], [28], [29], [30], etc.): presenting it with a foreign word as if it was something foreign is really worrisome for the neutrality of Wikipedia. --Superbenjamin (talk) 09:15, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your examples are not on point since they show that sexual crimes happens the world over. However, this discussion is about a specific type of sexual assault, carried out by a group of men who surround and physically detain a woman in a crowd, forcibly detaining her while they grope her, force their hands into her clothing, sometimes remove some or all of her clothing, rob her, and verbally taunt and humiliate her, and sometimes rape her and/or beat her, before they themselves disappear into the crowd and escape. There are a number of types of sexual assault. This discussion focuses on this specific type.E.M.Gregory (talk) 10:49, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It's precisely my point: there is no source demonstrating that this type of assault originated in Egypt or the Arab world. If an article is needed about Egypt, it should be Sexual harassment in Egypt. If an article is needed about collective harassment, it has no reason to have a name in Arabic and should be Collective harassment. --Superbenjamin (talk) 12:48, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Your title shows a failure to grasp the topic, since forcible groping is not "sexual harrassment"; it is sexual assault. There could perhaps be an article about "group sexual assault" separate from gang rape as a wider phenom, but this article has sources asserting that this is a culturally specific phenomenon that emerged in Egypt, recently, first as a police tactic to suppress female participation in protest demonstrations, and was then taken up by groups of young men for the sheer joy of assaulting women. There are sources supporting this, and we should keep this discussion focused.E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:03, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
In which case using the Arabic term for "harassment" is even wronger. 88.105.128.78 (talk) 21:17, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Lara Logan's account of her attacks in Egypt gives an example of the level of violence. If Wikipedia is to be a reliable source for women as well as men it cannot cover up men's behavior whatever the culture. ^[1]Kmccook (talk) 13:04, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

^ CBS Reporter Recounts a ‘Merciless’ Assault New York Times April 11, 2011 http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/29/business/media/29logan.html?_r=0

- Sources describe this primarily as a public humiliation of European women by groups of Muslim men in public places that involves sexual harassment and frequently a robbery. This looks like a distinct phenomenon.My very best wishes (talk) 15:00, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please, show me the sources “asserting that this is a culturally specific phenomenon”: none of the scientific sources say that, but there are plenty of examples of collective assaults on women outside of the Arab World. I don't understand how it is possible to ignore the fact that “taharrush gamea” means “collective harassment”: in Egypt, sexual harassment by the police or any other person is called that. There is absolutely no argument for using another term than “collective harassment” (or “assault”) in English.

“cover[ing] up men's behavior whatever the culture”? But this article implies a universal phenomenon is Arabic, despite evidences it's not the case: that‘s covering up rape culture in the West and the rest of the world (and racism).

“public humiliation of European women by groups of Muslim men in public places”: where on earth have you read that!? In Egypt, Egyptian women are the first victims of assaults, harassment and rapes, especially when this ‘technique’ is used by the government against activists. Transforming that in a assault of Muslims against white women is a racist manipulation of the facts. --Superbenjamin (talk) 15:34, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It only matters how this term is currently used in English language sources. Right now the term is actively used in English, German, Russian, Swedish and Norwegian language sources. Speaking about collective harassment (note that word "sexual" is missing), yes, perhaps that might be an appropriate alternative name or redirect, however sources on these languages do not actually use this term. Speaking about Arabic, yes, this is obviously relevant - as an etymology of the term. My very best wishes (talk) 16:01, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The article doesn't call it a culturally specific phenomenon nor does it need to be a culturally specific phenomenon for it to have a dedicated article. Fojr (talk) 15:46, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, this is certainly the case if we speak about current version (as we do). My very best wishes (talk) 17:27, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

First I have asked to merge Rape in Egypt (the title is much more controversial) into Taharrush (gamea). The 2000 Puerto Rican Day Parade attacks show a similar behavior pattern for young machos in a non muslim country btw. Polentarion Talk 17:14, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure there are sources claiming that Taharrush attacks in Europe were racially or religiously motivated. If there are such sources, this should be noted. If there are no such sources, then obviously, no. My very best wishes (talk) 17:27, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please keep this article. If the politically correct police don't like it they can edit the article to include their comments and changes. The facts don't change it has and continues to happen. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 160.69.0.133 (talk) 17:32, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Two !votes (one keep, one delete, to avoid conspiracy claims... ) and their attached comments have been moved to the main section (!vote), above the present section. Pldx1 (talk) 17:08, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
No more relevant.
Pldx1 (talk) 08:16, 19 January 2016 (UTC) [reply]

Strong delete The article takes a single event, turns it into a social phenomenon, and presents biased and unproven by the literature explanations of this so-called phenomenon. It compromises the integrity of Wikipedia. 88.105.128.78 (talk) 11:18, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

— 88.105.128.78 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at UTC timestamp (UTC). E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:14, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – A lot of coverage and is a definite concept. --Article editor (talk) 11:44, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP This article is well-sourced and is not biased. It describes a phenomena which is hard to understand and new in Europe. The press in Britain uses this term. I agree with a previous keep-comment on this. The article describes a crime that has taken place several times in Germany and Sweden lately, which people will seek to understand. Oyvindlyslo (talk) 14:08, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

— Oyvindlyslo (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at UTC timestamp (UTC). Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 23:18, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP per Dwaipayan. Some references were copied & pasted from the French and German Wikipedia, I corrected and/or translated most of them, others are caring for the rest presently. --tickle me 15:02, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP With the amount of references that have been added so far, it would be completely absurd to delete the article. Fojr (talk) 15:30, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the amount of references means it has achieved WP:SIGCOV and therefore WP:GNG notability and so the article can't be deleted. It could be improved with prevalence, history, definition etcetera. AadaamS (talk) 17:54, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP This is a recurring phenomena that people need to be aware of for their own protection. Deleting this amounts to political censorship. --Paldrion (talk) 19:16, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

— Paldrion (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at UTC timestamp (UTC). Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 23:18, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP There are plenty of reliable sources. I can only imagine that the nomination to delete has some political basis. 2.98.172.201 (talk) 00:59, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

— 2.98.172.201 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at UTC timestamp (UTC). Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 06:17, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP: i came to get the non spin version of facts rather than relying on simple news stories. articles like this absolutely have a place to inform people. Nosdan (talk) 01:43, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

— Nosdan (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at UTC timestamp (UTC). Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 06:17, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

hey nutjob Flyer22 Reborn keep your paranoid schizophrenic accusations well away from my comments and preferably out of wikipedia altogether. they are neither wanted nor helpful. Nosdan (talk) 06:54, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:Talk, do not mess with my comment like you did earlier. As for your WP:Personal attack, meh. I know when I'm right. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 06:52, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

do not make unsubstantiated accusations about me (or anyone else for that matter), thanks Nosdan (talk) 07:10, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This little "This account is not good enough for its arguments to be considered" game has lasted long enough and does provide none to little insight to the debate. Out personal observations about each other's personalities are irrelevant to the matter at hand. The content of an argument is unrelated to the durable presence of an account on the website. Please try to maintain the discussion on a factual, rather than ad hominem, level. 88.105.128.78 (talk) 09:15, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

WP:Single-purpose accounts matter because they should not be allowed to WP:Game the system; you know that. Single-purpose accounts voting in AfDs will always matter, and rightly so. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 09:24, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Which is what the IP identification system prevents. Besides, this is completely outside of the point I was making. Please keep to the arguments instead of making this discussion ad hominem. Because someone could have the idea of following all your messages with "This account has a strong tendency to deviate the discussion to personal accusations rather than arguments", which would only make the page less interesting and legible. End of the discussion on my side about that topic, please do stop the fingerpointing. 88.105.128.78 (talk) 09:28, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever points you are making about the single-purpose accounts, I disagree with them. And I'm sure you know why. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 09:31, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for stopping your little exercise of modifying other people's comments and deplacing them in the page. These comments have been written exactly where and in the way they were meant to be written.If someone feels the urge of contributing to the debate on single-use accounts, there is no doubt they shall. In the meantime, these messages are beside the thread about your contributions being unhelpful to the page so far and they are very well where they are. Thank you. 88.105.128.78 (talk) 09:38, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I did not modify others' comments. I reverted you on moving my comments out of place. As seen here and here, you are moving others' comments. The Nosdan account has modified others' posts as well. So I note again that I did not strike through my comments above. E.M.Gregory did not strike through his comment. Nosdan struck through our comments. And as for who has been helpful in this AfD, you have not been. I see nothing helpful from you in this AfD. Noting single-purpose accounts in an AfD? Yeah, that's helpful. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 09:52, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This conversation has lasted long enough re. its interest for the matter at hand. The fact is that my comments were displaced. The rest has absolutely no importance to me. Please do not hesitate if you ever feel the urge to actually contribute to the debate. Best. 88.105.128.78 (talk) 15:35, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

flyer22 and please stop with your personal attacks and unfounded accusations. i will allow you to continually focus your hate on me for no reason. Nosdan (talk) 10:03, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Those who want this deleted have no strong arguments towards its non-notability and while it requires an increase in credible sources it is certainly within WP:N Hemi9 (talk) 03:01, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment to closer: This AfD has a number of WP:Single-purpose accounts and WP:Sleepers. No doubt in my mind that WP:Socking is going on here. A tainted AfD. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 06:17, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That is...unless the one-time accounts and other barely-there accounts can be chalked up to the media attention. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 06:24, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Reminder to everyone. Using UPPERCASES don't make an upper opinion, using strong don't make a stronger opinion. Arguments are read and weighted, that's all. An amusing remark, among the 24 !votes above this one, the average registration date among the 5 delete is 2010-09-04, the average registration date among the 19 keep is 2010-08-20... nothing to endorse the usual conspiracy theories. And now the arguments to keep: it cannot be said that the Köln Hamburg Frankfurt Stuttgart Bielefeld Düsseldorf Helsinki Malmö Helsingborg Karlstad Kalmar others events aren't notable. Each of them has been covered by Reliable Sources. It is clear, and written in the sources, that these events belong to a same pattern, that has to be described and commented. Pldx1 (talk) 14:17, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP: This does seem to be distinct from other forms of sexual and street harassment, and it is held to be a new tactic/phenomenon which emerged initially out of the activities of the Egyptian security forces. If it is a recognisable and novel tactic of oppression then it is deserving of a distinct name (even if - or perhaps especially because - it has gone viral from it's original incarnation). The arguments in favour of deletion seem to be 1) that it doesn't exist, 2) that if certain behaviours do exist, they are not distinct from harrassment, and that "Taharrush gamea" is no more than a new term for an old behaviour. It's not the role of wikipedia editors to define what does and does not exist, even if it were fictional and fantasy elements even homeopathy have pages. It may be a page that gets culled in time, but at least while people believe this to be happening, and absolutely while there is evidence that this is a distinct behaviour that developed during the policing of protests in Egypt it is certainly a thing that exists in reality and there is a literature on politically motivated sexual violence in Egypt.

I'm going to quote from an article directly because not all of you may have access to academic journals

In "Understanding Politically Motivated Sexual Assault in Protest Spaces: Evidence from Egypt (March 2011 to June 2013), Tadros (Social Legal Studies March 30, 2015) notes:

"In analysing several incidents in Tahrir Square, Shash (2013) argued that they have common characteristics:

1. they take place in squares and public spaces associated with protests;

2. they happen during times when protests and demonstrations are held;

3. the assaulted are disproportionately activists, whether women or men (even though there have been assaults on citizens who have no history of political activism);

4. sexual violence is used in conjunction with other forms of violence;

5. sexual violence is not enacted on a one-to-one basis but through a group of men, collectively and simultaneously assaulting the victim; and

6. sexual assault does not occur in a passing moment, but is sustained over a period of time."

Which seems to have some correlations with accounts from Cologne Tadros further notes that it is difficult to define, describe the behaviour because it is novel.

And "there is still a gap in international studies of MPR [Multiple Perpetrator Rape] in politically tumultuous, non-war settings. For example, the Harkins and Dixon’s 2010 classification of different contexts of multiple perpetrator sexual offending include (among a long list) rape in war, prison rapes and rape in countries under corrupt governments. Technically, none of these quite describe the Egypt context in which politically motivated sexual assault occurred in 2011–2013 under two different non-war governments (military and Islamist), which are best described as ‘politically unstable’ rather than corrupt per se and sexual assault was not only occurring in prisons but in open public squares as well.

Whilst it is difficult to establish empirically and categorically the motivations for sexual assault in Egypt, this should not deter scholars’ and researchers’ efforts from seeking to disentangle the various drivers of sexual violence at different junctures and spaces"^[1]

^ "Understanding Politically Motivated Sexual Assault in Protest Spaces Evidence from Egypt (March 2011 to June 2013)". "Social & Legal Studies". Sage Journals. March 30, 2015. doi:10.1177/0964663915578187. Retrieved 14 January 2016. Tadros, M. (2015). Behind a Sage publications paywall

It could be argued that the behaviours alleged in Cologne are distinct from what happened in Tahir Square (perhaps because they are depoliticised), but that will emerge in time, and it is not the role of amateur wiki sleuths to decide that issue.

Finally the name is useful not least because it is being used as the name for this activity in mainstream media and, English in particular has a strong tradition of borrowing words from other languages to describe new things from shampoo to assassins.

Connees (talk) 16:10, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

— Connees (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at UTC timestamp (UTC). Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 16:27, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This article is indeed pretty helpful in evaluating the situation at hand. It argues, for instance, that "the aggregation of politically and socially motivated sexual assault on account of their common patriarchal basis may be analytically unhelpful. Patriarchal, hyper masculine values do not necessarily bear a causal relationship with sexual violence. Wood (2013: 146) points to countries such as Sri Lanka that have rigid gender hierarchies subordinating women yet do not experience high prevalence of sexual assault in conflict.", thus making a clear point that the type of violence it studies is neither "Muslim", nor "Arab", but indeed political. This is reinforced by the fact that the author insists that the study related to "sexual assault against women (although men have been sexually assaulted too), in a particular space (protest space) and in a particular political moment (in a country experiencing political turmoil after a dictatorship of 30 years was overthrown after a popular uprising)", a definition of the object which clearly rules out Germany, or any other Northern European country - or indeed any situation which is not the sexual violence committed against women in Tahrir Square - from its scope. This is finally clarified when the author states, at the beginning of their case study, that "The Egyptian regime has a long history of deploying sexual assault against women and men to repress, curb and punish political dissidents. A number of intertwining contextual factors sustained a culture of silence and impunity in relation to sexual assault, irrespective of their motivation including (i) the deeply entrenched social more associated with honour being embodied in the sexual purity of women, (ii) the legal framework and (iii) the political will and practices of the ruling regimes". An assertion which is reinforced by the conclusion of the article which insists on comprehending the phenomena "By examining the culture, politics and legal framework governing GBV in Egypt during this time". To say the least, these elements indicate that for the matter at hand, this article makes the very point of the people who oppose the creation of this page, which is that it associates to the forms of repressive sexual violence in Egypt - which deserve to be talked about - every other form of sexual violence commited by Arab or Muslim men in public places, because in both case the perpetrators are Arabs, regardless of the context in which such violence is committed. This has the triple effect of 1. compromising Wikipedia's integrity by conveying racist prejudice, 2. ruling out every form of sexual violence in festive context and in public places in Europe in which the perpetrators are not Arab or Muslim men, and 3. blurring the definition of the phenomenon of political sexual violence in Egypt by entirely ruling out the fact that by all accounts it has been a policy aimed at repressing social opposition to an authoritarian regimes. In the meantime, as there is strictly no evidence that the events in Cologne derive from the same type of phenomena as the repressive sexual violence observed in 2011 and 2013 onwards in Egypt, it remains over-interpretive to associate them, especially when that association rules out cases which appear to be much more accurate in a comparison, such as sexual violence in the Férias de Nîmes in the French context. To put it more clearly: Egypt is not Germany, German party-goers are not Tahrir demonstrators, and the attackers in Germany were not Egyptian policemen. Hence, the comparison between these two things is extremely dubious. All of which, by the way, is beside the point if we consider that the debate is to know whether a specific page with a translitterated Arabic title, since the author does not employ the term in their article, except in one occasion because it is the name of an Egyptian NGO. If we can all agree that it is not for Wikipedia "sleuths" to establish whether the term is adequate, it also happens that it is Wikipedia's responsibility to decide if it wants to endorse a category which is so far employed by only one source - the German police - thus rendering it natural for further use - and we do see which it is even in this very page - or not. Wikipedia does not have to endorse every rumour out there, in a nutshell. Especially when the effects of endorsing these is to directly have an effect on a political rationale (which is now more than clear from every use of the term quoting Wikipedia as a proof that refugees are all rapists and should be kicked out of Europe, a fact that we cannot shrug away). 88.105.128.78 (talk) 17:22, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

While the quotation of a scholarly source by Connees is completely appropriate and convincing, the response by the IP is an example of WP:OR, pure and simple. No one endorses anything here. We only summarize what reliable sources tell. My very best wishes (talk) 18:47, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Are you aware that half of my contribution consists in quotes from the exact same scolarly source that you find "appropriate and convincing" and shows that the article has been misquoted in the contribution I was answering to, or did you just think "tl;dr, I'll just patronise everyone and not read the other people's arguments" on that one? Connees' argument is a case of WP:OR, which is precisely the point I make by quoting the source. Since you don't seem to have the time to read what someone says before answering - very uninterestingly so, if I may - let me summarise it for you, so that you don't have to confront yourself with too much reading from the research paper which I quote in my first paragraph: the article from Tadros says the exact contrary of what Connees tells it says. For more details, see the actual long development I have taken the time to put together after taking the time to read the paper entirely, and do not hesitate to restrain from throwing arrogant messages which entirely miss their point about without any form of argumentation in the future. Thanks a lot. 88.105.77.83 (talk) 23:39, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but your posts are difficult to understand. Here is the source and it is clearly written. The publication tells about this particular type of gender-oriented attack and describes its distinct characteristics: (a) it is directed specifically against women as gender to suppress them politically and exclude them from public life; (b) "such cases involved multiple perpetrators, in numbers that sometimes make it difficult for survivors to even count them", (c) "it is unclear who the perpetrators were, and if they were hired, who hired them", (d) some of the identified members belonged to the Muslim Brotherhood and possibly other similar organizations, (e) this happens in public places, etc. This is just another good source on the subject of this page and it should be used for sourcing. My very best wishes (talk) 04:54, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to New Year's Eve sexual assaults in Germany per WP:RECENTISM. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 16:29, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Recentism is an ESSAY, nothing more. And this essay doesn't say that Helsinki, Malmö, Helsingborg, Karlstad, Kalmar, Vienna, etc. are in Germany. Dit I miss something ? Pldx1 (talk) 16:51, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Cannot see how redirect is appropriate, since this article discusses this as a phenomenon with examples in several countries, years.E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:38, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Rape in Egypt or Move to Sexual harassment in Egypt or Sexual assault in Egypt. The current title is essentially just taking the Egyptian pronunciation of the Arabic word for collective harassment and assigning it to an article about groups of people committing sexual harassment, sexual assault, and rape in Egypt, and this title makes it more difficult for English-speaking readers to find what they're looking for when sifting through categories or doing a search of Wikipedia. A clear plain-English title can help people who have heard of the problem but don't have a word for it, while redirects using this term (and similar terms in Arabic) can help people who have heard or seen the term but don't know what it is. Moving the content into plain-English article titles also helps keep Wikipedia consistent, matching other articles like Rape in Germany and Rape in France. See WP:NC for guidance on article naming. -NorsemanII (talk) 17:45, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

NorsemanII appears not to understand that this is not an article about events in Egypt, it is an Arabic term that is being applied in German, English and other languages to a unique type of group sexual assault being documented by journalists in several European countries, as well as in Egypt (where sources state that this term/usage originated) and, according to The Express Tribune in Pakistsn: [31].E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:09, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

More than half of the article being about Egypt, NorsemanII's remark is both relevant, and adequate. 88.105.128.78 (talk) 18:17, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

— 88.105.128.78 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:14, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It seems, dear E.M. Gregory, that you have on many occasions now been asked to stop your little fingerpointing campaign. If you are unable to respond to an argument, there is no need for you to do so. Especially by pointless contributions such as the ones you are constantly making. Do not hesitate to actually contribute to the debate if you feel the urge to. 88.105.77.83 (talk) 23:49, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This page is not about rape, and it is not about Egypt. This is new and a distinct international phenomenon. Perhaps one could propose a better name, specifically for this phenomenon, however name used in English language sources and other languages, including even Russian, is "Taharrush gamea". My very best wishes (talk) 18:32, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

FAZ entry about the deWP article and its name. Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung described the deWP article and its extension with real sourcing and confirms the "weird carreer" of the term in the last week, including a confirmation, (refering to a current report of the Minsitry of intererior of NRW to a parlament group) that that taharrush gamea behavior respectively the Tahirsquare events have some strong parallels to the events in Cologne. WP:Snow, someone should close this. Polentarion Talk 18:24, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The discussion is about keep or delete, nothing else. Proposing a redirect of Malmö, Vienna and Köln to Cairo (and why not women to ghosts) is irrelevant. By the way, let us tell User:88.105.128.78, who appears to be a newcomer, that trying to flood the discussion with 15 contributions will not give them more weight. An interresting piece of opinion related to the keep choice is http://femen.org/inna-shevchenko-if-feminists-and-liberals-remain-silent-xenophobes-will-write-their-own-history/ . Pldx1 (talk) 18:59, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

So, according to this source, "As the Cologne police reports, they have now received more than 500 complaints, 40% of which relate to allegations of sexual assault. On Friday, the interior ministry said Germany’s federal police had identified 32 suspects ... The German minister of Justice Heiko Maas has said he believes that the sexual assaults in Cologne were ‘coordinated and prepared’ ahead of time." Points to note: (a) only 40% of attacks are related to sexual assault (yes, that was a gender-oriented assault, but not necessarily sexual), and (b) the attacks have been prepared in advance and involved very large number of people: thousands attackers and hundreds victims. That is what makes this phenomenon unique and worthy a separate page. This is not merely a rape or harassment. My very best wishes (talk) 20:09, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP The campaign for deletion is plainly political, rather than editorial. On the basis of that fact alone, the article must remain. CletusJunk 11:27, 16 Jan 2016 (UTC)

— CletusJunk (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:16, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

delete: It's clearly a neologism that's been created in recent days. After an appropriate amount of time if the concept is used more often and frequently, an article should be created about it - otherwise wikipedia can be seen as a method to create new terms instead of being a place to find new terms. If someone can find a reference to the term from before recent events the page should stay otherwise it needs to swiftly be removed. Countered |talk 14:19, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This page is not about word, but about actually existing phenomenon. Moreover, nothing prevents from having pages about neologisms. We have hundreds of them - see Category:Neologisms. My very best wishes (talk) 14:51, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Neologism are not banned on Wikipedia, nor are new phenomena. As with every topic, if the sourcing suffices to pass WP:GNG, the article stays.E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:16, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - We dont delete articles simply because they cover a controversial topic. This article has good sourcing and this is indeed a subject that is highlighted by recent events by men from a certain geographic area of the world. It is imformative and the topic is very relevant. The references clearly points towards this topic being the real deal and should be kept. BabbaQ (talk) 18:00, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is a cultural phenomenon that deserves its own article. First and foremost, there are many documented occurrences from several countries. It is not an isolated event. Plus it has history - it is not new. This is a political expression towards women who do not dress a certain way and the political intent is to humiliate and shame women into compliance with a strict political ideology. Yes, sexual harassment occurs all around the globe as does gang rape. They are each isolated to the twist thinking of the perpetrators. However, in this article, the use of sexual molestation is for political use with a goal and purpose in mind. Research into sexual abuse of women for political purposes did not just start in Germany this past year. Dig into articles written by Arab women in the early 2000's and you will read of government men raping women who are activists - or whose husbands were activists. It has evolved into non-government activity by groups of citizens who make a political statement against Western dress/values. We need to keep this article as it isa real existing topic. Rjcb6552 (talk) 17:11, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

— Rjcb6552 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at UTC timestamp (UTC). Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 17:51, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Preceding comment moved at the end of the section, according to chronological order. Pldx1 (talk) 17:19, 17 January 2016 (UTC) [reply]

""comment"" From what I read here, there is enough material and references to write an entire article about group harassment. I think it would partially solve the problems discussed here (At least the ones raised in good faith). With a section about it in different countries, circumstances and settings. the article could also state the different points of view on the occurrences including statements of the victims, perpetrators and examples of the local opinions. --Amanouz (talk) 22:00, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP: this is obviously a real thing as shown in Cologne on the 2016 NYE — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.228.112.21 (talk) 22:24, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The notability of this topic is obvious from a Google search, and the sources refer to it as a specific phenomenon, not merely a synonym for harassment.

BBC: "The report describes a modus operandi known as "taharrush gamea" in Arabic, meaning group sexual harassment in crowds, and compares it to incidents reported in Cairo's Tahrir Square at the time of the Egyptian revolution."
New York Times: "The sexual attacks on women in Cologne and other European towns and cities (Kalmar, Sweden; Salzburg, Austria; Zurich; and Helsinki, Finland) that have been attributed largely to men of Arab or North African descent seem to be the phenomenon known as "taharrush jami`" -- a deliberate, organized sexual harassment of women by large groups of men."
Gatestone Institute: ""Cultural enrichment" has brought us a new word: Taharrush. Remember it well, because we are going to have to deal with it a lot. Taharrush is the Arabic word for the phenomenon whereby women are encircled by groups of men and sexually harassed, assaulted, groped, raped. After the Cologne taharrush on New Year's Eve, many German women bought pepper spray. Who can blame them?"
India Times: "When the first incidents of women being assaulted by crowds of Arab men came out of Cologne, Germany, during New Years Eve, the news was being suppressed. Realisation it seems has now dawned and the German Federal Criminal Police Office, BKA, says that the alleged Arab rape game Taharrush is now in Europe."
Associated Press: " Police fear that the Arabic gangrape phenomenon ‘Taharrush’ has spread to German cities after a series of sexual attacks on women during the New Year.

Taharrush refers to collective harassment of women that is often carried out by large groups of men. These men assault lone women, either by groping or raping them. These men surround their victims in circles. Some of the men sexually assault women, while others often watch the women being assaulted.

Sometimes, the victim also gets robbed by these men during the ordeal.

These attacks on women frequently go unpunished as it becomes difficult to trace those who carried out the assaults."

It's quite clear that this is a notable topic, and the opposition to the article is based on WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT. --Sammy1339 (talk) 01:01, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - obviously passes notability requirements (WP:GNG). Clearly a contentious topic, content must be worked out on talk page, but deletion is an unreasonable alternative here.LM2000 (talk) 01:18, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Seems to be an obvious keep. SarahSV ^(talk) 02:48, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
'Keep' It is discussed in many sources and has happened as an alleged phenomenon. The article may be subject to refinement, but it plainly should be kept, not censored, deleted, obfuscated or hid. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 03:01, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
'Keep' Russia Today has both a description of Taharrush gamea and [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-pHnQ6W2KkM footage of an attack taking place. --The Vintage Feminist (talk) 16:09, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Information: The german WP decision was KEEP.--Empiricus-sextus (talk) 18:21, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Currently, the German Wikipedia has found a solution: de:Taharrush gamea is explaining the creation of that word by the federal police (internal document) and a news paper citing them (Die Welt) and a broad criticism of this creation. The most associated parts and examples are moved because they are not part of that lemma, in acceptance of the main author Polentarion (which is the main author of the english article too), into the article de:Sexuelle Gewalt in Ägypten. That would be the correct version. Otherwise you should delete because of OR. -- 77.64.190.242 (talk) 15:48, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Until now there is no-Consensus to reduce this phenomena only in this direction. "BKA-Explanation and critic". There is only the consensus to build a wide lemma - for all sexual attacks in Egypt. Greetings. --Empiricus-sextus (talk) 18:16, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

note Here's Josef Joffe in today's Wall Street Journal: "Young Christian males also don’t always obey Miss Manners when traveling in packs. But their culture doesn’t have a word for taharrush gamea, as practiced in some Arab lands: a group-grope where young men encircle women to jeer, molest and rob them.[32].E.M.Gregory (talk) 23:58, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, as was also noted in New York Times article, this is partly a cultural phenomenon: "If women are out and about in the street without a male escort, then, under this attitude, they are fair game for groping, or worse, by any man". That is exactly what I have seen during old Soviet times in places like Bukhara - women tourists could not walk alone on the streets. When one or two tourist women were accompanied by a Russian man, locals on the street considered women in the group as a property of that man, very literally. But what had happened in European cities is actually a different story. My very best wishes (talk) 03:38, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

keep: notability is sources and there are strong sources here. Support efforts such as Empiricus-sextus' to re-cast the article, however. Stuartyeates (talk) 00:48, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: This article lists a few examples of sexual assaults in Egypt and suddenly concludes that is a "phenomenon", and one that is uniquely "Arab". The sources are weak: German police officials are cited as the main proponents of this theory, and there is no indication that any of them is a sociologist or a scholar of any relevant field. Heck, none of them even speaks Arabic, or been into an Arab country. But simply by virtue of being white, OP have turned them into experts on Arab/Muslim society and culture, and their judgements are passed as undisputed truths, and worthy of an article. And by using the literal translation of "mass sexual assaults" in Arabic as the title, that makes it officially an Arab phenomenon!

Furthermore, the body of the article is quite ridiculous. Consider the following sentence:

Some parallels have been drawn to Eve teasing and the mob of youngsters that harassed women and couples in a year 2000 New York Parade (Puerto Rican Day Parade attacks).

So basically this article cites earlier examples of mass sexual assaults, as a supporting argument that it is an Arab phenomenon? You'd think editors at this point would stop, and ask themselves whether the cited German officers/other pretentious euro-supremacists are full of crap and perhaps reconsider this phenomenon as one that exhibits in large male crowds, and one that transcends all cultures?

This article serves no purpose other than perpetuating the euro-supremacist anti-immigrant narrative that regards Arab and North African individuals as sexual predators. Al-Andalusi (talk) 03:44, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP. SERIOUSLY? Who would want to delete this very important article as it becomes more and more timely in Europe? Do you really want people to come to Wikipedia looking for this term and find out that it's been proposed for deletion? The very fact that someone proposed this article for deletion makes me despair for Wikipedia. How on earth does Wikipedia hope to attract women editors and contributors? Easy tip: if you're a guy and the article concerns women: YOU shouldn't propose it for deletion. Evangeline (talk) 09:02, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Evangeline: Are you in support of renaming the article to "mass sexual assaults"? Al-Andalusi (talk) 17:58, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No. Evangeline (talk) 22:08, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Al-Andalusi: "The sources are weak" - This is the official source of the German Federal Police and the context: "Die Tatbegehungsform sexualisierter Gewaltstraftaten durch Gruppen in Verbindung mit Eigentum- / Raubdelikten ist in der Ausprägung der Kölner Gewalttaten in Deutschland nicht aufgetreten. Diese Gewaltstraftaten sind insbesondere von den bereits polizeilich seit längerem verfolgten Antanzdelikten deutlich zu unterscheiden…So liegen dem Bundeskriminalamt Erkenntnissee dazu vor, dass in arabischen Ländern ein Modus Operandi bekannt ist, der als „taharrush gamea“ (gemeinsame sexuelle Belästigung in Menschmengen) bezeichnet wird. Darüber wurde z.B. anlässlich der ägyptischen Revolution von den Medien berichtet... Vor diesem Hintergrund hat sich bereits am 8.01.2016 die AG Kripo im Auftrag der Innenressorts von Bund und Ländern damit befasst und beschlossen, dieses Phänomen unverzüglich analysieren zu lassen und dabei auch Erkenntnisse aus dem Ausland einzubeziehen."[fore more see Government of NRW]--Empiricus-sextus (talk) 09:06, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Empiricus-sextus:And you think that the German Federal Police is a reliable reference on Arab/Egyptian affaris because...? Al-Andalusi (talk) 17:58, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The BKA paper is the main source for a large amount of newspaper quotations of the term (evident from their use of a slightly wrong transkription). The FAZ has now two articles elaborating on the "weird career" of the term in Wikipedia. WP:Snow applies. Polentarion Talk 19:02, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Figures are slightly evolving. 31 keep (averages: 16623 edits, 02/03/10 registration) v. 7 delete (averages: 8997 edits, 02/28/11 registration). Time to close ? Pldx1 (talk) 13:17, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: This has been in the news quite a bit, the purpose of an encyclopedia is to explain known concepts. Gzuufy (talk) 21:30, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Casiotone. I'm redirecting pretty much per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Casio SK-8 - No point redirecting a few and relisting the rest so I'm just redirecting them all. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 00:08, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Casio SK-8

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

No indication of notability. Just a list of specifications. BoxOfChickens (talk · contribs · CSD/ProD log) 17:16, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Casiotone Seasider91 (talk) 17:42, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. clpo13_(talk) 17:41, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Casiotone. I'm redirecting pretty much per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Casio SK-8 - No point redirecting a few and relisting the rest so I'm just redirecting them all. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 00:09, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Casio MT-100

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

Unsourced, no indication of notability. BoxOfChickens (talk · contribs · CSD/ProD log) 17:15, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Casiotone Seasider91 (talk) 17:45, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Casiotone. I'm redirecting pretty much per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Casio SK-8 - No point redirecting a few and relisting the rest so I'm just redirecting them all. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 00:09, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Casio FZ-1

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

Unsourced, no indication of notability. Just specifications. BoxOfChickens (talk · contribs · CSD/ProD log) 17:12, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Casiotone Seasider91 (talk) 17:45, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I don't agree with the redirect to Casiotone. Other than the fact they were made by the same company, there is no connection. One is a range of inexpensive home keyboards; the other is a very expensive, professional-standard (in its day) sampler. As for the proposal to delete, I don't agree with it. The FZ-1 (and its variants) was a pretty notable instrument in its day. The first 'affordable' 16-bit sampler and used by a fair few notable musicians, albeit nowhere near as popular as the Akai S900 and S950, its main competition. Although long superseded by more modern machines, and of course by software samplers, the FZ-1 is still used by some musicians today; it has become a desirable retro item. I agree the article needs a lot of improvement but I don't see that it should simply be deleted just because it is currently not up to scratch. Dubmill (talk) 21:14, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. clpo13_(talk) 17:40, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Casiotone. I'm redirecting pretty much per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Casio SK-8 - No point redirecting a few and relisting the rest so I'm just redirecting them all. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 00:09, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Casio SK-5

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

Unsourced, just specifications. BoxOfChickens (talk · contribs · CSD/ProD log) 17:09, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Casiotone Seasider91 (talk) 17:48, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. clpo13_(talk) 17:41, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Per consensus Philg88 ^♦talk 08:21, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Devita Saraf

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

Request from subject article received at OTRS Amortias (T)(C) 16:46, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as not notable. Legacypac (talk) 16:51, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:08, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:08, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep The article needs copyedit, but the sources are good and I've added a few more. She passes GNG completely. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 18:38, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In addition, I think the article needs to be re-evaluated for the tags on the top of the article. I don't see any evidence of personal research. I've tried to address the copyedit issues and as per BLP I think I'm removing the somewhat "criminal" implication of Vu tech at the bottom. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 19:17, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I dont see why so called "criminal" implications should be removed. She was a named accused by SEBI and being founder and what-not of Vu these things should be mentioned. Btw, if you guys have not been through the history then let me put it her that the subject and her paid editors seemed to be very much happy until the article had tons of trophys and copyvio images and all glitters. I and few more editors cleaned the resume and in that process added some "negative" aspects to the biography which prominently featured in top google hits about Saraf. Its since then that we have seen sock traffic removing this content. I have lost my access to OTRS for inactivity and wanted to ask @Amortias: if the OTRS mentions any reason for deletion of the article. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 03:21, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Dharmadhyaksha: I'll have to chek if we can release that and I'll get back to you when I can advise further. Amortias (T)(C) 16:52, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Cant advise further other than that they requested it be deleted, they haven't given permission for their specifics to be released. Amortias (T)(C) 17:35, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I removed it because it's not really about her and I think that BLP need to be treated with caution. Sorry you've had issues with socks, but in other discussions of BLP where "criminal" issues came up, they were to be treated very carefully. If the consensus is keep that info in, I understand, since it's sourced. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 18:06, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Fair. The content issue can be discussed on the talk page sometime. But I see no policy based reason from anyone here and as no reason from OTRS can be divulged I see no reason to keep the AfD going. Keep it is. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 07:08, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep - the only notability is that she is a woman ("Woman Leadership Award"). Otherwise the person is an average executive. 22:39, 12 January 2016 (UTC) (missed sig: Staszek Lem (talk) 18:25, 14 January 2016 (UTC))[reply]

Response to "unsigned" she's notable for WP:GNG, not because she's a woman CEO. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 18:08, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You are confusing wikipedia and real life. Not to say that I am entitled to my opinion, based on what is written in sources cited. Staszek Lem (talk) 18:25, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Tentative Keep I believe as the article seems currently convincing but I'm also willing to change if others show and think otherwise as frankly I'm not entirely saying keep. Notifying the only considerably still active 1st AfDers Timtrent, Sitush, RegentsPark, Dharmadhyaksha and Ekabhishek. SwisterTwister talk 02:32, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Brought here by SwisterTwister's ping, I see no reason to change the rationale I expressed at the first AfD nomination. Like it or loathe it, she passes GNG. I don't recall any objections from the subject in rosier times (ie: before the various recent allegations), although it did appear that there was some COI editing going on. People can't have it both ways. - Sitush (talk) 03:03, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep This discussion should be closed. 1, 2, 3. Marvel Hero (talk) 11:56, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Amortias: What do you mean by Request from subject article received at OTRS? Marvel Hero (talk) 11:58, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Marvel Hero: The subject of the article has requested the article is deleted and the request has been received from an e-mail that can be verified as coming from the person who they claim to be. Amortias (T)(C) 16:52, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please refer to my comments at the prior AfD. I offer the same reluctant keep. Fiddle Faddle 17:20, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: As in prior AFD: "Leading ladies:They're the 25 power women of the country" India Today 2010 story. So let's drop the notability issue once and for all, and start getting this article in shape, messy. Those who have time that is. --Ekabhishek^talk 06:06, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: being the first nominee myself have seen sources have grown with time , so no doubt KEEP Shrikanthv (talk) 12:25, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. No requests for this article to be retained have been presented during this discussion. This article is therefore found to be not meet the requirements of WP:GNG, and is deemed to not be notable for inclusion in this encyclopedia. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 23:35, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

IPhone Sessions

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

Contested prod. The title makes it difficult to find sources, but adding Justin Branam to it helps narrow down the list. I couldn't find any RSes for this set of releases. Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:41, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:07, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:07, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - lack of sources, failing the WP:GNG. Its hard to tell what exactly the scope of the article is, but depending your interpretation, the content mentioned seems to fail WP:NBAND, WP:NALBUM, and WP:NSONGS - take your pick. (Largely non-notable artists, music not charting on any major charts, etc.) Sergecross73 msg me 18:13, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to G-shock. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 23:37, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Casio DW-5600C

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

Essentially a list of specifications, no indication of notability other than being worn by celebrities in action movies and the first G-Shock to be qualified by NASA to be worn in space. BoxOfChickens (talk · contribs · CSD/ProD log) 16:40, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:06, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:06, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to G-shock Seasider91 (talk) 17:51, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Snow Keep. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 00:14, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Solomon Time

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

Fails WP:NBOOK JMHamo (talk) 16:15, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:NBOOK, unsourced BoxOfChickens (talk · contribs · CSD/ProD log) 16:47, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:04, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:04, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and source. Flies past WP:NBOOK because of the large number of reviews in major newspapers across the Anglosphere.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:41, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Examples of these reviews include? JMHamo (talk) 19:01, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Just needs expansion.♦ Dr. Blofeld 21:31, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep perhaps as the current sourcing suggests it is notable and acceptable. SwisterTwister talk 06:21, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I added some reviews and I found some of the sources that were already in the article, except one. This needs more expansion than what I've put in the article, but it seems like it'd pass NBOOK now. I haven't checked any of the school databases for reviews at this point in time. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 12:00, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep nuff said. Jonas Vinther • (Click here to collect your prize!) 13:50, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep needs expansion but Passes WP:NBOOK.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 19:52, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You'd think by the snowstorm of Keeps that this article was an obvious flyer, but a search for reviews shows there are actually very few. Randall scrapes back to shore with his knees red and raw from those corals at low tide, but given how ridiculously shallow the notability threshold is, it's true, he does make it. Keep, passes GNG somehow or other. Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:49, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User:Chiswick Chap I added, I think, 3 reviews, 2 by notable writers, all in notable newspapers. That suffices. But the news archive search I ran showed more reviews in major publications. as well as articles that covered the book and its author ("Island life: Will Palmer and Paddy Delany tell John Hudson why they are giving up their comfortable city lives to head to a remote island ravaged by a natural disaster" Hudson, John. Western Daily Press [Bristol (UK)] 31 Oct 2009) The book had its moment. It is important to beware of presentism, and of the fact that a search run in 2016 may not show many results for a book that was very hot as recently as 2002. Fame can be a fleeting thing, but WP:NOTTEMPORARY. Also, it's best to hold the snark unless you've run an archive search and/or have reason to assume bad faith or a tendency to wares exaggeration on another editor's part.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:33, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was nomination withdrawn. Withdrawn by nominator (non-admin closure) JMHamo (talk) 00:12, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Will Randall

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

~~Non-notable, fails WP:AUTHOR~~ JMHamo (talk) 16:03, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

NOMINATION WITHDRAWN JMHamo (talk) 00:11, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:02, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:02, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Has published a number of well-received books that were widely reviewed. Articles needs sourcing, but the quick search I ran showed reviews in major newspapers in several countries.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:45, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment @E.M.Gregory: Please provide examples of your reliable sources. JMHamo (talk) 19:31, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please WP:BEFORE in future.E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:00, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@E.M.Gregory: Are the sources you include about Will Randall the person. They seem to be more about his work. It's hard to tell, I invite more discussion about this. I am still unsure about his notability, I am still inclined to !vote delete. JMHamo (talk) 21:10, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

They are a sampling of the more notable reviews, his first book had a great many reviews, "Indian Summer", only a few. For a writer, book reviews suffice to establish notability. But in Randall's case, There was a great deal written about him at the time his first book came out, and a fair amount in the years since. You simply need to search on a news archive. Here: [33] for example is a typical interview with Randall that ran in The Herald [Glasgow (UK)] 18 June 2005, by Susan Swarbrick, "Bolthole Will Randall" It's about his current "bolthole": "in a little village near Blois on the Loire. It s quiet, so it s great for writing..." Lots of this sort of thing. Brits get off on the idea of running off to a tropical island. E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:19, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep He's notable. My father has a few of his books.♦ Dr. Blofeld 21:31, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oh my.., I didn't say he never wrote a book, JMHamo (talk) 21:38, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per reliable sources being available. Jonas Vinther • (Click here to collect your prize!) 23:05, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep based from its current sourcing as I would've boldly closed this as such but I'll keep it available for any other comments. SwisterTwister talk 02:36, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 03:37, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Several sources are now given, confirming his notability.--Ipigott (talk) 07:29, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:01, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Lincoln Townley

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

No real indication of notability on page of a publicist. He seems to be best known as husband of his more famous wife, but notability isn't inherited. Sources on page are trivial, or not independent of the subject, except for one article in the Manchester Evening News, a local paper. I don't think that's enough to establish notability. FuriouslySerene (talk) 16:02, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Withdraw nomination mistaken nomination.

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

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

The result was speedy deleted by Jimfbleak, CSD G11: Unambiguous advertising or promotion. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 21:17, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Songwriter workshop

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

Promotional Rathfelder (talk) 14:58, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:04, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:04, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

delete - No generic notability beyond business promo. Staszek Lem (talk) 22:43, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Procedural close. Article has been deleted on 12 January 2016 by CorbieVreccan (talk · contribs) (G11: Unambiguous advertising or promotion) (non-admin closure) | Uncle Milty | talk | 18:09, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Navid hamzavi

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

Fails GNG, sources really don't show why the person is notable. No news hits, and one of the sources is " https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Navid_hamzavi&action=submit". CatcherStorm ^talk 14:38, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CatcherStorm ^talk 14:39, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. CatcherStorm ^talk 14:39, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete looks like an attempt at self promotion. I hope he is a better writer then this effort suggests. Legacypac (talk) 14:42, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete self-promotion and no indication at all of notability. Probably a candidate for speedy deletion. FuriouslySerene (talk) 16:05, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nominated for speedy deletion (G11) BoxOfChickens (talk · contribs · CSD/ProD log) 16:50, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - essentially a CV, and it seems likely that the user doesn't quite understand Wikipedia's purpose. (He is clearly a good writer, though. The text linked in one of the references is well-written and rather gripping.) --bonadea contributions talk 17:04, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:35, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Arun Shankar

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

Doesn't seem to have had significant coverage in multiple reliable sources, fails WP:GNG. Also doesn't seem to have passed WP:NACTOR. —UY Scuti ^Talk 13:24, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. —UY Scuti ^Talk 13:25, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. —UY Scuti ^Talk 13:25, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete couldn't find articles to improve page with. Seems to fail GNG and NACTOR. FuriouslySerene (talk) 16:07, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as mentioned, unlikely solid enough to better satisfy WP:CREATIVE. SwisterTwister talk 02:26, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NACTOR and WP:GNG.JackTracker (talk) 20:56, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- RoySmith (talk) 00:51, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Best in Show - Capolavori dell'auto italiana dalla collezione Lopresto - Italian Cars Masterpieces from the Lopresto Collection

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

Non-noptable book. I'm not finding anythign that's making me believe the subjects is notable. It's a bit difficult searching, since there are some mentions of the collection itself -- though not the book. Mikeblas (talk) 12:59, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:18, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:18, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:19, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as there's nothing to suggest a solidly acceptable encyclopedia article here with not even minimally listed sources. SwisterTwister talk 06:22, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Agreed with nomination. Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (relate) 16:19, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG. LibStar (talk) 14:30, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete all WP:CSD#G3 blatant hoax. JohnCD (talk) 15:22, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

La's NTM

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

This article is about a hoax television show. Linguist111 (talk) 12:22, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Linguist means that it is a hoax article. Staszek Lem (talk) 22:51, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. There is no evidence that a Latin-American version of "America's Next Top Model" exists. Linguist111 (talk) 12:24, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages, for the same reason:

La's Next Top Model (cycle 1) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
La's Next Top Model (cycle 2) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
La's Next Top Model (cycle 3) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:20, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Latin America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:21, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete alll . not findable. Staszek Lem (talk) 22:48, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete all per nom. Citobun (talk) 13:51, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. No prejudice against recreating the article when it is confirmed to have begun filming. MelanieN (talk) 02:33, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oxygen (2016 film)

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

Fails WP:NFF ("Films that have not been confirmed by reliable sources to have commenced principal photography should not have their own articles.") - the given source just says "Normal shoot of the movie will kick-start in the month of January.", future tense. I can't find any newer sources to suggest that filming has started. McGeddon (talk) 10:38, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. sst ✈ 11:19, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. sst ✈ 11:19, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

alts:

(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)

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

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

WP:INDAFD: "Oxygen Movie" "Jyothi Krishna" "Gopichand" "Jagapathi Babu" "Rashi Khanna" "Anu Emmanuel" "Yuvan Shankar Raja"

Delete or userfy for now. The topic IS getting some coverage, but we need confirmation of filming. It's a bit TOO SOON. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 12:16, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete until more sources crop up confirming filming etc etc. –Davey2010^Talk 12:42, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The article's subject is found to not be notable. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 23:41, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Cyril Spurdens

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

Non notable, fails WP:SOLDIER Gbawden (talk) 08:38, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. sst ✈ 11:21, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. sst ✈ 11:21, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. sst ✈ 11:21, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - nice little article, but the nom is correct, with only a single DSC, he doesn't pass WP:SOLDIER. And he definitely doesn't pass WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:01, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Didn't have a single DSC. Didn't have a DSC at all. Had the DFC and the AFC. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:25, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The article's subject is found to not be notable. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 23:43, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mary Remmy Njoku

AfDs for this article:

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

Subject of the article fails WP:GNG. I can't find any evidence of notability. The sources provided are unreliable and majority of the sources are self-published material with no credible editorial oversight. Ref 1 is the official website of her husband and ref 2 does not mention her at all. Ref 3 is a passing mention and the source is about the film titled "Thy Will Be Done". Ref 4 is a picture and a passing mention of her. Ref 5 is a blog and not in anyway close to a reliable source. Ref 6 is a passing mention and ref 7 is a blog. Ref 8 is Istagram and ref 9 is a passing mention. Ref 10 and ref 11 are blogs. Ref 12 mention the birth of her baby boy and nothing more. However, the ones are found through WP:BEFORE doesn't make a difference. The truth is that Wikipedia is not a place for every actor and actress that feature in movies. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 08:23, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 08:30, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 08:30, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 08:30, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 08:30, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This currently suggests it's unlikely better satisfying WP:CREATIVE. SwisterTwister talk 08:32, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I'm going to have to agree on this one. Simply not enough in-depth coverage in independent reliable sources to show they pass WP:GNG, and they clearly don't pass WP:NACTOR. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:06, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mary Remmy Njoku (2nd nomination) (NAC). SwisterTwister talk 08:32, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mary Remmy Njoku

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

Subject of the article fails WP:GNG. I can't find any evidence of notability. The sources provided are unreliable and majority of the sources are self-published material with no credible editorial oversight. Ref 1 is the official website of her husband and ref 2 does not mention her at all. Ref 3 is a passing mention and the source is about the film titled "Thy Will Be Done". Ref 4 is a picture and a passing mention of her. Ref 5 is a blog and not in anyway close to a reliable source. Ref 6 is a passing mention and ref 7 is a blog. Ref 8 is Istagram and ref 9 is a passing mention. Ref 10 and ref 11 are blogs. Ref 12 mention the birth of her baby boy and nothing more. However, the ones are found through WP:BEFORE doesn't make a difference. The truth is that Wikipedia is not a place for every actor and actress that feature in movies. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 08:22, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:42, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Brandon Fleisher

AfDs for this article:

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

Very shaky. On the edge of one event notability Arthistorian1977 (talk) 08:16, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed just now that the first proposal was closed as "Delete" with the current article not adding any info or improving. So, I propose Bold Delete. Arthistorian1977 (talk) 09:25, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Many new credible sources were added. Investor101 (talk) 10:19, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:21, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:21, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete slowly. The content is completely different from what got removed at the first AFD, so it's not a repost. However, the subject also isn't notable: he's not getting secondary-source coverage. Nyttend (talk) 15:23, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

How is making 100,000 at the age of 18, while running a business, and being covered in the largest newspapers and media outlets in Hong Kong, the US, Canada, England, and more not notable? Investor101 (talk) 22:02, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As I said, the issue is the lack of coverage in secondary sources; news reports about his latest activities are primary sources. Nyttend (talk) 23:21, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

delete ho evidence it is skills rather than luck. One can easily win 100,000 in poker just as well. Staszek Lem (talk) 22:57, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for now at best as none of this currently suggest a better notable article. Notifying 1st AfDers LaMona and John Pack Lambert. SwisterTwister talk 02:34, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I haven't changed my mind. This is one of those "gee-whiz" stories that gets picked up, but none of the articles says anything about him. Plus, the story is: someone made money on the stock market. That's not news. We're talking about $60K, not millions. It's a "man bites dog" story, and definitely not encyclopedic. LaMona (talk) 03:01, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is still a WP:BLP1E of a person who doesn't have enough sustained notability to warrant an encyclopedia article at this time. He might well get over our inclusion standards in the future, but right now it's just WP:TOOSOON. And given the article topic's field of endeavour, the creator's username, "Investor101", still strongly implies a direct conflict of interest. As always, Wikipedia is not a place where anybody is entitled to an article just because they can be verified as existing, and that goes double if they're creating the article themselves — we're an encyclopedia, not a public relations platform, and nothing here suggests that he's earned encyclopedia coverage as of yet. Bearcat (talk) 18:27, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:49, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

1,000,001

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

Non-notable number. Fails WP:NUMBER. —teb728 t c 07:48, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. As a second choice, redirect to Million#Select 7-digit numbers (1,000,000–9,999,999). --Metropolitan90 (talk) 07:55, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – no evidence of significant coverage. sst ✈ 07:58, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. sst ✈ 07:58, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete .... not really seeing much point to this article ..... We don't need articles on 1,000,001, 1,000,002, 1,000,003 etc etc, Plus it fails GNG anyway. –Davey2010^Talk 12:44, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – Here's a couple of sources: [34], [35]. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:24, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Both sources are passing mentions, and anyways the passages basically say "(n 1)! 2, (n 1)! 3, ... (n 1)! n 1 are n consecutive non-prime numbers" with n=1,000,000 by "random" choice. I am pretty sure the same point is made with n=1000 or 2016 or 10^2016 in the meaning of "any large number", so hardly evidence on notability. Tigraan (talk) 09:54, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yup. Just posted the sources for people's perusal; hence the comment rather than !vote. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:43, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I can imagine an argument that this number might be more significant because the phrase "a million and one" (or, less often, "one million and one") is a common expression, used in book titles, song lyrics, and the like. (For example, Yvonne DeVaney's song "A Million and One" produced hit singles in 1966 for Dean Martin, Vic Dana, and Billy Walker.[36][37][38][39]) I'm not sure if this ultimately results in added notability for the number, or if WP:NOTDICT takes care of it, but I added some search links above for others to consider. --Arxiloxos (talk) 16:51, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Some mentions are here but no sources featuring this topic as the subject. Blue Rasberry (talk) 21:03, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. At best, if "A Million and One" were a notable topic (or even a notable dab) then this could redirect to it. As a number, it's not encyclopedic. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 22:17, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

and do not disambiguate, just to be explicit. There are no topics to disambiguate; they would be found at a million and one or one million and one (note that they are redlinks) and this is not a synonym for "a million to one" (that would be 1,000,000:1). Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 19:21, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment- This is a mildly relevant entry, in my opinion. "A million and one" is a common expression of low chances where I'm from. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Escaper2 (talk • contribs) 01:23, 13 January 2016‎ (UTC)[reply]

(Moved above !vote from the AFD talkpage). –Davey2010^Talk 01:33, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Could you find a source for that, or tell us (approximatively) where you live? (Do not disclose personal info if you do not wish to.) Tigraan (talk) 10:02, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete until and unless "a million and one" is demonstrated to be a colloquial term or of cultural importance (see WP:NUMBER). Note that this is different from "one million to one". Having one famous song titled like this does not lend the number itself much notability (but it pollutes online search results).

This was apparently prodded and denied by creator, but I cannot say I feel compelled by their explanation. Tigraan (talk) 09:54, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. And a {{trout}} to the article creator for citing Yahoo! Answers. I agree with the others that this is not notable. "A million to one" is different, and there isn't much reason to think that we need a disambiguation page under this title. The textbooks cited are trivial mentions. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 14:38, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I could not find any reliable sources to substantiate the notability of this number. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 15:41, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Further comment. Sources that mention the use of "a million and one" as an example of hyperbolic or figurative speech include this linguistics book [40] and a page from Oxford Dictionaries [41]. In addition to the much-recorded song mentioned above, another example in the title of a (probably) notable work is A Million and One Nights: A History of the Motion Picture, a 1926 landmark of early film history by Terry Ramsaye. The similar usage of "a thousand and one" is covered at 1001 (number) and is also mentioned at Indefinite and fictitious numbers, where a mention of this number might be added as well. --Arxiloxos (talk) 16:30, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or change to DAB. The idiomatic usage and the fact that it is a palindromic number are not quite enough for WP:NUMBER. A disambiguation page for the songs and other works that use this title might not be unwarranted, though. --Sammy1339 (talk) 19:05, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The article's subject is found to not be notable. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 03:43, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Walter Scott III

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

Doesn't pass WP:BIO. All the citations are meaningless dead-ends. He has not been the CEO at GIF for a while (www.gfi.com) --- Wiki-psyc (talk) 07:32, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. sst✈ 10:24, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. sst✈ 10:24, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as there's nothing to suggest a better solid article here. SwisterTwister talk 07:56, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Not finding anything in Google searches other than the employment history that is on the Wiki-article. GFI Software itself, doesn't appear to be notable. I'm listing that for deletion also. No references. Started by single topic editor. Wiki-psyc (talk) 17:37, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:16, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - not finding any in-depth coverage of this individual on the search engines. Some passing mentions, but they are about other people with this same name, or appear to be. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:13, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 16:47, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Tech Ecstasy

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

Looks like the Cultural fest doesn't meet WP:EVENT. Little to no coverage from reliable sources for this event. Think this doesn't yet qualify for an article. —UY Scuti ^Talk 12:36, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. —UY Scuti ^Talk 12:40, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. —UY Scuti ^Talk 12:40, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. —UY Scuti ^Talk 12:40, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable yearly function of the Institution of Engineering and Technology (professional society). No third-party sources I can find. Happy Squirrel (talk) 02:34, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:15, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wikipedia articles require sources and the only one provided does not meet WP:RS. Blue Rasberry (talk) 21:07, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Events/Tech-fests are generally not notable. could not find any sources to pass notability. Lakun.patra (talk) 10:19, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:46, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Debesai Ghierghis Ogbazghi

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

Completing nomination on behalf of ElOsoBlanco (talk · contribs), who provided no rationale. Looking at the article, I see only one reference - and that reference does nothing other than to confirm the nationality of the subject. Good as far as it goes, I guess. But it doesn't show how they satisfy WP:NFOOTBALL, WP:GNG, or WP:BLP. Google gives me only copies of this article, in one form or another. Could be a Hoax, could simply be unverifiable. But either way, this should probably be Deleted. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 15:30, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Couldn't figure out how to add rationale. This guy was mentioned in an episode of American Dad. I believe he either never existed or is not notable enough to have an article. The unsourced claims are certainly false, at least. ElOsoBlanco (talk) 04:20, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No worries. Yeah, this one seems pretty clear. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 21:25, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:13, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:13, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Eritrea-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:13, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:14, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - This article has been vandalized occasionally over the past two years, but no one was paying attention. I have restored the last stable version of the article, so all of the gobbledygook has been undone. — Jkudlick ^tc_s 07:56, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - forgot to add my !vote. Subject was captain of the Eritrea national football team, so very clearly passes WP:NFOOTY. A lot of improvement is needed, but the information has to be available somewhere, even if it is found in non-English language sources. — Jkudlick • t • c • s 04:13, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. — Jkudlick • t • c • s 04:14, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Jkudlick: Are you able to provide references to verify all that? Assuming the article is accurate, of course it meets WP:NSPORT, but the only source listed doesn't confirm any appearances for Eritrea, let alone his captaincy. Sir Sputnik (talk) 16:49, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no evidence this person even exists, no references at all, the NFT profile has zero information. 18:14, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
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. Ican't find anything to support the claims of the article. Potentially, the person in question could be this guy who has a very similar name and is of roughly the right age. Also RSSSF notes a "Debesaye" scoring for Eritirea in 2002 who could be the same person, but there just isn't enough out there to support keeping the article. Fenix down (talk) 15:46, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - If any sources can be found than definitely keep, but for the time being it seems this article probably is a hoax and should be deleted. Inter&anthro (talk) 03:48, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - If evidence can be found to back up the claims, then I'll change my vote. At the moment, the article appears to be a hoax. Spiderone 09:31, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence player exists. The Debesaye that Fenix down noted scored in 2002 is Elias Debesay, who is certainly worthy for an article. No indication that this is the same player. Nfitz (talk) 21:25, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 02:18, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Saliva exchange

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Saliva Exchange

Articles for deletion/Saliva exchange (2nd nomination)

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

No sources linked at all and the topic itself doesn't seem to be notable, there seem to be several diverse topics referred to by this label in various areas of study, as shown by Edison in the previous AFD. SPACKlick (talk) 16:52, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (There follows my "keep" argument from the previous AFD 25 months ago. Apologies if any links have gone dead. Some links have deteriorated and no longer point specifically to the passage wherein saliva exchange is discussed. Perhaps new references have emerged in the ensuing months) "Saliva exchange" is a term frequently used in books about human sexuality [42], [43],[44] as well as in books dealing with transmission of viruses and pathogens among animals as well as humans: [45], [46], [47], [48], [49], [50]. The last notes that "saliva exchange" can be via shared lipstick, cigarettes and so forth, besides kissing. That said, sources just point it out as important without generally going on to any great extent about the quantity of fluid or methods to decrease (or increase) the amount transmitted or exchanged, or participants enthusiasm or lack of enthusiasm to be the recipient. "Backwash" from shared beverages, re-used water bottles [51] or even communion cups has also been written about. The sources go beyond defining what it is and discuss what effects it has, good or bad. There are also controversies as to whether it is a transmission mode for HIV [52]. A letter to Nature reviewed a wide array of scientific papers which described forms of saliva exchange in folk medicine of African peoples, including putting saliva in a babies mouth and premasticating food [53]. An article in the Telegraph said that scientists say kissing may have evolved to facilitate the spread of Cytomegalovirus from man to woman via saliva exchange so she can develop resistance to it which protects the baby: [54]. Persons considering getting CPR training have worried about acquiring HIV from saliva exchange via the dummy from earlier trainees, and this has been written about: [55]. A scientific study of the danger of peanut allergen transmission via saliva exchange used 5ml as a typical amount and looked at the danger at various times after the partner ate peanut butter. [56]. New England Journal of Medicine had an article reviewing type b hepatitis as commonly transmitted by saliva exchange through children sharing candy or chewed toys [57]. Seems to be a notable subject, and references only have to exist (as shown above), and do not have to be present in the article for it to be kept. Edison (talk) 17:21, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete as nominator. AS can probably be surmised from my nomination I don't find Edison's argument compelling. This is not one topic meaning anything beyond the two words. It's not one category of thing for a page to be written about. SPACKlick (talk) 18:04, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

CommentSorry, SPACKlick, you do not get to add a Delete !=vote in addition to your nomination, but your comments are most welcome From 2014,"Goldman-Cecil Medicine" by Elsevier says on page 223 "Transmission of KSHV appears to be largely due to saliva exchange..." Other than that book, I see the term in many fiction books as a discussion of kissing,showing it to be a continuing part of popular culture, and in many journal articles behind paywall at Google scholar. Perhaps someone can see if the coverage there is substantial. A number of news sources Newsweek, LA Times) reported on a journal article inMicrobiome in 2014 which measured bacteria transfer during french kissing, showing that about 60 million bacteria get transferred by saliva exchange, and that kissing makes the oral biota of couples similar, and may have benefits to the immune system (unless the partner has pathogens!). A San Diego Public Health Advisory in 2015 cautioned about intimate kissing, sharing drinks or sharing cigarettes as a prime means of spreading meningococcal disease: "Saliva exchange is how the disease can enter the body". The article might cover "saliva exchange" as a part of popular culture sources which qualify WP:MEDRS should be the basis for medical statements. Some of these are behind paywall so those with better access are needed to examine them. Edison (talk) 18:19, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:14, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:12, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Edison - Google brings up a few sources[58] and books[59] so notability's certainly there. –Davey2010^Talk 12:48, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Valid split from Saliva; notable and expands on the wider topic of human relation. Esquivalience ^t 00:20, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:51, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jon Alvarez

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

Non notable radio personality. Worm^TT(talk) 19:29, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 19:33, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 19:33, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 19:33, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:12, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:19, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This article doesn't even clearly indicate what aspect of the subject's career is supposed to constitute his claim to notability. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 07:56, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not likely to be notable from a military perspective per WP:SOLDIER, can't see anything that makes me think he's likely to meet WP:GNG either. Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 04:31, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. The article's subject is found to be notable. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 03:46, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

2001 Speedway Grand Prix of Denmark

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

No information in article, no lead and as far as I can see; this only shows the starting position of the Grand Prix? It doesn't even say the results? No citations. ツStacey (talk) 19:03, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It appears that there is a project to get articles for every Speedway grand prix. I vote Keep, the article just needs improvement. Seasider91 (talk) 21:07, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As it hasn't been edited at all since 2014 I doubt it will be improved anytime soon. I don't like to see articles deleted but I really don't see what this article has to offer - I would love to be proved wrong and for someone to come along and save it from deletion! ツStacey (talk) 21:55, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Now has information, a lead, the result (top 4 placings), and a reference. The SGPs have always received plenty of coverage so notability should not be a concern. --Michig (talk) 22:18, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:12, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:20, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:20, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Denmark-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:20, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Once the article is improved it would looked good but for now I would keep for the better. Matt294069 is coming 01:58, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Since the nom's major issue was with the references, and the references have now been provided, consensus is to keep. (non-admin closure) Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:11, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Rasta (Congo)

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

Only one reference (it's the New York Times but we only have one article there) leading me to wonder if this name ever 'caught on'. Also, even though the reference is the Times there is something odd about the description.

The one reference names the Rasta as one group among those that are a topic of that article and may be quoting a non-authoritative source the name. (i.e. the Rasta are in the article rather than an article about 'them'.)

Without further referencing I think we should delete the article (after having it tagged for clean up since 2007). RJFJR (talk) 18:08, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:01, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:01, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Tricky thing is, too, there are articles on attempts to practice Rastafarianism in central Africa that may use the abbreviated term Rastas in a totally different context. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:06, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:12, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A quick google search turned up another source (http://www.irinnews.org/printreport.aspx?reportid=73567). --Banana (talk) 09:53, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Added other sources that came up on article's talk page. --Banana (talk) 10:01, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – The Rastas were formed circa 2004 and are a splinter group of the Democratic Forces for the Liberation of Rwanda, a primary remnant Rwandan Hutu rebel group in the eastern part of the Democratic Republic of the Congo. There's a lot of coverage about the group; some only name the Rastas once or twice and then later refers to them as “the group”, “the rebels” or “they”, etc. Overall, the topic meets WP:GNG, and there are likely additional sources available that I cannot access. Source examples include, but are not limited to: ^[1], ^[2], ^[3], ^[4], ^[5], ^[6], ^[7], ^[8], ^[9], ^[10], ^[11]. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:43, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ "Rape Epidemic Raises Trauma of Congo War". The New York Times.
^ "Democratic Republic of Congo: Civilians at Risk During Disarmament Operations: Summary". Human Rights Watch.
^ "6,000 flee Congo violence: UN". ABC News.
^ "Africa - Living with Rwanda's Hutu rebels". BBC News.
^ "Hutu Rebels Deny Massacres In Congo". Sky News.
^ "Children slaughtered by Rwandan rebels". The Telegraph.
^ "Central Africa: DRC: Rwandan Rebels Abuse Congolese Civilians - UN Report". All Africa.
^ "Rwanda rebels kill women, children". Al Jazeera.
^ "Rwandan rebels kill 25 villagers in DRC". Mail & Guardian.
^ "The Trouble with the Congo". p. 157.
^ "U.N.: Rwandan rebels kill 17 in village attacks". CNN.

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

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

The result was delete. MelanieN (talk) 02:29, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Raphael Jabbour

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

Being a contestant in a TV show does not give notability. PamD 22:38, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Curro2 (talk) 16:58, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lebanon-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:55, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:11, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:22, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

delete being a contestant is not a notable thing and that's all the coverage confirms. LibStar (talk) 07:43, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. postdlf (talk) 17:29, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Major Male pageants

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

Looks like advertising. No independent sources conform WP:RS. Content fork of List of beauty contests. Created by an editor now blocked due to advertising. The Banner talk 22:09, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

•Delete where are the sources that cover these three businesses together as a topic? The use of WP:COLOR is an accessibility problem too. Legacypac (talk) 04:03, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:04, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:04, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:11, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:11, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I thought at first this was about an event called Major Male. Seems to be pretty much WP:OR made by someone trying to make a judgement call as to which pageants should be considered notable. The individual pageants seem to be notable, but I am not seeing that they, as a group, make up a significant enough trio to justify their being lumped together like this. Mabalu (talk) 20:22, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete' Article not notable. No reliable sources covering the major male pageants unlike the female counterpart.--Richie Campbell (talk) 00:58, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Withdrawn by nominator. (non-admin closure) | Uncle Milty | talk | 15:24, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wet cleaning

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

"Wet cleaning", I think, is "doing laundry" as in a standard washing machine or by hand. "Wet cleaning" is not a usual term for this concept, but I think the point was to differentiate it from dry cleaning. The article currently is not citing sources. The sources cited are not being cited in a way that suggests they define the concept of wet cleaning.

For this article to remain I would expect to see a source cited which clearly defines the term. Blue Rasberry (talk) 20:18, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

EPA Fact Sheet on Wet Cleaning - this is a strange source. It is presented by the US government, yet it does not clearly state what wet cleaning is. This is one of the dead links in the article. I would not call this an WP:RS because it seems to be a project of the Center for Neighborhood Technology. That organization does not seem to have published stable content on wet cleaning - see their report. Whatever wet cleaning means is not clearly defined either by the EPA or by this organization which wrote the paper published by the EPA. Blue Rasberry (talk) 20:20, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Arxiloxos: Do you know anything about this process? Could you share any leads for sources? Blue Rasberry (talk) 20:25, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In the context of this article the term is used to refer to professional cleaning methods that don't use chemical solvents, the most common of which is perchloroethylene). Environmental groups have put considerable effort into exploring whether these alternative methods are cleaner than perc and whether they can be used on delicate garments (the kind that often carry a "Dry Clean Only" label) without shrinking or otherwise damaging the clothes. Searches produce a lot of technical content and over 1000 pages at epa.gov. Some of this is promotional or otherwise of unclear reliability. But some examples of news coverage include a 2004 NPR story [60]; Chicago Sun-Times [61]; Oakland Tribune [62]; Boston Herald [63]; Los Angeles Times [64][65]; Washington Post [66]. --Arxiloxos (talk) 22:15, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:42, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:11, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:24, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:24, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Retract nomination keep I no longer agree with my original deletion rationale. Arxiloxos has provided evidence which persuades me to think this concept is discussed in reliable sources and is notable. I am not sure of the process at this point. No one else has commented, propose keep and archive this discussion on the talk page to prevent this from happening again and document the discussion. Blue Rasberry (talk) 14:56, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 16:50, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Cooperative-based graph clustering

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

Fails notability - an obscure (single-researcher) subtopic of clustering. The article is based on single reference (A. Ibrahim, Derek Rayside, R. Kashef (2014). "Cooperative Based Software Clustering on Dependency Graphs". IEEE Canadian Conference on Electrical and Computer Engineering (CCECE), Toronto, Canada.) with 0 citations on Google Scholar. Some of the other references are outright incorrect. The Bürger reference does not appear to mention Cooperative-based graph based clustering at all, for example. Which is not surprising, because these sources predate the Ibrahim publication... HelpUsStopSpam (talk) 20:29, 5 January 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 January 5. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 20:51, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:50, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The text appears to be largely copied from an unpublished and unsourced paper by the same name, by Ahmed Ibrahim of the University of Waterloo. It is probably not a copyvio because that name matches the name of the article's creator, but it is also not a notable piece of research, and anyway Wikipedia is the wrong place for publishing one's research. —David Eppstein (talk) 08:29, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:11, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:24, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as this looks like a journal report instead of a solid encyclopedia article and there's also been noticeably ample time and space to improve it and that hasn't happened. SwisterTwister talk 08:04, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per David Eppstein, above. Although the "article formatting" is not a reason to delete per se, it is a good indication that a primary source was copied, and I do not see any secondary sources out there. Tigraan (talk) 12:37, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete For this to be noteworthy, this topic should have decent coverage in independent secondary sources. I'm not seeing anything that demonstrates that strongly. Kingofaces43 (talk) 03:23, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:54, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Biotechnology and Integrating Organizational Medicine

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

Content so vague as to be meaningless. References don't appear to support it. Google doesn't appear to have heard of this organisation. Rathfelder (talk) 23:20, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -per nom, way too vague, lacks solid details on its history or key dates/stats and the references don't seem to fully support the text written here Burroughs'10 (talk) 04:31, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:10, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete almost nothing shows up when I search. Seems to fail to WP:GNG and WP:CORP guidelines. FuriouslySerene (talk) 16:09, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:57, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Pop art noir

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

A WP:SPA article on an unreleased no-budget film, sourced only to user-contributed media (Soundcloud, Instagram, Youtube), on the last of which it is described as a student film. I had placed a WP:PROD with the rationale "No evidence that this unreleased film meet the notability criteria" but this was removed by another WP:SPA account. I am bringing this to AfD on the same rationale as the Prod. AllyD (talk) 08:06, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:50, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. sst✈ 10:39, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. sst✈ 10:39, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Well... I fixed his format problems, but I would tell this filmmaker that, at kindest, it is far TOO SOON for his film project to be covered by Wikipedia, and that in the future it might be only if or when it gets coverage by multiple reliable sources, and then send him to WP:NF, WP:RS, WP:NOTABOUTYOU and WP:PRIMER. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 02:16, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:09, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Clearly fails the notability guidelines anyways, but yeah, this is WP:TOOSOON as well. FuriouslySerene (talk) 16:11, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, appears to be an amateur production of some sort. Fails notability guidelines. PK T(alk) 15:30, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 00:20, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Pernell Saturnino

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

Despite the article mentioning he has a Grammy Award, my searches found no acceptable sources confirming this and he's also not listed at the Grammy Awards website here (I searched twice), with my searches mostly also finding passing mentions for playing with other people. Unfortunately this has not improved since starting in August 2007 and I see no signs of any better information and sources to suggest immediate improvement. SwisterTwister talk 03:40, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 03:41, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Caribbean-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 03:41, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The following were easily found just by searching Google: [67], [68], [69], [70], and a ton of brief mentions of him playing in the bands of famous jazz musicians. --Michig (talk) 18:25, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:08, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Huge number of sources in Proquest Historical Newspapers. One of the best articles is Kepecs, Susan. "The New Bop" Isthmus [Madison, Wis] 05 June 2009: 12-13[71]. A significant Latin jazz sideman.--Jahaza (talk) 15:27, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 01:00, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

RMISERY

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

All I simply see here is some local coverage here and there but nothing to solidly suggest satisfying bands notability guidelines with my searches finding nothing better than this (which is currently listed at the article), some of the listed news articles are even simply for event listings and such so not exactly solid in-depth. It's also worth noting the main contributor and author of this was user "RMISERY" which suggests it may have been the band themselves, followed by more recent users "RMISERY Metal Band" and "Rmiserymetal" which wouldn't even concern as much if wasn't for the fact this hasn't improved also. SwisterTwister talk 22:27, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 22:28, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 22:28, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:34, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 07:06, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Obscure band that doesn't seem to have any reliable coverage to help create an article with. Fails WP:GNG and WP:BAND. FuriouslySerene (talk) 16:13, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom Fails WP:SIGCOV and WP:BAND.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 12:14, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 01:41, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Vasyl Ko

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

No credible claim of significance/importance (see WP:A7). Also, not notable (fails WP:GNG; WP:NMUSIC@WP:MUSBIO). Article not referenced. WP:BEFORE done; no non-WP:SPS found. Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 02:40, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:06, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:06, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:06, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:06, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:06, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

delete No sources. Given he's Canadian found no English coverage whatsoever. LibStar (talk) 08:45, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Clearly not notable, I can't find any reliable coverage at all about him. Actually can't find any coverage at all, in any type of source. FuriouslySerene (talk) 16:15, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, created by an SPA, no sources, promotional. Mduvekot (talk) 18:46, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 21:21, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Amboog-a-Lard

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

The listed sources are not satisfying bands notability guidelines and searches at News, Books, browsers and High and heavy metal publications Blabbermouth, Kerrang and Terrorizer so far found nothing to suggest a better notable article. If needed, this could be merged but there's certainly not seemingly enough for a solid independent article. SwisterTwister talk 21:51, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 21:51, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 21:51, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - a couple of trivial mentions in News and Books, nothing else on any of the other searches. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:46, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:26, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 07:06, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete beyond some likely not reliable mentions, I also can't find anything to write this article with. Doesn't meet the WP:GNG or WP:BAND. FuriouslySerene (talk) 16:16, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - insufficient verifiable information from independent, reliable sources to meet GNG or NMUSIC. Verifiable information would improve the Jeordie White article. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 16:28, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. This is a "soft delete"; the article may be restored by any administrator upon request. MelanieN (talk) 02:27, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Romantic_Encounters

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Romantic Encounters

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

Subject fails notability criteria as defined under WP:GNG. Dkendr (talk) 19:45, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 21:27, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 21:27, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:15, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 07:05, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now at best as I waited for others to comment but no one has; frankly I thought of keeping because of its current state but, looking at it now, the article could actually be considerably better so draft and userfy if needed. SwisterTwister talk 08:37, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 16:54, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Airborne Trampoline Club

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

Unreferenced article about an organization that likely fails WP:ORG. I couldn't find online sources covering this company other than an incidental mention in this Globe and Mail article about Jason Burnett. Mind matrix 19:06, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 21:42, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 21:42, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 21:42, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:15, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 07:04, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete clearly fails WP:CORP. LibStar (talk) 13:42, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no assertion of notability at all, reads more like a promotional piece. Fails GNG and WP:CORP. Only mention in a media source seems to be one mentioned by nom, but that's a trivial mention. FuriouslySerene (talk) 16:18, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Sandstein 07:03, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jaroslawa Mirowska

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

Not all spies are notable. She is mentioned in passing in one book and few primary source documents. I am afraid this is not enough to have her pass WP:BIO. I can't find anything about her at all in Polish sources. I'll ping User:Poeticbent, User:Halibutt and User:Volunteer Marek, all interested in Polish WWII history, for second opinion(s). _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 14:56, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 22:23, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 22:23, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 22:23, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 22:23, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 22:23, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Possible keep -- Her career seems an interesting one. This sounds as if it has bene picked up in German-related sources for a period when Germany was in control of Poland. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:57, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:07, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The story is super interesting, but I've only found her in one book so far. Is it possible there are alternate ways to spell her name? I added the reference I found to the article and did a tiny bit of clean up. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 00:53, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 07:03, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. This is a "soft delete"; the article may be restored by any administrator upon request. MelanieN (talk) 02:25, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

People of The Simple Life

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

This page is an orphan, being only mainspace linked by redirect page People of the simple life (which should also be deleted if this AFD is accepted). The article is WP:OR and its (incomplete) content is pretty-well sufficiently covered by List of The Simple Life episodes and The Simple Life. ^~~Hydronium^~Hydroxide^~(Talk)~~ 12:48, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor ^Talk! 18:44, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Lingering WP:TRIVIA article from a looser article standards era; not really about the people seen on the show, but poor 'type-what-I-see' recaps of episodes covered better in List of The Simple Life episodes. Nate • (chatter) 06:00, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:04, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 07:01, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 01:43, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Asia-Pacific Innovation Network

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

This article hasn't been improved since previous tags put on years ago (Dec 2013 & May 2011). My brief search engine use cannot find much significant coverage - only acknowledgement that there is a conference held. This article is outdated, written as an advertisement ("New members are welcome") and does not meet notability guidelines. ツStacey (talk) 10:48, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Yet more spam. Searches do not turn up any significant coverage. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SSTflyer (talk • contribs) 13:59, 29 December 2015‎

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. sst✈ 14:00, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, This article has no citations and references to show the notability of the page (WP:N and WP:REF). Bassically, this article is a simple advertisement (WP:ADV) and a spam (WP:SPAM). ♪ Alberto79 ♪ ^{talk-Contributions} 17:23, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions. sst✈ 14:00, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:59, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 07:01, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Only one source, and it looks like it's the organization's website. Definitely doesn't show notability. CatcherStorm ^talk 07:02, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The article's subject is found to not be notable. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 04:13, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Power Overwhelming

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

Non-notable album, fails WP:NALBUM JMHamo (talk) 10:00, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Delete. An album without articles for its artist and label, and no evidence of notability. sst✈ 14:02, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. sst✈ 14:02, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Counter-arguement: This album's credibility can be found in it ranking #3 in Comedy and #19 in Heatseekers on Billboard.com.

Billboard.com Comedy Charts as of 12/29 and Linked Image

It is also #1 in iTunes Comedy and top 200 albums sold on iTunes altogether. (iTunes Store pages do not utilize URLs viewable by browsers. Linked Image — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rampartswewatched (talk • contribs)

Comment — Rampartswewatched (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. JMHamo (talk) 21:05, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Credibility ≠ notability. Sales rankings suggest only that a few thousand people bought it, but who is talking about it? There needs to be significant coverage of the album in multiple reliable sources. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 21:18, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Here's some coverage of it to get the ball rolling: 1 2 3 4 5. FalconDrone (talk) 16:13, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment — FalconDrone (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. JMHamo (talk) 21:05, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Couldn't we just make pages for the things that are needed to make this page okay? I don't know how this works so I may not be accurate about this, so I thought I would ask. (Chocolatejr9 (talk) 17:58, 1 January 2016 (UTC))[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:56, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 07:00, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as best I can tell the only coverage of this is on blogs, which I don't think are reliable ones. Not enough to satisfy the WP:GNG or WP:NMUSIC unfortunately. FuriouslySerene (talk) 16:21, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as mentioned, unlikely better notable and solid. SwisterTwister talk 06:17, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Jake Kaufman. Album is not notable on its own, but certainly a notable piece of Kaufman's career. -IagoQnsi (talk) 14:24, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I don't think there's enough non-promo material here to merge. Wouldn't care if a redirect were made. Definitely not enough for a standalone article. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:23, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 04:15, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Victoria Canal

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

WP:BLP of a musician, which makes no strong claim of notability that would pass WP:NMUSIC. This is written very much more like a public relations advertisement than an encyclopedia article, and is sourced far too heavily to primary sources and commercial sales platforms; while there is a little bit of reliable source coverage hidden in the mix, there isn't enough of it yet. The claimed award is not a major one that would satisfy NMUSIC #8; the claimed tour does not satisfy #4, as a tour has to have garnered "non-trivial coverage" but none has been shown here. It's possibly just WP:TOOSOON. Delete, without prejudice against recreation in the future if and when there's a stronger notability claim and better sourcing. Bearcat (talk) 09:05, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 22:27, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Georgia-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 22:27, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 22:28, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:51, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 06:59, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This one feels a bit borderline to me, as there are at least three profiles of her in the media: [72], [73], [74]. I am unsure if this meets the WP:GNG. FuriouslySerene (talk) 16:24, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for now at best as none of this suggests a better notable article. SwisterTwister talk 06:16, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and copy edit – The subject meets WP:BASIC. Source examples include: ^[1], ^[2], ^[3] ^[4]. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:54, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ "Bright future ahead for Dubai pianist". The National. {{cite web}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)
^ "Hitting the right notes - Khaleej Times". Khaleej Times. {{cite web}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)
^ "Atlanta Singer Victoria Canal Blends Music, Social Activism". WABE.
^ "Daily Discovery: Victoria Canal, "Unclear"". American Songwriter.

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Der yck C. 22:25, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Gaana.com

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

Doubtful notability failing WP:GNG. Article fully based on non-RS refs and being part of the The Times Group, all the publications of this group can't be used to establish any notability of this website. Created by puppet User:BigJolly9 in 2013 while their master User:Mushroom9 had been blocked since 2012. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 05:17, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 05:18, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 05:18, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now perhaps as I found several mentions at Books, News, Highbeam and browsers so far but perhaps nothing for outstandingly better improvement. SwisterTwister talk 05:59, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Based on sources found likely meets notability criteria. AusLondonder (talk) 23:54, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Which sources? §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 03:53, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I cannot seem to find coverage that suggests this deserves a standalone article; the parent group is very much notable, but there doesn't seem to be a good reason why this deserves its own page. Also, Dharmadhyaksha, since this was created by a sock of a user who was indeffed for socking, and was created after the indef, it counts as block evasion and is therefore eligible for WP:CSD#G5; am I wrong? Karellen93 (talk) 00:39, 31 December 2015 (UTC) Note: this is a [[WP:VALIDALT|legitimate alternative account of Vanamonde93.[reply]
Keep Seems like a popular app, even it's TV commercial campaigns are discussed (http://www.campaignindia.in/Video/396676,gaana-continues-with-ayaan-and-rheas-love-story-in-a-metro.aspx, http://www.bestmediainfo.com/2015/06/gaana-com-unveils-a-new-love-story-in-its-episodic-musical-ad-campaign/). The article itself lists several references.--Dwaipayan (talk) 17:49, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Article lists only one RS & independent source. (Indian Express talking of Micromax & Gaana.) Rest are all either non-RS or non-independent. The two you cite are also not RS. We are dealing with a product of a huge publishing house that probably has ties on various levels. We hence need to be careful on not making WP a means of promotion. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 06:43, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep passes WP:GNG it is one of the leading music sites in India . Financial Express belonging to the Indian Express states The digital music landscape is currently dominated by three players — Times Internet’s Gaana.com, Bharti Airtel’s Wynk and a lesser-known Saavn run by an NRI Vinod Bhatia — but it’s the fight for leadership between the the first two which is set to take the industry by storm. ,Hindustan Times states Gaana, one of the leading India music streaming services owned by Times Internet. .Here this. It is ranked 1,684 in the world and 124th in India by this Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 02:59, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note WP:CSD#G5 was contested here by Hullaballoo Wolfowitz.Fully agree with this Now G5 would only apply if there was no substantial contributions by others users.Here there has a been a lot of editing and the indef blocked user last edited on 30th April 2014 and over 45 edits have been made by other users after that hence G5 would not apply here.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 03:19, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:34, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:02, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 06:58, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 01:04, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Tung Thanh Tran

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

Delete: non-notable actor. Quis separabit? 02:15, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 22:15, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Vietnam-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 22:15, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 22:15, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as only known for one film, not notable at all. SwisterTwister talk 22:43, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:21, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 06:54, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:SIGCOV and WP:NACTOR appears to have acted only in one film.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 12:22, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. No prejudice against recreating if the project becomes more definite and gets reliable sourcing. MelanieN (talk) 02:22, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Madam X (2016 film)

Per WP:CRYSTAL, its just a speculation on a project. We need to wait until something substantial happens, i.e filming begins. Yashthepunisher (talk) 06:39, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:27, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:27, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

searching 'alts' with WP:INDAFD: "Madam X Movie" "Huma Qureshi" "Tigmanshu Dhulia" "Anurag Kashyap"

Delete or userfy for now as being somewhat TOO SOON. As WP:CRYSTAL specifically allows future topics and events to be spoken of if properly sourced, and as the project IS getting coverage in such as India Today, Times of India (1), Times of India (2), and Bollywood Hungama, we can allow it back when we have confirmation of filming. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 11:12, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. SuperHero ● 👊 ● ★ 14:04, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MelanieN (talk) 02:19, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Camel Club–Athens

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

I don't believe a nightclub meets the general notability guideline. The article doesn't have any references either. CatcherStorm ^talk 06:27, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions. CatcherStorm ^talk 06:28, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:28, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:28, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:28, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as unless better Greek coverage can be found, there's nothing to suggest even a minimally better article here. Notifying tagger Drmies. SwisterTwister talk 07:38, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
North America, I'm not with you on the "credible assertion of significance" part--there's no references and 1995 isn't all that long ago. Anyway, we're here now. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 16:51, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There's some mentions in books like this one, and plenty listings on various internet sites, but nothing of significance. As for "longest running night club", apparently it was "newish" in 2004. Drmies (talk) 16:54, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedily deleted per WP:CSD#A10. This is a procedural close only; I've started an AfD on the other article. (non-admin closure) ansh 666 20:37, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Islamabad United- Peshawar Zalmi rivalry

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

This is article about rivalry between two cricket teams in Pakistan Super League. But this tournament not even started yet. We don't know if these 2 teams will become rivals or not. As of now parent pages of these tournaments are not well developed. As per WP:CRYSTAL this page should be deleted. One can recreate it if their rivalry becomes popular. Human3015^{Let It Go} 06:23, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Human3015^{Let It Go} 06:25, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Human3015^{Let It Go} 06:25, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Human3015^{Let It Go} 06:25, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:30, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Since there is no rivalry and we don't know any will occur this page is useless.

There is another article with the same theme Peshawar Zalmi vs Islamabad United Rivlary Anjana Larka^Talk 11:01, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete; userfication upon request. Mojo Hand (talk) 04:29, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Solution Marketing

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

This essay is essentially the same idea as Solution selling. WI have my doubts about that one also, but we certainly don't need this in addition. I have no idea which is the better term--they both seem to me like almost impenetrable jargon. DGG ( talk ) 06:16, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:30, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:30, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as mentioned as I see no further improvements to this if it's symmetrical to solution selling (one word difference, frankly). Notifying taggers Ueutyi, 331dot and Allthefoxes. SwisterTwister talk 07:53, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per SwisterTwister. Ueutyi (talk) 07:56, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is not a dictionary and the whole piece seems to just be interested in defining the term- and it does that in a overly-verbose manner(no offense intended). 331dot (talk) 12:09, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
First of all, please don't always talking about delete, this could also be consider as personal bias. Secondly, there's a big difference between solution marketing and solution selling, solution marketing is business to mass business, and a step before solution selling, after the business receive our message about what value we offer then comes solution selling. I would say both topic is important in today's business, since you can see more and more company they are offering solution, if you can't get the awareness or attention from your target customer by doing solution marketing, how could a business sell their solution.Third, I want to thank you to letting me know about your concern that the content of solution marketing is similar to solution selling. Please give me more opinions, I really appreciate for your opinion, with these I can improve the solution marketing page to be a valuable page. Thank you! Please don't delete it at this moment, and please give me more input, I will improve this page. Thank you very much! Athina martinez (talk) 14:35, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Athina martinez: Please do not confuse 'personal bias' with simple opinions as to whether or not a page exists. I would add that Wikipedia is not a business how-to guide or dictionary; it is for subjects that have independent reliable sources that indicate how the subject is notable. The article reads like it is simply defining the term and doesn't indicate to me how it is notable. It also uses jargon very specific and detailed for the business world, which makes it hard for non-businesspeople to read and understand it. 331dot (talk) 14:52, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Athina martinez: Taking for granted that solution marketing and solution selling are different, could they be combined to be covered in a single article? To me the biggest issue with this article is that the tone is that of a business school student essay. That's not a reflection of quality, but in that it seems written for a teacher/other classmates rather than for a general audience, and seems intent to persuade rather than to explain. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 15:22, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per @SwisterTwister: --allthefoxes ^(Talk) 15:14, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all of the above, but with no objection to Userfying. @Athina martinez: that would involve the article being moved to, for example, User:Athina martinez/Solution marketing where you could continue to solicit feedback and make improvements before eventually moving it back to be an article again. If that's something you would like, since it's looking like the alternative is deletion, you should say so explicitly. If you go that route, I'd strongly recommend taking the feedback here into consideration and even soliciting more feedback from participants in this discussion (and even asking one of us or some other experienced editor to be the one to move it back into the article space). — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 15:25, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Would second a Userfying --allthefoxes ^(Talk) 15:28, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
No objection to Userfying. There seems like at least a chance this could be a decent article, but not in its current form(and I think there would need to be a fresh start) 331dot (talk) 15:37, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Athina martinez is posting to this page's talk page; I'm not sure they realize that this is the actual discussion. 331dot (talk) 23:05, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:24, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Gregory Nangle

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

I doubt the Wheaton Museum of American Glass qualifies as a major museum for purposes of WP:CREATIVE, andI see no other indications of notability . I do see a good deal of over-personal writing and self-promotion. DGG ( talk ) 23:35, 28 December 2015 (UTC) DGG ( talk ) 23:35, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 00:15, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 00:15, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Maine-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 00:15, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 00:15, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now at best as I found some links at News, Books and browsers but nothing outstandingly better. SwisterTwister talk 00:16, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I updated more relevant links to show periodicals,publications and auction results. im not sure that dismissing the wheaton museum of american glass is grounds for removing this article? how would you determine th ecriteria for what a nationally recognized museum includes in its collection "not applicable"? open to suggestions on how to improve the information contained. Etidorhpaunderground (talk) 02:32, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for now — Preceding unsigned comment added by Etidorhpaunderground (talk • contribs) 02:43, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

i went back and looked up the requirements cited and i am certain that they are met.i have a vested interest in the discussion here. but i went and looked up the requirements and here is a refresher for the "WP:Artist "Creative professionals" "WP:AUTHOR" redirects here. For information about the authorship of Wikipedia articles, see WP:OWN. Shortcuts:

   WP:ARTIST
   WP:AUTHOR
   WP:CREATIVE
   WP:ECONOMIST
   WP:FILMMAKER
   WP:DIRECTOR
   WP:JOURNALIST

Authors, editors, journalists, filmmakers, photographers, artists, architects, and other creative professionals:

   The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors.
   The person is known for originating a significant new concept, theory, or technique.
   The person has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work. In addition, such work must have been the subject of an independent book or feature-length film or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews.
   The person's work (or works) either (a) has become a significant monument, (b) has been a substantial part of a significant exhibition, (c) has won significant critical attention, or (d) is represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums.

-the article shows clearly that the artist is regarded within their field as an important figure,the article clearly shows that this artist has made more than one significant public artworks (most notable the trinity roots 9/11 memorial in NYC of which a NY Times article was just published as of 12/25/2015) 2 public sculptures in the city of Philadelphia. the artist work has been featured in two books about sculpture. the artist is an active lecturer in their field and the artist work is listed in several notable galleries as well as notable collections and two notable museums. Keep this article --Etidorhpaunderground (talk) 15:00, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Removed bold from "Keep this article" above, so it is not misinterpreted as a separate !vote. The user already !voted above. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:13, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: re-reading the article and the references, I would be inclined to accept notability on the basis of the NYTimes article on Trinity Roots [75]; I remain uncertain about the meuseum, which is a technological museum as much as a art museum, and if the unspecified work there is there ion the basis of technology rather than art or design, I don't think it would qualify. The article did give me a quite promotional impression, do the the equal weight on aspects of his life which are not notable, such as the abortive musical career. That sort of writing is characteristic of conflict of interest, but it is fixable. DGG ( talk ) 04:23, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: my research shows that the artworks included in the wheaton collection are simply that. artwork. not tecnology although if they were included in a museum ,regardless of whether it is for their merit as a technological advance or as an aesthetic one ,it still may qualify for inclusion. also upon furhter research this artist has work in another mueum for contemporary glass art. i added the link. i will continue to improve both the layout and format of this article as it still needs work Etidorhpaunderground (talk) 15:50, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:14, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hard to see beyond the need to WP:TNT the horrible layout and unencyclopedic content - but I'm not seeing a lot of secondary sources which suggest notability. The sources on the page are almost all very brief mentions or (apparently) not independent of the artist, and I can't find much else. Unless something much more substantial turns up, I'm going to say delete. JMWt (talk) 20:18, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

arguing about who or what constitutes 'noteworthy' is like arguing about whose favorite color is 'better'.

Etidorhpaunderground (talk) 04:00, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Note that the nominator has effectively withdrawn, stating in a comment, "re-reading the article and the references, I would be inclined to accept notability...(et al.) North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:03, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:03, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the sight unseen and copper in the arts interviews help the article pass WP:BIO.--TM 20:28, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:55, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

JC Gonzalez

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

Fails WP:ENT Ueutyi (talk) 05:58, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:04, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:04, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Colombia-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:04, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This person does seem to have had some small roles in TV series, but Google reveals no particular coverage. Obviously with any teenpop musical figure one runs the risk that his fanbase and coverage is on some hyper-hip social network and TV channel the existence of which has yet to reach me and I'll be remembered forevermore as the person who voted to delete the first Wikipedia article on the next Taylor Swift...but I don't see it. In addition, the article's is not good-lots of unsourced WP:PROMO language. May be a case of WP:TOOSOON but I really don't see it being worth keeping now. Blythwood (talk) 06:07, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as this seems obvious, not currently even minimally better satisfying WP:CREATIVE and no better sourcing with that. SwisterTwister talk 06:36, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; no evidence of significant coverage in reliable secondary sources. Closing admin, please note the presence of Portal:JC Gonzalez, which should be speedy deleted; it will qualify for WP:P1 if we delete the article, and it already qualifies for WP:P2 because we have "fewer than three non-stub articles" related to the topic of JC Gonzalez. Nyttend (talk) 14:54, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Ha, I just nominated it--oddly, though, I was unable to enter a criterion. Drmies (talk) 17:03, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - *ZOT*ed. DMacks (talk) 17:06, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable. Curro2 (talk) 15:00, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:BIO and WP:GNG. No significant coverage by independent reliable sources. — CactusWriter ^(talk) 18:11, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Almost all refs provided were imdb or youtube. There's only one article that covers him in any depth and one article isn't enough to satisfy GNG. I tried searching Google for more references, as the article gives the impression this person is a reasonably well-known actor in Colombia, but found nothing. Although it does appear there's an SEO campaign to get his name out into Google... Kindzmarauli (talk) 19:05, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as definitely not notable. Kharkiv07 (T) 20:57, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, fails WP:ENT ukexpat (talk) 03:47, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete doesn't meet WP:ENT criteria. -- Chamith (talk) 04:37, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:59, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hirsh Agarwal

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

Fails WP:SIGCOV and WP:ANYBIO and is a case of WP:TOOSOON and also the claim to notability of co founding a company which does not have a corresponding article WP:WTAF and the article is promotional. Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 05:26, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:54, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:54, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:54, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as basically G11 material, WP:TNT at best if a better article is ever available. Notifying tagger 220 of Borg. SwisterTwister talk 07:54, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Had a look and indeed there is practically nothing about this oerson (or his company) to be found on-line. 220 of ^Borg 15:55, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment:, adding to 'Pharaohs' comments, this is also very likely an autobiography, having been created by Hirshagarwal (talk · contribs). I see now that it has been multi-tagged by other editor/s before me, which tags have been removed by IP editors without improvement or comment. (Thanks for the ping SwisterTwister). 220 of ^Borg 15:55, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 01:01, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

List of Most Viewed Porn Videos of All Time

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

I actually thought this could be a notable topic for an article, but looking it up on a search failed to find much (third-party) coverage about most viewed porn videos. The only relevant page I could actually find was, guess what, from PornHub. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 05:02, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I don't see how this can reliably be measured or therefore be an honest title. It seems to just promote the porn video sites listed. Fails WP:MADEUP. Blythwood (talk) 05:04, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 05:14, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 05:14, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a quick google search of the article title is very unhelpful. Yes there are results for this, but the results are primarily primary and are only site specific. Therefore I think this article might be original research Seasider91 (talk) 18:50, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Interesting idea, but this is just WP:OR. The lack of notability for any of the specific videos is a red flag that this would need substantial sources to establish clear encyclopedic significance. The BLP problems associated with celebrity sex tapes also require good sources. A single reliable, independent source would at least be a starting point, though, and I don't see it. Grayfell (talk) 00:27, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete too much WP:OR in there, reliability about actual viewership would be almost impossible based on a limited subset of "sites".--☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(ring-ring) 01:17, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as unverifiable. This is basically OR, and we have no way of knowing how the view counts are generated. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 13:51, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Quite unlikely a solid encyclopedia article, it may have certain interests for viewers but this is unlikely solid enough yet. SwisterTwister talk 07:13, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Possibly a notable topic, but with ludicrously bad sourcing, and probably all wrong. WP:TNT. --Sammy1339 (talk) 15:06, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 00:22, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Eluru New bus station

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

WP:References do not support the name. Notability also a factor. Vin09 (talk) 04:59, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:22, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:22, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. If all railway stations are notable (and we consider that they are), then I think it's reasonable that all bus stations are also notable. Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (push) 16:49, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't say this is necessarily true. Regards, Buttons0603 | talk to me | 16:51, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep if the article can be expanded upon. Unfortunately I don't have the local knowledge to do so. Regards, Buttons0603 | talk to me | 16:51, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MelanieN (talk) 02:16, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Casio G-Shock Rangeman

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

No indication of notability, reads somewhat like an advertisement or product page. BoxOfChickens (talk · contribs · CSD/ProD log) 15:46, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, sst ✈ 04:05, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. sst ✈ 04:07, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Page is far too promotional and only uses self-published sources. Meatsgains (talk) 04:18, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:22, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Unlikely better notable item. SwisterTwister talk 07:53, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Snow Keep. places/villages are kept per GEOLAND (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 00:22, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Clyde, North Dakota

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

May not be a notable town; after a Google search, I found no news results or any other sources that gave solid information about Clyde besides "ghostsofnorthdakota", which is a blog. This article's content may be better suited for a list article. Philmonte101 😊😄😞 (talk) 23:49, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of North Dakota-related deletion discussions. Philmonte101 😊😄😞 (talk) 00:24, 11 January 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 January 12. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 03:42, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The town is listed in the USGS Geographic Names Information System, a reliable source which verifies its existence. Verified populated places are considered notable per WP:GEOLAND. TheCatalyst31 ^{Reaction•Creation} 03:45, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
For populated places, the only notability claim that needs to be made per WP:GEOLAND is that the fact of their existence is properly verifiable in at least one reliable source. Beyond that, an article may be flagged for needing further reference improvement, or may be redirected to a larger related topic (e.g. a neigbourhood within a city can be redirected to its city) if it proves stubbornly unsourceable — but a geographic settlement is never a full-on deletion candidate unless it's a total WP:HOAX, which this verifiably isn't. Keep and flag for refimprove. Bearcat (talk) 03:59, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as meeting WP:GEOLAND. VMS Mosaic (talk) 07:55, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above.– Gilliam (talk) 12:53, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep passes WP:GEOLAND.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 20:02, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:GEOLAND, and 5pillars. It's SNOWing I think. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 00:05, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per all the above. Real population center. --Oakshade (talk) 04:05, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Davao City#Cuisine. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 04:53, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mang Danny's Ice Cream

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

Fails WP:ORGDEPTH. Article is about a ice cream (sorbetes) vendor and his ice cream cart. Sources are from the Davao City edition of Sun.Star. Hariboneagle927 (talk) 03:17, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. sst ✈ 04:10, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. sst ✈ 04:10, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. sst ✈ 04:10, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now at best as all of this is simply some local coverage, nothing considerably better. Restart when better coverage is available. SwisterTwister (talk) 07:39, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Davao City#Cuisine, has enough local coverage to be worth a brief mention there, but per nom and SwisterTwister above not notable enough for a separate article. NeemNarduni2 (talk) 14:00, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Davao City § Cuisine, which will improve the merge target as per WP:PRESERVE. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:30, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy Delete per WP:A7 -- no assertion of significance — CactusWriter ^(talk) 17:56, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Antonio Dirks

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

Self-created, subject does not meet WP:ATH or WP:GNG Melcous (talk) 03:17, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. sst ✈ 04:11, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. sst ✈ 04:11, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Caribbean-related deletion discussions. sst ✈ 04:11, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. — Jkudlick ^tc_s 05:46, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I've tagged the article under WP:A7, but I'm !voting here as well. There is obvious WP:COI as the creator's username is a diminutive of the subject's name, as well as the obvious failure to meet WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTY. — Jkudlick ^tc_s 05:46, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I agree with Jkudlick. I have tagged this article long ago for deletion. The editor blanked the tags and my notifications went unnoticed. ~ Elias Z. (talkallam) 06:16, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MelanieN (talk) 02:14, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ali Astin

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

Fails WP:NACTOR. A handful of small roles and a stint as an apple festival queen don't make her notable. She is related to notable people, but we know that notability isn't inherited. Lack of significant third party coverage. Niteshift36 (talk) 02:04, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete extremely minor acting roles. nothing of note.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:28, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. sst ✈ 04:13, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as mentioned, nothing to suggest a better notable article and I should note the author moved it to mainspace themselves. SwisterTwister talk 06:04, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:32, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MelanieN (talk) 01:47, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ZJ Chawa

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

Subject appears to fail relevant guidelines due to lack of non-trivial coverage from reliable publications. Steps were taken WP:BEFORE this nomination to locate sources but were not successful. A cursory search on Google shows only 356 matches in total, many of which are Wikipedia mirrors, with 55 unique links. Please do not hesitate to contact me should appropriate sources be located during the course of this discussion. Regards, Yamaguchi先生 (talk) 01:15, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. sst ✈ 04:16, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Kenya-related deletion discussions. sst ✈ 04:16, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as simply none of this suggests even minimally better satisfying the notability guidelines. Notifying local user Wikicology. SwisterTwister talk 05:44, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Vanity page with no evidence of notability. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 07:24, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MelanieN (talk) 01:46, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Miss Earth Malta

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

This confusing article has people being picked in small 10 person events after they stopped doing the events. Basically a small event business that fails WP:CORPDEPTH. Legacypac (talk) 00:36, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. sst ✈ 04:19, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:21, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:21, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom - Fails GNG. –Davey2010^Talk 12:52, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Even the girls they put forward fail to get placed. Doesn't show much evidence of noteworthiness. Mabalu (talk) 19:59, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Sarahj2107 (talk) 11:46, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sermon of the roar of a camel

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails GNG and in its present state it is nowhere near an article, more like a badly sourced stub. While specific works may be notable enough to be given separate articles, this fails such a test. Furthermore, in its present state the article is in no shape to be recoverable. Previous debates were voted keep with the rationale that "Article can be improved" however even though there has been almost a span of SEVEN YEARS during which the article could have been improved, there has been nill improvement, causing one to come to the conclusion that in reality it cannot be improved at all. I think it is time we deleted this. FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 06:53, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It's a well known and and notable sermon of Nahj al-Balagha. The notablity is supported by sources such as [76], (An article of 'Encyclopedia of Islam' in Persian) and [77]. Mhhossein (talk) 17:20, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 17:42, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

'Keep per mhossein. Grootwoord (talk) 19:33, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per first and second AfD on this article. In addition, according to Wilferd Madelung, there is a an Ali's letter to his Shia (followers), which covers more complete version of the theme of this sermon. (The Succession to Muhammad p. 270)--Seyyed(t-c) 06:22, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Userfy/Draftify. It is a notable sermon in that there are indeed reliable sources, from the looks of GBooks. HOWEVER, the current state of the article is downright abominable and has been so for 7 years, as the nom noted. Someone should take care of the problems first in draft mode, have it reviewed by AfC and only after approval should it be re-added to mainspace. - HyperGaruda (talk) 20:40, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment:. I wonder who came up with this awful translation of "shiqshiqiyya" (Oh wait, it's Striver). For one, camels do not "roar", they "bray"; roaring is for lions. Secondly, the camel's "braying" is called shaqshaqa in Arabic, which is different from shiqshiqa. The shiqshiqa is a camel's "faucial bag", an anatomical structure in the camel's throat with which it does the braying, to put it simply. - HyperGaruda (talk) 20:40, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 00:14, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as even the title is nonsense. Legacypac (talk) 18:43, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - well known and notable sermon. BabbaQ (talk) 21:02, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Based on previous consensus alone. The "nonsense" of a title has nothing to do with an article being kept or deleted. This is well known and has plenty of sources to support. Let me know when we're back for the 4th nomination as having a 3rd despite the previous consensus is "nonsense." --CNMall41 (talk) 00:42, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@CNMall41 how about putting your editing where your opinion is. you say that there are plenty of sources mentioning this, why don't you put a couple of those WP:RS into the article? Just saying "this has plenty of sources" to support is quite easy, its been seven years and no one bothered to incorporate those "plenty" of Reliable sources into this abomination of an article, how about you doing it?. FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 05:27, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@FreeatlastChitchat, don't be upset about my opinion. It is not a requirement that references be added to the article in order to support my contention. If you can show me the guideline that states we should delete an article since no one has improved it in seven years, I will gladly change my !vote. --CNMall41 (talk) 08:38, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@CNMall41 By mentioning the seven year period I was merely adding weight. The Primary argument still remains that no source in the current article can pass it through GNG, and as seven long years have passed since some voters claimed that reliable sources exist which can help it pass GNG, therefore maybe those sources do not even exist. I think that the basis of the article creation process is that you should have reliable sources which can be used to show that this subject warrants an article. So seven years have passed since it was claimed that reliable sources discuss this in depth, however, no such sources have been provided. FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 08:44, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

[1] CBS Reporter Recounts a ‘Merciless’ Assault New York Times April 11, 2011 http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/29/business/media/29logan.html?_r=0

[2] "Understanding Politically Motivated Sexual Assault in Protest Spaces Evidence from Egypt (March 2011 to June 2013)". "Social & Legal Studies". Sage Journals. March 30, 2015. doi:10.1177/0964663915578187. Retrieved 14 January 2016. Tadros, M. (2015). Behind a Sage publications paywall

[3] "Rape Epidemic Raises Trauma of Congo War". The New York Times.

[4] "Democratic Republic of Congo: Civilians at Risk During Disarmament Operations: Summary". Human Rights Watch.

[5] "6,000 flee Congo violence: UN". ABC News.

[6] "Africa - Living with Rwanda's Hutu rebels". BBC News.

[7] "Hutu Rebels Deny Massacres In Congo". Sky News.

[8] "Children slaughtered by Rwandan rebels". The Telegraph.

[9] "Central Africa: DRC: Rwandan Rebels Abuse Congolese Civilians - UN Report". All Africa.

[10] "Rwanda rebels kill women, children". Al Jazeera.

[11] "Rwandan rebels kill 25 villagers in DRC". Mail & Guardian.

[12] "The Trouble with the Congo". p. 157.

[13] "U.N.: Rwandan rebels kill 17 in village attacks". CNN.

[14] "Bright future ahead for Dubai pianist". The National. {{cite web}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)

[15] "Hitting the right notes - Khaleej Times". Khaleej Times. {{cite web}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)

[16] "Atlanta Singer Victoria Canal Blends Music, Social Activism". WABE.

[17] "Daily Discovery: Victoria Canal, "Unclear"". American Songwriter.

[1]

[1]

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]

[8]

[9]

[10]

[11]

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]