Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2016 March 24

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 23 March	25 March >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:15, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

IXL Innovation Olympics

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

Unremarkable academic event with no particular indication of notability and scant coverage in media. Notable participants do not confer notability on the event. Acroterion (talk) 23:58, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:36, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:36, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:36, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - lack of any real media coverage indicates that this fails to meet WP:GNG. Insert CleverPhrase Here 02:37, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. not a significant event for encyclopedic purposes. Inadequate references. DGG ( talk ) 19:09, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as nothing particularly suggesting better notability yet. SwisterTwister talk 04:08, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:13, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Casey Cott

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

WP:BLP of an actor whose only discernible claim of notability per WP:NACTOR is that he's freshly cast as a supporting character in a forthcoming television series that only just finished production of its pilot, and has not yet been officially upfronted by a television network. The sourcing here, further, isn't substantively about him -- of the three sources here, two are about the development process of the series before he was cast in it, and thus fail to mention his name at all, and the one that does mention his name is just a blurb which fails to do more than mention his name -- which means that WP:GNG has not been passed either. As always, an actor is not automatically entitled to a Wikipedia article just because he exists; RS coverage verifying an NACTOR pass has to be present before an actor becomes eligible for an article, but neither part of that equation has been met here. Delete, without prejudice against recreation in the fall if the series gets picked up and coverage of the cast members takes off accordingly. Bearcat (talk) 23:47, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:10, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - WP:Too soon and doesn't meet WP:NACTOR. Insert CleverPhrase Here 02:38, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as certainly questionable for WP:ENTERTAINER. SwisterTwister talk 07:11, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:01, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:01, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Does not yet meet notability guidelines.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:19, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep as I believe my searches have also found there's enough for at least an improvable article and there's enough to suggest it's moderately known. I would've voted but this seems enough to close for now (NAC). SwisterTwister talk 04:03, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Virginia Citizens Defense League

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

This organization is not notable. Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies) : "An organization is generally considered notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources. " It hasn't been the subject of any articles, and isn't mentioned at all outside of its own state. Just one publicity stunt that got some coverage when they sued the DA. There's talk page complaints about the article. Felsic2 (talk) 23:48, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Firearms-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:59, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:59, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:59, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:59, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:59, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Nom is simply incorrect in asserting that :"isn't mentioned at all outside of its own state." Here [1] is a description of the group in a book published by a mainstream press; group gets quite a number of hits on google book [2]; and there is a great deal of coverage (by no means all in-state) in news archive searches, Proquest here [3], although I am aware of no rule that statewide notability is insufficient. Also, although another user recently voted to delete an article on the grounds that if I wasn't willing to re-write it, I must be lying when I said that it was notable [4], I don't have the time to source every notable topic that I find at AFD. And (full disclosure) I am pro gun control and suspect that this is why I lack even the inclination to source/expand/rewrite the page properly. But I try to be fair minded and I really can find no reason to deny the notability of this group. E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:15, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Organization is notable per links provided by E.M. Gregory.--JayJasper (talk) 21:19, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 03:04, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

European Awareness Scenario Workshop

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

Unreferenced, insubstantial and vague. Apparently based on an Italian wiki article which I cant read, but which also appears to be unreferenced. Rathfelder (talk) 23:36, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:40, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:40, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Denmark-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:40, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Seems like a non-notable bureaucratic initiative. I see only a few mentions in Italian media on GNews, and they don't seem major, through if an Italian speaker disagrees, please ping me so I can review their arguments. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:02, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete at best for as none of this suggests a solidly better notable article. SwisterTwister talk 04:06, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- RoySmith (talk) 00:06, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Faiers

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

Non notable. Exactly three Google News Hits, two are passing mentions (one is an advertisement) and then there's this [5], which isn't really enough to satisfy WP:BIO or WP:GNG. Article was originally written and later heavily edited by WayneRay (talk · contribs) (and his sockpuppet); Mr. Ray is personally connected to the subject, making it promotional/spammy in nature. The Master ---)Vote Saxon(--- 23:19, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:08, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:08, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:08, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails notability requirements on Wikipedia due to lack of significant coverage in secondary sources independent of the article's subject. — Cirt (talk) 00:29, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Lacks references that would establish notability. ShelbyMarion (talk) 22:36, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete lacks enough sources to establish notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:25, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as simply nothing for signs of independent notability. SwisterTwister talk 04:51, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:02, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Unfinished Monument Press

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

Non-notable small press. Exactly zero Google News hits for "Unfinished Monument Press". Article was originally written by WayneRay (talk · contribs), who is affiliated with the company, making it promotional/spammy in nature. The Master ---)Vote Saxon(--- 23:01, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Vipinhari || talk 09:32, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Vipinhari || talk 09:32, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I ran a ProQuest search and found a few glancing namechecks of it in coverage of other things (usually readings by its authors in local events calendars, but also an obituary of Daniel Jones) — but I found no coverage of the type it would take to get it over WP:CORP or WP:GNG. Bearcat (talk) 15:06, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:54, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:54, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:54, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as searches found nothing convincingly better at all and none of this is better convincing. SwisterTwister talk 21:57, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails notability requirements on Wikipedia due to lack of significant coverage in secondary sources independent of the article's subject. — Cirt (talk) 00:29, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Lacks references that would establish notability. ShelbyMarion (talk) 22:35, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, a gsearch for awards brings up a large no. of books that UMP has published winning awards [6]. I know that notability is not inherited but???? Also, might it be redirected/merged to James Deahl? Coolabahapple (talk) 16:28, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedied as I tagged it (NAC). SwisterTwister talk 00:29, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sour schi

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

This article appears to be a hoax. Searching "sour chi" in English and searching the Russian (which literally translates as "sour soup") turns up absolutely nothing but the soup recipes. Searching "Russian honey-malt sparkling soft drink" and multiple variations only turns up Kvas, and a review of the text of "Eugene Oneguine" http://www.gutenberg.org/cache/epub/23997/pg23997.html shows that quote doesn't exist, nor anything remotely close. This needs serious WP:RS added to prove it's real. JamesG5 (talk) 22:55, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:36, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:36, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. As far as I can tell by searching English references, schi is a cabbage soup, as per this. I also cannot find any indication that the subject of the article exists as a soft drink. I also found no reference at all to sour schi or to schi in the text of Eugene Oneguine. I too suspect this to be a hoax. Geoff | ^{Who, me?} 17:51, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Howicus (Did I mess up?) 04:27, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

SS Santhia

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

This appears to have been a wholly unremarkable ship. It was built, sailed uneventfully, and was scrapped. No in-depth sources on Google, and Newspapers.com only turned up routine "Santhia arrived in this port"-type mentions. Howicus (Did I mess up?) 22:27, 24 March 2016 (UTC) I think I was considering this article in an incorrect way. I considered it in isolation without thinking about the larger context. Nomination withdrawn.Howicus (Did I mess up?) 04:27, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep unless there is an appropriate list-article that it can be covered in, in which case redirect to the list item covering it. There are not very many ships of this size. As for U.S. Liberty Ships, why not just list them all? The article does provide useful reference info: this ship is the one that was renamed to a Japanese name; it was an innocuous ship (perfectly okay result when you want to look up the ship that delivered goods, immigrants, whatever to someplace.) Seriously, it makes sense to list them all, making separate articles unnecessary for many of them yet allowing for lookup of basic facts. See List of Liberty ships. We don't want a thousand separate AFD decisions to be made. Anyone can merge/redirect without an AFD. Note: I did not attempt to find sources that might establish separate article notability. --doncram 02:17, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Of note: this ship is one of not very many that brought indentured servants (slaves?).from India to Fiji. All such ships have articles. Descendants should be able to get info about it. See the article in "what links here". It also served many other purposes no doubt, so it cAnt merely be an item in that one list of ships, it would have to be an item in list of Japanese merchant ships too. And rather than repeat basic facts it is easiest to present them once in one article. -do ncr am 02:27, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Doncram, I do not fully understand what you are saying here. Are you arguing for a keep because I am nominating only a single ship instead of many? I was originally intending this to be a "test" nomination, to see what people thought about the notability of this ship, so that if consensus was otherwise (as it most certainly seems to be) I wouldn't have to go to the trouble of sorting out the ships with similar less-eventful careers and bulk nominating them. Howicus (Did I mess up?) 01:18, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What category or list or other set of ships were you addressing? My view of your best way forward is not to test current AFD editors' knowledge or interest about isolated ones (and then punch gaps into our collected knowledge by deleting ones effectively at random) but rather to create or expand organized knowledge by creating or adding to sensible list-articles. In fact I object to deletion of any significant (largish) ship's article if we do not "know what it is" and serve readers by letting them look it up. If a ship is satisfactorily identified in at least one list-article and there is not any more "useful"(?) information about it in its separate article, then it can be "deleted" by redirecting it to a wp:anchor at its place in the list-article. But also all its "useful"(?) info must also be reflected in any 2nd or 3rd list-article that should exist and/or the 2 or 3 list-items should link to each other, so readers can get all the info. And the original article's edit history and past content should be kept in it becoming a redirect to its list-item (or most important one). This may sound bureaucratic but why should we tolerate loss of context information that can be conveyed in a list? And I believe all "largish" ships can be listed, by purpose and/or actual use or shipbuilder and/or otherwise. For this one it is turning out that it should be included in 3 lists (builder, indentured servants-carrier, Japanese shipping line), none of which can carry all of its info so an article for it is needed and most efficient. Again your way forward to eliminate some articles is to build list-articles. That's my opinion anyhow. It's an approach I have used, for example about topics ("named corners") that one or a few editors thought were horrible, by building List of named corners of the Snaefell Mountain Course. It took time and many of the corners' articles survived separately, but some were redirected (without AFDs) and show as black links in the list, and many more new contentious articles were avoided. It stopped a long series of contentious AFDs which ~~consumed~~ demanded and wasted many editors' time. I perceive contention on ships' deletions, too, and so do you probably. If you agree, please avoid that and go the route of building lists. :)

To answer your question directly it did bother me that you were picking on one ship out of the set of indentured servants-carriers, and I did mean to imply that as an issue in addition to other issues I spoke of more directly. IMO we need to be more explicit in discussing standards and addressing "fairness"; the "other stuff exists" issue does matter and should not be dismissed, especially in fairly well-established types of topics like ships...we should be completing articles on more important and winnowing articles on non-important ships by now, with explicit objective definitions by now what are the criteria (better than "largish" which is arguably the only major criterion "defined" so far. If you were in fact aiming at, and working from, that set then IMHO you would have done better to explain that rather than allowing others to "discover" that this ship has some significance in that context and that you seemed unaware of that. If you would have explained you thought the indentured servants-carrier "list-article" carried all that was "useful" to say about the ship then you would have had a better chance in getting it eliminated by redirection to that list. Is there a different category you were working from, though, that we could now work together at "listifying"? --do ncr am 03:48, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Doncram, I encountered this specific article in recent changes, but the list I'm talking about is Indian indenture ships to Fiji. Though, I see now that perhaps my reasoning was flawed; I considered this ship in isolation, like I would an obscure biography or company, without really considering the wider context. Howicus (Did I mess up?) 04:27, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - per -doncram. Insert CleverPhrase Here 02:40, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Vipinhari || talk 09:35, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There appears to be plenty of material with which to expand the article from. That already in the article, plus Lloyd's Register of Shipping]. Mjroots (talk) 17:19, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per above. - ^theWOLFchild 17:55, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Santhia was one of seven S-class passenger-cargo ships of British-India Steam Navigation Company of 1901-1902. One other, Sangola, already has a stub article. They could be combined into an appropriately titled Class article, covering also the other five. Davidships (talk) 18:17, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Not because it's an interesting piece of shipbuilding, but because of the social history concerning Fiji. Andy Dingley (talk) 19:11, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Article looking a little more shipshape now. Mjroots (talk) 20:11, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 23:38, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

S Sajeev Kumar

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

Searches reveal no substantive coverage for this author or his works anywhere online. Does not appear to satisfy either WP:NAUTHOR or WP:GNG. Super Mario Man ( Talk ) 22:09, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable.--DThomsen8 (talk) 01:43, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:NN. —Skyllfully ^(talk | _contribs) 02:33, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:BIO — LeoFrank ^Talk 17:43, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Vipinhari || talk 09:37, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Vipinhari || talk 09:37, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. A clear consensus to delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 23:23, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Toilet Partition

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

There is nothing notable about the partitions between toilets in public restrooms. This article was created merely as a vehicle for advertising for a company that makes such partitions. If there is anything worth saying about this topic, it can be said at public toilet. Edgeweyes (talk) 21:57, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Yes, we all want there to be partitions there but we don't need a separate article. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:29, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Ya, delete. We don't need a partition between this article and the public toilet article. Elaenia (talk) 23:09, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete seems like it was created as a vehicle for promotional content. @Elaenia: well played, well played. Insert CleverPhrase Here 02:42, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep If you stripped the " Source " which is where the information came from, you'd see this was an informational article, about a subject matter you didn't have. While this page linked to a website where items were sold, the website has more informational resources on it than products to purchase. I was merely trying to create a further informational resource for customers and was going to link back to this article from the site. I understand the concerns with advertising, however unless items or services were being promoted I don't understand how it was advertising, especially now that the source was removed? If the information is in one place and I got it from that source, wouldn't that be the source or reference? How is the Burgerking wiki page or other articles citing companies who sell things as their source any different? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aguyonlinesayingthings (talk •

contribs) 18:48, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Promotional. Flush it. Anmccaff (talk) 04:52, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:49, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per above. An article about a wall around the pisser/shitter can be covered in the toilet article. Heyyouoverthere (talk) 13:14, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as nothing particularly suggesting a better separate article. SwisterTwister talk 04:11, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 02:19, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keegan de Lancie

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

Delete: non-notable yet; does not derive notability from father and/or grandfather, both of whom are unquestionably notable and have their own standalone articles. Just too soon, IMO. I am sure he will be notable in the future. Quis separabit? 21:43, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, the 'Q (Junior)' role was fairly significant, and they had other roles in notable shows also. Star Trek fandom also qualifies as a large fan base or significant "cult" following. (WP:ENT) –xeno^talk 21:58, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:48, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:48, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:48, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep; if his only role was the ST episode, that might be qualified under BLP1E, but as he has had multiple roles, there's a reasonable fair presumption for notability now. --MASEM (t) 16:52, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as none of this better satisfies WP:ENTERTAINER, only a few works listed at IMDb with also trivial background characters listed. Simply nothing else convincing and could be redirected to his family if needed. SwisterTwister talk 00:24, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. J04n(talk page) 14:50, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Zelalem Mekuria

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

CSD denied ten years ago or so with a suggestion to take this to AfD or PROD. Since then, no sources have been added, nor was I able to discover any, to verify the notability (or even, mostly, the existence) of this person. The computational linguist of the same name, sure....

Additional sources welcome. joe decker ^talk 21:30, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 21:32, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as none of this satisfies the applicable music notability at all, nothing imaginably better. SwisterTwister talk 07:14, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethiopia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:47, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Uncontested. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 23:24, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Trone

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

Not even close to meeting WP:BLP. Also see AfD:David Trone. bender235 (talk) 20:12, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:45, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:45, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:45, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Maryland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:45, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I found this about charitable giving and various mentions of him, but primarily name checks in articles about his brother who is running for some political seat. Nothing that would meet GNG in my searches. LaMona (talk) 05:12, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as the company is acceptably notable but there's nothing to suggest a solid article for the CEO, delete for now. SwisterTwister talk 04:49, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep (non-admin closure) 1.36.69.120 (talk) 02:41, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Martha Black (art historian)

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

She has written two books based on collaborative museum exhibit design with First Nations communities whose culture is being interpreted. She is not as well known as she likely should be - part of a movement to be more inclusive in interpreting museum collections. — Preceding unsigned comment added by East Van Isdaitxv (talk • contribs) 19:45, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Does not appear to be notable. Couldn't find any google news hit for "Martha Black" Heiltsuk JDDJS (talk) 19:49, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - It should be noted that the article's creator has protested this deletion on the article's talk page, with the note that they are still in the process of writing it. I have placed the {underconstruction}} tag on the article to give the article's creator a chance to finish their work, however long that takes. Also a search of Google Books does result in multiple hits for her. — Maile (talk) 23:29, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Martha Black is a curator, researcher and art historian who has worked extensively with First Nations communities to create collaborative exhibits. Her work has included examine the R.W. Large Collection of Heiltsuk art and artifacts. This important collection contains an unusual degree of associated information - allowing us to learn about named artists from the Heiltsuk - something that was not commonly recorded during the height of the collecting of northwest coast art and artifacts. Black has been involved in several exhibits involving First Nations - with the Heiltsuk - the Kaxlaya Gvilas exhibit (Royal Ontario Museum, with travelling exhibit to UBC, Montreal (McGill) and a local museum in Ontario. She also worked with the Nuu-chah-nuulth on an exhibit of their work - though I am less familiar with this work.

Black has written several works regarding art history and the exhibits she worked on - and has set a good model for academics working with First Nations to collaborate in presenting their culture and art. — Preceding unsigned comment added by East Van Isdaitxv (talk • contribs) 00:15, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

She has published stuff, but it hasn't been noted much. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:42, 25 March 2016 (UTC).[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:44, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:44, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:44, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:44, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:44, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- the book holdings (220 270) might seem on the low side, but I could only find three books on Inuit art with higher holdings and two were textbooks, so she seems to have fulfilled WP:PROF#C1 of achieving distinction in her field. -- Michael Scott Cuthbert (talk) 17:49, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, somewhat marginally, per User:Mscuthbert. Specialist in a very specific area. Johnbod (talk) 20:52, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. With a GS h-index of 4 she fails WP:Prof on cites. Book holdings are too low. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:39, 25 March 2016 (UTC).[reply]

I'm extremely dubious that the h-index works for art history, especially in such a minority area. Johnbod (talk) 02:39, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

h-index compares like with like. How do her citations compare with those of other art historians? Another art historian Ernst Gombrich has an h-index of over 40 (as far as I was prepared to count, so probably much greater, even though he was before the web got under way), so art historians are not necessarily badly done by in respect to citations. Xxanthippe (talk) 03:55, 26 March 2016 (UTC).[reply]

That doesn't follow at all, and is comparing one extreme with the other. It is not true at all that "h-index compares like with like" - it is calculated the same way for physicists and art historians. Given that Gombrich is possibly the most-widely cited 20th-century art historian (and is now dead after a very long career, writing mostly broad theoretical stuff, or stuff on the most core European Renaissance area), his score suggests that art historian's indices should be multiplied by about 5 to equate with physicists. Or more. But really it is a bad idea to use indices, especially for people who are also curators. Johnbod (talk) 04:17, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It is accepted by most people who contribute to academic AfDs here that different fields have different citation patterns for which allowance is made. Therefore one compares physicists with physicists and art historians with art historians, but not physicists with art historians. Also sub-fields have differences. There is plenty of discussion on the WP:Prof talk page and its archives. Best wishes. Xxanthippe (talk) 05:49, 26 March 2016 (UTC).[reply]

That is not at all what you said the first time. I've never heard of anyone trying to use an h-index for art historians, though I'm aware they are generally rejected as meaningful for historians in general. Do you have any RS links for their use for art history, and for the appropriate scale of values that would be required for this. Without that you should not be arguing from these here. Johnbod (talk) 15:00, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I've looked at the WP:PROF page, where I see these very sensible comments:

"I have literally never heard of citation numbers brought up in a hiring or promotion situation in the humanities, so by emphasizing them we are creating our own WP idea of notability and not considering notability factors in the field (mainly letters of evaluation; quality of journals published in; reviews of books, etc.). -- Michael Scott Cuthbert (talk) 14:48, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

citation numbers are not used, but quality of citations is. If a person's work is referred to in every serious book on a subject, they are likely an authority. As some additional points: (1) the humanities citation data is extracted only for cites from the journals WoS covers. Until recently , there were very few humanities journals among them, and the current situation is only slightly better. The citations then will be biased towards those publishing in fields which do have significant coverage--if for example citations are from psychology or economics journals. (3)WoS coverage for non-English journals is extremely weak. In the humanities, many area-specific subjects are primarily published in journals of that language. The archeology of scandinavia is reported mainly in the scandinavian languages. The ancient history of Italy is primarily in Italian. WoS generally does not cover these. (4) WoS refused to give impact factors data in the humanities for many years, precisely because of the the problems noted in this discussion--the very wide spread of journals in which they appear, the appearance of many or most of the citations in books rather than journals, and the extremely long span during which citations appear. (I had some personal discussions with Garfield on this, because when I was a beginning librarian, I did not understand.) (5) I do however disagree that every citation in the humanities is meaningful. I'm looking at McCormack's already classic Origins of the European Economy, and he makes a point of citing every published report in its field (To be sure its field is AD 300-900, where every bit of original source is precious & studied)But it is also true that most books in the humanities do indeed indicate which are the most important papers and books they cite, and applicable quotations to that effect can be found. Such can be found in the sciences too, for at least some of the cites, especially if review articles are examined. If this were done exhaustively, we could probably prove essentially all assistant professors in research universities as notable. DGG ( talk ) 18:08, 28 April 2014 (UTC)"

You seem rather out on a limb there. Johnbod (talk) 15:08, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, subject may meet WP:NAUTHOR? a number of reviews of her books found in: [7] - American Indian Quarterly, [8] - University of Toronto Quarterly, [9] - BC Studies, [10] - Library Journal and Midwest Book Review, the book Native Art of the Northwest Coast (sorry no link as google books which lists the contents pages is wikiblocked) (has 2 reviews on pp 259, 718?) (she is also a contributor to this book). Coolabahapple (talk) 17:02, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Uncertain as this moment so I'm asking DGG for analysis. SwisterTwister talk 04:12, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. meets WP:PROF and WP:AUTHOR on the basis of the books. The article needs some adjust to emphasize them, for they are the true basis of notability. DGG ( talk ) 05:03, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. per WP:PROF --Moxy (talk) 01:28, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Article needs cleanup, not deletion per WP:ATD. Hmlarson (talk) 19:23, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 03:03, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

James Theobald Bagot John Butler

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

Delete: as non-notable, untitled minor noble. Quis separabit? 19:27, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:14, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I see no reason why this would meet WP:GNG. Insert CleverPhrase Here 02:58, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
This is Wikipedia - please leave your liberal idealism outside. What matters here is sourcing, often contemporary, especially Debrett's, The Times, Who's Who and as a Cambridge graduate Venn Venn. I bet that Rms125a-at-hotmail.com hasn't bothered to check those sources, which is just plain lazy. It is irrelevant whether someone "deserves" an article for "working hard from the bottom and contributing to society", versus whether someone "doesn't deserve" an article because they were privileged. Who are you to judge? You can't so rely on the sourcing. Quentin Q. Quackenbush (talk) 05:05, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not entirely sure what you mean or what your point is. Insert CleverPhrase Here 05:44, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you should familiarise yourself with policies before attempting to !vote? A lot is known about clergymen from the 19th centuries, at the time they held fairly high social statuses were quite well-paid, and often were younger sons of aristos. But if you don't understand the social history, if you don't understand how Wikipedia relies on sources, but you want to pursue some idealistic liberal crusade where you vote to delete an article solely on the basis that its subjcct didn't "deserve" an article ("yeah, that'll teach 'em, the bastards!"), it's not a good idea for your to !vote, is it? Quentin Q. Quackenbush (talk) 13:52, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, um you seem to have a very clear idea of what my opinions on the matter are. As you seem to have a lot of edits on wikipedia (6), I am probably too inexperienced even to understand how much my grasp of policy obviously pales in comparison to yours. I am a little confused however, so perhaps you could explain my views on the subject even better for me? Insert CleverPhrase Here 14:01, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Fails WP:GNG. — LeoFrank ^Talk 05:11, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:41, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as still questionable for solid independent notability. SwisterTwister talk 04:22, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Uncontested. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 23:32, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Digital Assassins

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Ciridae (talk) 19:50, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Ciridae (talk) 19:44, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article does not meeting either WP:N or WP:V, has no reliable sources and is possibly written (entirely) by a band member (WP:COI). Ciridae (talk) 19:18, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note - The article was previously nominated for speedy deletion but the tag was reverted by Appable. Ciridae (talk) 19:56, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails to meet WP:GNG. Insert CleverPhrase Here 02:57, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as searches found nothing better, nothing else convincing here. SwisterTwister talk 07:18, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:39, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 03:03, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Khalid Saifullah Rahmani

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

POV and lack of RS ScholarM (talk) 19:00, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:53, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:53, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:53, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:53, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as none of this suggests better notability and improvements, still questionable overall. SwisterTwister talk 04:20, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Secretary of the All India Muslim Personal Law Board. Muslims in India have a separate personal law based on Sharia called the Muslim personal law. All India Muslim Personal Law Board is regarded in India as representative of Muslims in the country and helps develop and continue the muslim personal law. A google news search turns up plenty of sources. The article is in bad shape, should be improved and tagged as appropriate.Vinegarymass911 (talk) 05:23, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete--Obaid Raza (talk) 16:40, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep (NAC). SwisterTwister talk 04:21, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Kanihama

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

Totally unsourced utterly unencyclopaedic article about a non-notable village in India, letting is know that there's a post office and two ATMs in the village, and then using using the rest of the space to tell us how shawls are made... Thomas.W ^talk 18:38, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:34, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Per editor consensus, there is no such thing as a non-notable village. Confirmed, legally recognized place with ~1,670 people per Census of India,[11] thus passing WP:GEOLAND. • Gene93k (talk) 20:37, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Blow it up and start over. There's absolutely nothing worth saving in the article, and even if there was the English is so bad it would require a total rewrite. So it's better to delete it, and let someone else start from scatch. Thomas.W ^talk 21:02, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest simply reverting to a previous, marginally-better version, sans the shawl nonsense. It could then be expanded from there. GAB^Hello! 21:12, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Obviously, the article needs reworking. But why does it need to be deleted first? Especially for a short article like this, simply cutting the bad content would accomplish the same goal. (As an aside, though I haven't found a very good source yet, this village *does* seem to get mentioned for its shawls). Howicus (Did I mess up?) 21:20, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Howicus and Gene93k. Note any call to "blow it up" indicates the topic is valid. I want to create a bot that finds such arguments and inserts a Keep vote, or. better, closes the AFD. --do ncr am 02:37, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Snow Keep - passes WP:GEOLAND. Vipinhari || talk 16:55, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a pass of WP:GEOLAND. As for TNTing the article, just be bold and do it yourself. Bringing it to AfD is useless because deletion is not cleanup. SST flyer 17:04, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:06, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Calamari HR Software

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

nonnotable dot-com startup Staszek Lem (talk) 18:33, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:32, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:32, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:32, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:32, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:NCOMPANY. User:Staszek Lem: do tag such articles with {{notability}} too, in the future. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:33, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as searches are finding nothing better at all. SwisterTwister talk 22:05, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Withdrawn by nominator (non-admin closure) | Uncle Milty | talk | 11:37, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

List of places in Pennsylvania: R

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

The article is too generalised. Also, all the names of places are put into a single table without any categorized division.Rollingcontributor (talk) 18:11, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn by nominator. If a majority of Wikipedia editors do find articles like these important enough, I guess it needs improvement rather than deletion. Please remove Afd template and close this discussion. Rollingcontributor (talk) 11:34, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

speedy keep. There are thousands of lists of places of this kind. Issues raised are for article content not for its existence. Staszek Lem (talk) 18:37, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:09, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:09, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The nomination, as noted above, seems to be mainly concerned about the scope of the list, rather than the need. The existence of all the pages in Category:Lists of places in the United States by state is evidence that Wikipedia editors find them important enough to create and maintain them. (And why nominate just the "R" page, not all the other Pennsylvania place lists?) -- Ed (Edgar181) 20:13, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 18:22, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Paul White (Irish footballer)

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

Player has only played lower division football in Ireland and non-league football in England, therefore he has never played in a fully professional league and fails WP:NFOOTY. Also fails WP:GNG due to lack of significant coverage in reliable third-party sources. -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:47, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:49, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - He has not played in a fully pro league or received significant coverage, meaning the article fails WP:NSPORT and WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik (talk) 17:28, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:31, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:31, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:31, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:31, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 11:08, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails NFOOTY as has not played senior international football nor played in a fully professional league. No indication that subject has garnered significant reliable coverage for any other achievements to satisfy GNG. Fenix down (talk) 09:06, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nominator. No evidence of meeting notability requirements. C 679 21:47, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NFOOTY and WP:GNG. Joseph2302 (talk) 14:39, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 18:21, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nuur Muhammad Bhutia

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

Notability not stated, references include Facebook links. Laber□^T 15:28, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per nom. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 15:38, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 19:15, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As per nominator - no indication of notability.Peter Rehse (talk) 19:15, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:29, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:29, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No indication of notability and no significant independent coverage.Mdtemp (talk) 08:24, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Notability not stated, Facebook link goes to a MMA class taught out of a garage, website link is the gym's own website. 122.163.71.171 (talk) 18:28, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. In fairness to the article's creator, I note that the Facebook source also shows the cover of the subject's book Taponomics. But although the book is discussed in the article, I don't see it as notable in itself and so I don't see how the author can inherit any notability from it. Also, the good folks at the Mixed Martial Arts project have a notability guide (WP:MMANOT), and the subject doesn't come close to meeting those guidelines. NewYorkActuary (talk) 14:37, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
SNOW Delete as none of this suggests better notability. SwisterTwister talk 04:23, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 03:02, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Fuego (producer)

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

Only one reference actually contains the text "Fuego", and that's a dubious screenshot of a scanned image of what I suppose is supposed to be album art. ⁓ Hello 71 15:09, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:27, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:27, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as still questionable for the applicable independent notability, I see nothing convincing to currently keep. SwisterTwister talk 07:15, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – notability is not inherited. SST flyer 16:59, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. joe decker ^talk 15:34, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Alexander C. Feldman

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

This article is clearly a candidate for deletion according to the ["Biographies of Living Persons"] article. The reasons are:

1. The person is relatively unknown;

2. The person has published material about himself (the page edit history leads to a staff-member of the person). This material is unduly self-serving which is a violation of the Wikipedia policy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:647:C802:C0:A6C4:94FF:FE40:CCAC (talk) 07:55, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Completing nomination on behalf of IP editor. Text above is copied from article talk page. I'll stop short of offering a !vote of my own, but my impression from a first pass is that while the article could use some de-PR-ification, better sources are out there and the subject likely meets WP:GNG. --Finngall ^talk 16:27, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:12, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:12, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Article may need improvement, but generally undersecretaries/CEOs can be notable.-- danntm ^T _C 00:16, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"Can be notable" != "are always automatically notable". Bearcat (talk) 18:38, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Appears to have held a senior enough post for notability. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:16, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as this may not be as convincing as earlier. Draft at best if needed, Keep perhaps as this seems convincing enough but I'll also invite DGG for analysis, as I know DGG always has beneficial insight. SwisterTwister talk 06:16, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Either he is notable for his business career or his government career. The business career is "by working for Star TV" in an unspecified capacity; Vice President for Affiliate Sales at CNBC Asia; founder of B2BCast.com ,a n apparently nonnotable company;. The government career peaks as [[ United States Assistant Secretary of State[[ -- Tat is not the Assistant to the S of State. The rank directly under the Sec of State are the 2 Deputy Secretaries. Under them are the 7 Under Secretaries . Under them, the 4th ranks down, are the 24 Assistant Secretaries. There is a presumption that the Sec of State is notable. All the Deputies are notable ; but the level under that, Assistant, that's another matter. The claims in the articles are furthermore vague and unverifiable "helped create the MGM movie channel" does not specific the extent of the role. Probably quite a few people could claim that also. Thesources areeitherinteviews with him in which he says whatever he wants, or are mere notices. DGG ( talk ) 20:48, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
While the article makes claims that would probably make him eligible for a Wikipedia article if they were better sourced than this (i.e. well enough to pass WP:GNG), it's not claiming or properly sourcing anything that gets him an automatic inclusion freebie just because he exists. So I'm willing to reconsider this if the article sees significant cleanup and sourcing improvement before close, but he's not entitled to keep this just because a better written and better sourced article might be possible. Delete, without prejudice against recreation if somebody can do better. Bearcat (talk) 18:36, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Malcolmxl5 (talk) 19:12, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: somewhat confused about the @Bearcat: reasoning above because as per WP:NEXIST we're not supposed to be making judgements based on the quality of the sources found on the page but whether sources which meet the WP:GNG exist. Hence I can't see how one can possibly !vote that "he's not entitled to keep this just because a better written and better sourced article might be possible" - because that is exactly what we are supposed to be assessing to determine whether the page should exist or be deleted. As it happens, I don't believe that significant secondary sources about this guy do exist, and on that basis it should be delete - but this has nothing to do with the poverty of sources currently on the page. JMWt (talk) 21:22, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think you may be misunderstanding my point. I wasn't able to find the volume and quality of sources needed to meet WP:GNG via the resources available to me, but it is possible and has happened that a person who couldn't be sourced over GNG in one media database could be sourced over GNG in a different one. So the difference between a keep and a delete is not "maybe better sources might exist somewhere", but "here is the hard and fast proof that better sources do exist". Bearcat (talk) 19:02, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ Neutral. I am not seeing WP:POLOUTCOMES as relevant here. As far as I can tell, his government roles consisted of being an assistant to a more notable role. And his being a CEO of a notable advocacy organization doesn't make him notable either according to WP:NOTINHERITED. The only claim of notability I see is that "he held the rank of Assistant Secretary of State with responsibility for global public diplomacy" — a copyvio phrase pulled verbatim from the cited source, which is self-published — but our article and all of its sub-pages list other people as holding the position during the time he supposedly held it, so I would discount this claim in the article, and any other claim cited to primary sources. ~Amatulić (talk) 23:58, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Based on the sources found by GabeIglesia below, I'm withdrawing my delete vote. I am still not convinced that the rank Coordinator for International Information Programs automatically confers notability on anyone who has that position. At the risk of making a WP:OTHERSTUFF argument, this strikes me as considering all entries in the list of admirals of the German Navy as notable enough to merit a Wikipedia article merely on account of their rank. ~Amatulić (talk) 00:42, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article meets WP:GNG. The subject's roles as a former Assistant Secretary of State (a high-level position appointed by the President of the United States), and as the current president of a notable organization gives the subject sufficient notability. GabeIglesia (talk) 18:24, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@GabeIglesia: See my comment immediately above. Where is the independent source that verifies he was a "former Assistant Secretary of State"? Our article on the subject, and all the associated sub-pages, don't mention him. The only thing we have is a self-published source. I hardly think that qualifies. ~Amatulić (talk) 19:06, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Amatulic: Hmm. Indeed you are right that the "AllGov" ref didn't mention it. His archived State Department profile, however, does verify that he held that position. Here's one more from his current US-ASEAN profile and another on the Washington Post. GabeIglesia (talk) 21:37, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I've since updated some of the refs regarding his Assistant Secretary role. On another note, to clarify for all, Feldman's official title was Coordinator for International Information Programs, which has the rank equivalent to an Assistant Secretary of State. I mention this, because some sources may not directly mention him being an Assistant Secretary (e.g. the Washington Post source). But it is still correct. Hope the clarified sources also help to address the notability/WP:GNG question. GabeIglesia (talk) 21:48, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 14:57, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:25, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I agree with DGG that this person does not appear notable either by the virtue of positions, coverage or achievements. Just someone doing their job. I'll also note that this biography seems to be part of the series created by a SPA on Coordinator for International Information Programs/US-ASEAN Business Council; I suspect a COI in the works. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:47, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nothing about his career or the sourcing of the article passes notability guidelines.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:40, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- RoySmith (talk) 21:46, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Tenex Software Solutions

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

A company which fails the criteria at WP:CORP, both in depth and in breadth. This is a small company, under 20 employees, not publicly traded. It specializes in providing election software for electronic pollbooks etc.. The only coverage it has received is local news about some glitches in local elections that used it in Ohio in November 2015 (two counties only) and Florida (one county only) in August 2014. None of the coverage is about the company per se but about the glitches and merely mentions the company with at most one or two sentences. Much of the coverage about the glitches with which this article had been peppered did not even mention the company's name. I can find no independent published mainstream sources focusing in depth on the company itself. Note that unusually for company articles, this one was not created to advertise the company but rather as an attempt at an "exposé" [12]. Voceditenore (talk) 17:16, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 18:47, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 18:47, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom.4meter4 (talk) 01:52, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Wikipedia's notability guidelines for companies and organizations state 1.) depth of coverage 2.) audience and 3.) independence of sources as a primary criteria for determination of notability. I believe the sources below meet all of these guidelines.

While Wikipedia states sole coverage from a single local media source is not reason for notability, the sources below from multiple local/regional sources in multiple markets meet the "audience" criteria. Additionally, the guidelines state – "at least one regional, statewide, provincial, national, or international source is necessary" – a criteria which is met by the coverage below in USA Today.

These sources are reliable and independent. The scope of Tenex Software Solutions is national in scale. The product has been noticed by decision-making individuals in large cities who determine how their elections will be calculated. Given that it is an election year, it is more than appropriate that this software, through which thousands of voters will cast their ballot, be noted on Wikipedia. Stevenjohnson14 (talk) 15:18, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No, I'm afraid these sources do not meet any of the criteria for a stand-alone article on this company. Your first source literally mentions the name of the company in passing and is about the use of Electronic poll books. The second is a listing at a vendor's exhibition and is not independent of the company. The third doesn't even mention the company. The fourth has two sentences stating that the owner of Tenex answered questions about the glitches at a meeting. The fifth doesn't even mention the company. The sixth is virtually the same as as the fourth, just a different local TV station (and still just a couple of sentences). The seventh and last one (USA Today) doesn't even mention the company. The focus and primary subject of every single one of those articles is the use electronic poll books in local elections in three counties and the glitches that ensued, not all of which were down to Tenex, which becomes immediately apparent if you actually read the articles. Wikipedia is not in the business of consumer advocacy and exposés. And frankly, the sole purpose of this article appears to have been to attack this particular company.

You might be able to incorporate some of this material, neutrally worded and not giving undue weight to one particular company into the Electronic pollbook article, e.g. glitches in Chicago using pollbooks from Elections Systems & Software [13], glitches in yesterday's primary in Duval Country Florida using pollbooks from VR systems [14], etc. etc. etc. The glitches with Tenex are not remotely unique nor an indication of the company's significance and notability. I also note that you have added yet more of your unbalanced, exaggerated "coverage" of this episode to the article, and have not mentioned anywhere that not all the glitches were down to the software. Why? Voceditenore (talk) 16:04, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have now corrected some of the unbalanced summary of the coverage and (deliberate?) omissions in your recent additions. I have also formatted the references properly so that the titles are clear as well as the dates, indicating that all of this brouhaha boils down to local stories on one issue, on two local television stations over a 5 day period with the basic material repeated several times. While this article sits on Wikipedia, it is not going to be used as a soapbox lacking both perspective and neutral point of view. Voceditenore (talk) 17:38, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I like to quote the opening of wp:corp at AfC, which says: "When evaluating the notability of organizations or products, please consider whether they have had any significant or demonstrable effects on culture, society, entertainment, athletics, economies, history, literature, science, or education." While I agree that the emphasis on the glitch is undue, the company has had an effect on .... etc. LaMona (talk) 02:23, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

LaMona, do you really interpret a significant effect to be that a programming error by this small company caused a biggish but temporary problem in one US county's local election and a relatively minor one in another? And it's clear from the articles that the programming error was not the only reason for the snafu at the polling stations. The problem is, this article cannot be anything but undue because there is zero independent coverage about the company itself—its history, its other activities, etc.. Even the local news stations didn't try to find out about it. They covered the polling station delay and subsequent local shouting match for five days and then zero. Most of the coverage didn't even state the name of the company. Two simply mentioned it in passing, and two had two sentences about how its head apologized at a local meeting for their part in the delays (essentially duplicate stories). None of the stories were about the company at all. Why? Because the company itself is insignificant. There are dozens of companies that supply these E Poll books, and you can find "news" about election glitches for virtually every one of them. E Poll books cause glitches. Dog bites man. You can equally find local stories about small companies that supplied faulty trash cans to the local authority and got everyone hot and bothered for five days. So what? Voceditenore (talk) 07:09, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as too soon perhaps, I certainly see the coverage but it's still questionable and my searches found nothing outstandingly better. Notifying DGG for his familiar insight. SwisterTwister talk 05:37, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I humbly request that this page be removed as soon as possible. The contributions and discussion on this page have not provided any informational benefit to the general public. Our software has been used in dozens of elections with no issues or coverage and the article (if I can even call it that) is completely biased and has honed in on one election. - Ravi Kallem, Tenex Software Solutions, Inc. Ravikallem (talk) 01:12, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep, sources such as [15], [16], and [17] gives the company coverage and such be enough to pass GNG. I always found WP:TOOSOON not applicable if reliable sources exist. Valoem ^talk ^contrib 19:10, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this per deleters and transfer material to Electronic_voting#Documented_problems as a useful example from local elections. Johnbod (talk) 19:40, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. both on grounds of notability and NOTNEWS. I would not transfer any of this anywhere. It's too minor: it involves one county in Ohio. As Ohio is a winner-takes-all state, and Kasich won with 229,000 votes ahead of the 2nd place candidate, it has no conceivable political effect. For that matter , I think all or almost all of the instances in Electronic_voting#Documented_problems are inappropriate content for an encyclopedia: it is not anywhere near a complete list, and there is no apparent basis on which the material was chosen (e.g. political impact, major lawsuit, new type of technical problem) One of the instances apparently involves 3 voters! DGG ( talk ) 21:40, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
delete got into the news for one thing. WP:NOTNEWS and fails GNG. Jytdog (talk) 06:23, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

While they may be locally and regionally based, the sources from which this article is based off of are reliable and independent. The notability of Tenex's software lies in the impact of their technology on the democratic process – which is exactly why the articles that focus on the performance of the software are relevant, regardless of direct mentions of Tenex. With that, I believe the paige should remain as a resource for those seeking more information on this technology as it gains greater popularity in traditional voting services.Stevenjohnson14 (talk) 21:19, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What potentially "impacts the democratic process" (although that is vastly over-stated) is the use of Electronic voting and electronic pollbooks, not the individual companies that supply the devices. The sum total of this company's "impact on the democratic process" was in two counties during local elections which necessitated keeping the polls open for another 90 minutes. What you had consistently omitted from the article but documented in the local coverage were the additional reasons for the glitches which had nothing to do with this company: breakdown of the WiFi connection, a shortage of provisional ballots, and election staff who ignored (or weren't aware of) the paper poll books that were in every precinct as a back up. Stevenjohnson14, if this company's impact was so significant, can you explain why half of the articles on the local election in Ohio didn't even mention its name, and why none of them decided it was worth writing an article about the company itself? Voceditenore (talk) 08:43, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 14:56, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:23, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:23, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - the company is an example of an issue. The issue is notable, the company is not. Not enough in-depth coverage to pass WP:CORPDEPTH. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 17:14, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:04, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Magic of the Musicals

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

No sources or claim to notability. JDDJS (talk) 23:04, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:18, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:18, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:18, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:16, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:03, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Week Keep, per Michig, providing that sources are added. Insert CleverPhrase Here 05:12, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete until better coverage is available as none of this even minimally satisfies the applicable notability. SwisterTwister talk 06:44, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. Ok, so far we have a nomination that appears to be based solely on what is in the article, a Delete !vote with no argument whatsoever, and another !vote from ST which also doesn't appear to be based on anything other than the article contents. I Googled it, and found that this show has performed over 200 sell out dates, spawned a hit (of sorts) album by Mark Rattray - [18], [19], [20], [21]. I suspect that digging deeper will find more reviews of the show in newspapers, since shows as successful as this always get coverage.--Michig (talk) 07:41, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Specifically to discuss the sources brought up by Michig. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 14:52, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 14:52, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Doncram makes a very persuasive argument for keeping this list that nearly has me convinced. But, unfortunately, the argument didn't convince other !voters in this AfD. As the nom points out, WP:EGRS appears to support the deletion of this list and two previous AfDs on similar topics also resulted in delete, as Squeamish Ossifrange pointed out. The consensus here supports the deletion of this page. v/r - T P 07:20, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

List of people with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder

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

Per WP:NOTDIR, this is an indiscriminate, non-encyclopedic list that cross-categorizes living people with disability, medical, or psychological conditions and "doesn't contribute to the state of human knowledge." Per WP:CATEGRS: "Categories which intersect a job, role, or activity with a disability or medical/psychological condition should only be created if the intersection of those characteristics is relevant to the topic and discussed as a group in reliable sources." Permstrump (talk) 10:08, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Permstrump (talk) 10:27, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The nomination talks of an intersection or cross-categorisation. I'm not seeing it. Andrew D. (talk) 15:53, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: This is a genuine question, not snark... Why wouldn't a list of people with BLPs on wikipedia who have ADHD, but for most of whom ADHD is WP:NONDEFINING, be considered an intersection? There’s no clear method for determining which people with ADHD should be on this list other than on the whim of an editor. It's an arbitrary list of (semi-)public figures who at one point had something published that mentioned they had ADHD, in most cases, only a passing mention. WP:NOTDIR says, Wikipedia is not “Lists or repositories of loosely associated topics… There is nothing wrong with having lists if their entries are relevant because they are associated with or significantly contribute to the list topic.” Only 1-2 people on this list probably belong there. WP:SALAT says, “some topics are trivial, non-encyclopedic, or not related to human knowledge. If you create a list like the ‘list of shades of colors of apple sauce’, be prepared to explain why you feel this list contributes to the state of human knowledge.” Permstrump (talk) 19:04, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's not an intersection because there's only one classification, not two. It doesn't much matter, in any case. There are plenty of sources out there which list entrepreneurs such as Branson who have ADHD. The association with entrepreneurship is not arbitrary because those sources indicate that such hyperactivity is a strength which helps them get things done. Such coverage satisfies WP:LISTN and so we're good. Note also that we have categories such as Category:People with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder and so WP:CLN applies. Andrew D. (talk) 08:27, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I think that Howie Mandel's openness about ADD and others' is usefully listed together, and is part of de-stigmatizing the condition and/or encouraging those with it. As long as members of the list have a substantial association such as speaking out about it, I think it's fine (and criteria for inclusion are to be refined at Talk page, not AFD). Some preface to the list, along those lines, like there is for List of gay, lesbian or bisexual people would be good to add, but again that is not for AFD. --do ncr am 18:27, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Howie Mandel and Michael Phelps are the only names on the list who have substantial association speaking about (or having their mom speak about) their history with ADHD. If we limit the list to people with a substantial association with ADHD, it becomes very, very, short. As it stands, this list is basically the opposite of de-stigmatizing as it outs BLPs for having ADHD that are not known for having it and have not consented to its disclosure (and the source of the diagnosis for the majority of people is dubious). Permstrump (talk) 19:12, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not quite so, the 2012 Fox News source "Celebrities with ADHD" covers 4 included so far and 3 more to be added probably, who are like spokespersons on the topic. That one source establishes notability of the group as a list topic so well that this AFD should be closed "keep" already IMHO, though discussion of membership criteria is useful (and should be continued at article's Talk page if/when this is closed "keep". do ncr am 20:27, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm not sure how or if I'll !vote here, but Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of people with autism spectrum disorders was deleted for BLP problems just a few weeks ago. Doug Weller talk 19:03, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for pointing to that, Doug Weller, and thanks also to Permstrump for concerns. I delved into one case on the list, Channing Tatum, and see in source cited in BLP that he said he "was put on Ritalin" and something else, far from supporting assertion in BLP that he had ADHD and struggled in school from that. I don't see clarity of medical diagnosis at all, nor self-identification. (I suspect there may well be some biased editing that went on to beef up the category of persons with ADHD). The autism spectrum disorders list sounds like it was badly defined (or not defined), allowing unproven assertions about a difficult-to-define condition.
- In contrast the Talk page of the list of gay, lesbian, bisexual persons shows that it is managed far better. It is limited to persons where good references show they self-identify as one of those is required. Editor Bearcat and others are doing great job it appears. This must be managed similarly. A very good effect of having this list will be focus upon quality of BLP assertions and categories in BLP articles. For example I believe the Channing Tatum article must have the assertions removed and he should be dropped here. Also the GLB list states up front it is to include only famous people, which should be copied here.
- It is fine for this to be reduced to a short list, even just two persons immediately, for now, is my opinion. Let's do this one right and avoid apparently unfortunate management of autism spectrum list and equally bad decision (imho) to delete it, leaving unscrutinized info in BLPs. I am interested in helping manage this one. It's topic is better defined than "on a spectrum" (to be flip, everyone is on that spectrum, literally, even those at 0 and at .00001 out of 10, say). With self-identification and/or perhaps some overwhelmingly strong evidence of other significant association, where ADHD is actually a defining characteristic of a person, then I think this is worthwhile, useful, interesting, valid, can be well-sourced, etc. What may be interesting may be how few ADHDers are "out", but I am sure there are a lot more than two! (Though less than 47, the current size of its category. All to be examined.) doncram 08:10, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - Some good points, Doncram. This is where I still see an obstacle though... It goes back to an suggestion EvergreenFir raised on User Talk:Doug Weller#BLPs, Mental Illness, and WP:BLPCAT (which is indirectly what of prompted me to make this AFD). EvergreenFir had said, "I wonder what you'd think of a proposal to include mental illness to religious beliefs and sexual orientation as things that require self-identification in BLPCAT." There's a lot of unrelated discussion to sift through, but somewhere in there Doug Weller made a good point that we can't use the same BLP inclusion criteria for mental illness that we would for religion or sexual orientation, because self-reports of mental illness are generally unreliable. On the other hand, it's confidential, so self-reports are pretty much the only way someone's diagnosis would be published. For example, a few of the sources are quoting the celeb talking about having ADHD as a kid and expressing anti-medication sentiments. Kind of like, "I took stimulants as a kid, so I know from experience that ADHD is over-diagnosed and meds are overprescribed..." yada yada yada. So it's like they were casting doubt on their diagnosis when they brought it up. Plus I'm not sure if it's trustworthy since there was clearly a motive to push an anti-medication agenda. Something else just occurred to me... since it's a medical diagnosis, would the source need to be WP:MEDRS? Permstrump (talk) 14:22, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    - OK now I have read most of those discussions and find myself in the "must be prominently self-identified" (or have other extraordinary association) camp. We are not making diagnosis but are reporting on fact of their self-identification. See how I have just revised lede defining criteria significantly. And I have dropped a couple whose ADHD is dubious and who did not self-identify. Haven't noticed anti-medication bias in sources, but it would be fine and relevant to note anti-medicine opinion of a list member. The list is more useful if it shows diversity. --do ncr am 20:14, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Let's just ignore the issues of self-identification for a moment. What's the point of this list? Lists are supposed to help you find a comprehensive guide (or a guide to the most prominent examples, in some cases) to a specific class of entities, because it's often important to know "These are all the items of type X" or "These are the most prominent items of type X". Obviously this list can't give a full list of AD(H)D folks, so it's "most prominent examples" time. What researcher benefits from a list of people with AD(H)D? This is fundamentally not the point of an encyclopedic list: a quick Google search finds a lot of pages with such lists, pages from other types of websites that are really better suited to this. When X is a medical condition of any sort, "list of people with X" makes sense when X is exceptionally rare, when the identities of the individuals with the condition are important to studies of the condition itself (e.g. medical specialists in the condition would be aware of everyone who's been diagnosed), but when it's a widely diagnosed medical condition like AD(H)D, a list like this one just isn't encyclopedic. Nyttend (talk) 04:45, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This is a list of the most prominent examples, which is a valid type of list as you point out. Currently there are extremely few examples, so this list also seems to meet the standard of "X is extremely rare", where X=person has significant association with ADHD and it is reliably known. I am not familiar with any argument that a list has to be useful for research. There are lists of Italian-Americans, and Russians, and musicians, and women artists, where there has never been any assertion or requirement that they must be useful for any research. --do ncr am 01:06, 9 March 2016 (UTC) [22:45, 9 March 2016 (UTC)][reply]

Peripheral comments

Nyttend, Doncram, Andrew D. (and anyone else who sees this): You might be interested in the discussion at WP:Village pump (idea lab)#BLPCAT.2C mental illnesses.2C and learning disabilities. There's some overlap with this discussion, but over there, the purpose is to come up with a draft proposal of a policy that sets parameters on when a BLP should include/not include private health information about psych-related conditions. Permstrump (talk) 06:24, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I just came across a similar AFD from 3 years ago, so I put it in a box up top. The result was to close. At first glance it almost looks like the same exact website as this one, but there's a hyphen in the older one, as in "attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder." Permstrump (talk) 11:09, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 14:02, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Update [this is the nominator's "Vote"] : After I first listed this, Roger (Dodger67) mentioned WP:EGRS in a different thread, and I realized I should have cited it here. Per Disability, medical, or psychological conditions, "People with these conditions should not be added to subcategories of Category:People with disabilities or Category:People by medical or psychological condition unless that condition is considered WP:DEFINING for that individual. For example, there may be people who have a speech impediment, but if reliable sources don't regularly describe the person as having that characteristic, they should not be added to the category." (My emphasis on "regularly"). WP:DEFINING suggests using the following “rules-of-thumb” for determining the difference between the standards of notability, verifiability and definingness:

A defining characteristic is one that reliable sources commonly and consistently define the subject as having—such as nationality or notable profession (in the case of people).

if the characteristic would not be appropriate to mention in the lead portion of an article, it is probably not defining

Two weeks ago, there were 23 names on the list of people with ADHD, and now there are 6 after Doncram and EvergreenFir deleted a bunch of names that lacked RS or meaningful coverage of their ADHD. ADHD isn't DEFINING for a single one of them, except maybe Howie Mandel. It’s also a problem that the media is often vague about the source of the diagnosis and there’s TONS of circular referencing when it comes to celebrities. Even in a mainstream newspaper, I don’t think media reports are reliable enough for a topic of this nature. For example, here’s a NYT article about an interview with Channing Tatum that mentions his history of ADHD and learning disabilities. As Doncram pointed out, the author never said exactly what the source of the diagnosis was. We’re not sure if the journalist got it from the interview or from a google search, yet there are tons of other sources citing NYT as the original source for that information. Little things like that are easy to overlook, so when it comes to BLPs and private health information, I don’t see a good reason to keep a list like this that serves no clear purpose. PermStrump(talk) 16:16, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Permstrump: FYI per WP:AFDFORMAT a nomination implies a delete !vote. No limits on commenting or anything, but you should remove the bolded word "Delete" here. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 03:46, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Significant coverage meets WP:LISTN as well as Category:People with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder meeting WP:CLN. Tanbircdq (talk) 13:23, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: What part of CLN specifically are you saying it passes? Because I'm not seeing inclusion/exclusion criteria there. Also, how are you interpreting WP:LISTN? Because the way I'm interpreting it, this list clearly fails LISTN. Maybe I'm interpreting it wrong, but where it says, "Notability of lists is based on the group. One accepted reason why a list topic is considered notable is if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources, per the above guidelines; notable list topics are appropriate for a stand-alone list. The entirety of the list does not need to be documented in sources for notability, only that the grouping or set in general has been. Because the group or set is notable, the individual items in the list do not need to be independently notable." To me, that means that the list is notable if everyone on the list is grouped together and discussed in reliable sources. And that names of people who aren't notable enough for their own article can be on the list as long as their name appears with the same group of people when the list has been published in reliable sources. Where else do these names appear together on a list of people with ADHD?: Glenn Beck, Marie-Mai Bouchard, Adam Levine, Howie Mandel, Ty Pennington, Michael Phelps? I see lists in WP:QUESTIONABLE sources with some of those names, but I don't see anywhere that all of these people are discussed as a group in a reliable source. PermStrump(talk) 23:09, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:54, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Permstrump:, in all past usage of LISTN as a criteria that I've seen, it has never been suggested that all the members of the group need to be listed together. Rather it has been whether there has ever been references to the type of thing, or to the group collectively, like for Masonic buildings, that one could say "Masonic buildings in the U.S. are common and often monumental in scale, while there are few purpose-built Masonic buildings in Great Britain". As opposed to being a mere intersection, like dentists who live in Ohio. The above-cited article is one example where the group of notable persons with ADHD is explicitly addressed...it is a clearly reliable source on exactly that subject. And I have many times heard of "notable persons with ADHD"; I am comfortable that this is a thing.
And as Tanbircdq points out, wp:CLN applies, and the existence (and I assume support for) the category supports having a list. If a list exists there can be a category almost always, and if there is a category there can always be a list. (And also a navigation template is a kind of list.) Having a list provides additional good information: lists can and should include references and also red-links and blacklinks (for examples of the type that are surely individually notable and those that are surely "list-notable", a possibly lower standard that can be decided by consensus at a list's talk page). --do ncr am 00:57, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per doncram Hawaan12 (talk) 13:32, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 14:51, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Per the 2013 strong consensus on fundamentally the same topic, and the January consensus on a parallel issue. This entire concept is troubling from a BLP issue; medical diagnoses of living individuals cannot and must not be sourced to the media. As noted above, WP:EGRS provides an imperative to proceed with caution, and to restrict inclusion in lists of this nature to those people with the condition as a defining characteristic of their notability. I am hard pressed to argue that even for Howie Mandel, this diagnosis is defining in our sense of the term. And the wider we permit the net to be cast, the more problematic the list becomes. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 15:40, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep List of notable people on a notable topic with a clear inclusion criteria and sources. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 19:37, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete As I always say when these lists come up, having reliable sources that mention that individuals have a certain trait isn't enough - the entire list topic needs to notable with significant, multiple, reliable sources discussing the topic itself in depth. While there are a few sources that do this - mostly celebrity or otherwise lightweight magazines - I don't think it quite rises to the level of significant coverage. Nwlaw63 (talk) 01:07, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as this is still vulnerable to any likely troubles and such, nothing that is particularly safe from it so best deleted. SwisterTwister talk 04:26, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disability-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:00, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I don't really see the value of having this list, and as others have commented, there are ethical issues with listing people with a particular medical condition that might lead to their stigmatisation, sourced to media reports. Cordless Larry (talk) 16:35, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I see no purpose in having this list, I doubt that it would be really useful to anyone. And then of course there's the problem of self-identification. — Omni Flames (talk contribs) 23:02, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete one problem with such a list is that the definition of the disorder is not fixed. When I was 12 I was diagnosed with ADHD. However when I was 24 I was rediagnosed with different issues. So this is not a very fixed diagnosis.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:34, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. There is consensus that the article at least can be rewritten to comply with the policies; the rest is content dispute. The oppose arguments that the article is insulting to Islam were ignored since they are irrelevant according to WP:N. The separate expedition papers were not properly discussed, and, whereas technically kept, there is no prejudice against separate renomination those of them which look problematic.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:21, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

List of expeditions of Muhammad

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

Xtremedood nominated this but could not finish it, I will let him fill this in Misconceptions2 (talk) 06:45, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Seems like you just couldn't wait for me to finish posting the opening. Xtremedood (talk) 07:31, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There are a multitude of issues with these articles and the author of these articles.

Issues with the Article:

The user, Misconceptions2, has dedicated a lot of effort at creating a significant sum of articles, which consist of his own original research (WP:NOR) , involves a large sum of misattribution of sources, is slanderous, violates WP:NPOV and is non academic in nature, but rather rehashes materials from notable hate sites like wikiislam.net. The following article List of expeditions of Muhammad was first published by him, with non-academic and biased materials. This article was simply a repost of his previously deleted articles, “List of killings of Muhammad (discussion over here [22], and [23]) and Muhammad and assassinations (discussion over here [24]), which were all deleted. The article is also largely copied from the notoriously anti-Islamic website, www.wikiislam.net, which over here [25], [26], consists of much of the same materials and slanderous original research, which are not accurate. There are many articles; however, they all consist of similar biases by the user, similar original research, and similar misattribution of sources for biased and slanderous statements. There are many examples, however, I will give you a few: For example, according to the article Caravan raids, Misconceptions2 starts out as saying “The raids were generally offensive” and attributes this to William Montgomery Watt, in his book “Muhammad Prophet and Statesman”, a PDF version can be found here [27]. However, according to page 105 of the book, Watt states “In our peace-conscious age it is difficult to understand how a religious leader could thus engage in offensive war and become almost an aggressor. The first thing to be said in explanation of Muhammad’s behaviour is that the raid or razzia was a normal feature of Arab desert life. It was a kind of sport rather than war.”

This is Watt’s personal interpretation regarding a question posed by presumably Western critics. No where does he state that the majority of the Caravan Raids were offensive. This is a clear misattribution of the sources. This is a common tactic used by WikiIslam.net editors. The section "Muhammad's order and reason for expedition" in List of expeditions of Muhammad, is also very biased, limited, and largely consists of original research.

There is also an extremely heavy reliance on primary sources. As seen here [28], the articles heavily rely on an approximately 1200-1300 year old text, called “The life of Muhammad: a translation of Isḥāq's Sīrat rasūl Allāh” translated by Alfred Guillaume. This source is not valid according to Wikipedia:No_original_research#Primary.2C_secondary_and_tertiary_sources and is heavily used throughout the articles as well.

issues with the user:

The user is a notorious sockpuppet and has been blocked for sockpuppetry in the past, see here [29].
The user also has a strong history of writing articles that violates WP:NPOV.
The user also refers to fringe and prominent anti-Islamic personalities with the following statement, over here [30]: "these views are notable because they are opinion of high profile critics such as "Robert Spencer, Nonie Darwish, Geert Wilder, Ali Sina"". The user has a history [31] of using sources such as Ali Sina, Faith Freedom, Islam Watch, etc. which are known hate sites.
- note: Ali Sina refers to himself as the most anti-Islamic person alive (clearly not neutral), as sourced here [32]. Ali Sina has a militantly anti-Islamic agenda. Sina also has strong links with Pamela Geller.
- note 2: Robert Spencer in a statement expresses fringe and overly-generalized views about Islam and Muslims. An example of this may be seen in his statement "It [Islam] is a religion or a belief system that mandates warfare against unbelievers for the purpose of establishing a societal model that is absolutely incompatible with Western society ... because of media and general government unwillingness to face the sources of Islamic terrorism these things remain largely unknown.", as quoted and sourced over here [33].
- note 3: Geert Wilders has called for the militant and forced expulsion of millions of Muslims from Western countries.^[1]^[2]
This user uses generalized statements aimed towards Muslims, see here “ [34]. This is indicative of a battlefield mentality, of us versus them.

As we can deduce from this history of this user, he appears to have an immense enthusiasm of posting materials from Wikiislam.net, using primary sources he interprets himself/herself, misattributes sources throughout the articles, and engages in sock-puppetry to promote his ideas. Although the topics are interesting, the articles have remained largely unchanged from when Misconceptions2 first published them, and therefore they should be deleted in accordance with Wikipedia:Blow it up and start over. I request impartial, neutral and rational editors to read books such as, Afzalur Rahman’s “Muhammad As a Military Leader” and others, which give completely different insight of these expeditions, rather than what the author of these articles is stating.

Other articles of his, which also consist of immense bias, violate NPOV, consists of OR, rely heavily on primary sources and have largely remained unchanged since Misconceptions2 has added materials to them include:

Caravan raids, Nejd Caravan Raid, Expedition of 'Abdullah ibn 'Atik, Expedition of Abdullah Ibn Unais, Expedition of Al Raji, The Mission of Amr bin Umayyah al-Damri, Expedition of Bir Maona, Expedition of Dhat al-Riqa, Invasion of Badr, Invasion of Dumatul Jandal, Expedition of Muhammad ibn Maslamah, Second Raid on Banu Thalabah, Invasion of Banu Lahyan, Raid on al-Ghabah, Expedition of Dhu Qarad, Expedition of Zaid ibn Haritha (Al-Jumum), Expedition of Zaid ibn Haritha (Al-Is), Third Raid on Banu Thalabah, Expedition of Zaid ibn Haritha (Hisma), Expedition of Zaid ibn Haritha (Wadi al-Qura), Invasion of Banu Mustaliq, Expedition of Abdur Rahman bin Auf, Expedition of Fadak, Expedition of Kurz bin Jabir Al-Fihri, Expedition of Abdullah ibn Rawaha, Conquest of Fadak, Third Expedition of Wadi al Qura, Expedition of Umar ibn al-Khatab, Expedition of Abu Bakr As-Siddiq, Expedition of Bashir Ibn Sa’d al-Ansari (Fadak), Expedition of Ghalib ibn Abdullah al-Laithi (Mayfah), Expedition of Ghalib ibn Abdullah al-Laithi (Fadak), Expedition of Bashir Ibn Sa’d al-Ansari (Yemen), Expedition of Ibn Abi Al-Awja Al-Sulami, Expedition of Ghalib ibn Abdullah al-Laithi (Al-Kadid), Expedition of Shuja ibn Wahb al-Asadi, Expedition of Ka’b ibn 'Umair al-Ghifari, Expedition of Amr ibn al-As (not started by Misconceptions, however, current version is largely of his doing), Expedition of Abu Ubaidah ibn al Jarrah, Expedition of Abi Hadrad al-Aslami, Expedition of Abu Qatadah ibn Rab'i al-Ansari (Khadirah), Expedition of Abu Qatadah ibn Rab'i al-Ansari (Batn Edam), Expedition of Khalid ibn al-Walid (Nakhla), Raid of Amr ibn al-As, Raid of Sa'd ibn Zaid al-Ashhali, Expedition of Khalid ibn al-Walid (Banu Jadhimah), Expedition of At-Tufail ibn 'Amr Ad-Dausi, Battle of Autas (not started by Misconceptions2, but current version is largely of his doing), Expedition of Abu Amir Al-Ashari, Expedition of Abu Musa Al-Ashari, Siege of Ta'if (not started by Misconceptions2, but current version is largely of his doing), Expedition of Uyainah bin Hisn, Expedition of Qutbah ibn Amir, Expedition of Dahhak al-Kilabi, Expedition of Alqammah bin Mujazziz, Expedition of Ali ibn Abi Talib, Expedition of Ukasha bin Al-Mihsan (Udhrah and Baliy), Expedition of Khalid ibn al-Walid (Dumatul Jandal), Expedition of Abu Sufyan ibn Harb, Demolition of Masjid al-Dirar, Expedition of Khalid ibn al-Walid (2nd Dumatul Jandal), Expedition of Surad ibn Abdullah, Expedition of Khalid ibn al-Walid (Najran), Expedition of Ali ibn Abi Talib (Mudhij), Expedition of Ali ibn Abi Talib (Hamdan), Demolition of Dhul Khalasa, Expedition of Usama bin Zayd.

The articles created by Misconceptions2 should be deleted in accordance with Wikipedia:Blow it up and start over, since the articles contain an incredible amount of bias, an incredible amount of OR, an incredible amount of materials from Anti-Islamic sites, and an almost total lack of academic secondary sources.

For users uninformed about the matter, here is an online version of the Sealed Nectar (commonly used by the author) in PDF [35], Haykal's "The Life of Muhammad" in PDF [36], which contradict much of the articles. The articles are far beyond repair at this moment and need to be deleted and rebuild. I do not want to see Wikipedia turned into an Islamophobic hate site with content rehashed from wikiislam, faithfreedom, Islam-watch and other Islamophobic websites. I would much rather advocate for a more academic focus on the articles, not marred by bias, misinformation and prejudice. Xtremedood (talk) 07:31, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ cite|url=https://www.rnw.org/archive/wilders-calls-mass-deportation-muslims|title=Wilders calls for mass deportation of Muslims|}}
^ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FyxOpjcojGM

Comments

write here, which source used is fake? which source used contradicts whats written in article. Thats a serious allegation.--Misconceptions2 (talk) 14:08, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep- Well sourced with multiple reliable academic sources. Controversial is not a reason to keep it out, it is a reason to keep it in, it demonstrates notability. The nominator has said the same about an entire group of articles and has engaged in a user attack. I am beginning to lose my assumption of good faith in these nominations. Can we please discuss the issue of notability of this article instead of throwing around epithets like "anti-Islamic" and "Islamophobic"? --Misconceptions2 (talk) 14:54, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2016 March 14. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 07:02, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:09, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:09, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:09, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"Xtremedood" (nice user name if you're going to be duking it out with ideological opponents on wiki) seems to be conflating a content issue and a user conduct issue. This page is about the merits of a specific topic, not about the conduct of a user contributing to it. If the user posted biased material in the past, learned a lesson and went on to compile a properly sourced article, so much the better, it would mean our system worked. If there is anything fundamentally wrong with a page about "expeditions by Muhammad" sourced on the Quran and Hadith, this would be the place to bring up such objections. Tbh, I do not see any such problem, we have list articles on much more contrived topics. --

"Wikipedia turned into an Islamophobic hate site" is not the proper way to address this, and if "Xtremedood" wants to be at all taken seriously, he should reconsider his rhetorical approach asap. This is pure name-calling. It is a fact that the hadith among other things contains accounts of the military exploits of Muhammad. This does not make the hadith an "Islamophobic" document, this is ridiculous. Wikipedia is not going to emulate the triumphalistic tone taken by early Islam, neither is it going to suggest such conquest was evil or barbarian, it is just going to report such conquest happened, and report on the triumphalism of the conquerors and the disastrous fate of the conquered, you know, as part of history, as in "stuff that happened to be recorded". If this is "Islamophobic", then Islam itself is "Islamophoic". dab (𒁳) 07:42, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It is not well-sourced with academic materials. Rather, it is a culmination of biased and non-impartial statements made by the user which clearly violate WP:NPOV, using sources that often violate WP's policies regarding primary sources or are misattribution of sources, whose authors did not say what Misconceptions2 is implying. The user has dedicated a lot of effort at posting clearly biased materials, which are often contradict what the sources indicate or state. The hadiths are primary sources, compiled approximately 1300 years ago. Using such sources and interpreting based on your own interpretation violates WP policies. I have studied a variety of his articles, and they are not what academic sources such as Afzalur Rahman, Haykal, and others say. This requires a lot of research and a biased user like Misconceptions2 is spreading a lot of misinformation and non-neutral content. Xtremedood (talk) 08:01, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

To add, clearly Misconceptions2 has not learned anything from his period of being blocked. In a recent statement of his he states (over here [37]) "I feel the decision to delete data on this topic by 3 people: user:Eperoton, User:Al-Andalusi, User:CounterTime should be looked at again. This is because I worry there maybe a conflict of interest since they are Muslim and the article is about their religion. I worry because the decision to remove the data was made entirely by the above 3 people ALONE and since all 3 are Muslims there is possible bias?". Not only is there no proof that these users are necessarily Muslims, he also demonstrates a biased battlefield mentality, which is indicative of an us versus them approach. He clearly seems to have something against Muslims. This is not a user who should be publishing so many articles related to the central figure of Muslims. This negativity towards Muslims appears to have passed on to the articles he has published and therefore does not belong on Wikipedia. Xtremedood (talk) 08:12, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A lot of the sources used here are by muslims themselves. I did learn lessons. i did NOT use any fringe websites or anti Islamic sources. Most are academic. Tell me fake source used and i will look into it. --Misconceptions2 (talk) 13:42, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Since Misconceptions2 posted before I finalized the opening paragraphs, I suspect my delete vote may not be registered in the afd stats, so I am going to post my vote here. Xtremedood (talk) 08:37, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Do not worry, this is not a vote or democratic process. Also why do a "User attack", kettle calling pot black??--Misconceptions2 (talk) 13:55, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You have shown that you are not a qualified user to be making such articles. Your biases, your misattribution of sources within these articles, your immense usages of primary sources, your OR, and the fact that you are reusing materials from a well-known anti-Islamic (non-neutral) source shows that these articles are not fit to be in WP. Xtremedood (talk) 20:34, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Nordic Dragon 12:32, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I give up with you. I told you to name anti islamic sources. You won't. Or do you mean the Unviersity published books are the anti islamic sources?--Misconceptions2 (talk) 21:03, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Following comment by Misconceptions2, moved by Xtremedood because it was placed in the opening, when it does not belong there:

"Which anti islamic site has been used? Most of the sources used are Muslim soruces like The Sealed Nectar--Misconceptions2 (talk) 14:15, 14 March 2016 (UTC)"[reply]

and

"1. It is Muslims scholars who say that most of Muhammad's raid were offensive. Please see: http://military.hawarey.org/military_english.htm by a Muslim scholar who outlined which were offensive and which were not. He lists 80% as offensive.

2. "The life of Muhammad: a translation of Isḥāq's Sīrat rasūl Allāh” translated by Alfred Guillaume" is a primary source. You are right. Thats why it has been mostly used in the primary source column. The source is significant and relevant because its the earliest existing biography of Muhammad used by Muslim scholar Ibn Ishaq. All secondary sources use primary sources for the basis of what they wrote. Some have used this, some have used others. It only makes sense to mention this in the article in the primary sources column. Its not like I used it as a source for the text written here. Its a source for the text written in secondary sources !--Misconceptions2 (talk) 14:04, 14 March 2016 (UTC)"[reply]

The source you indicated does not say that. The source is also not a published source, the website is not reliable according to Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources. It is not academic and not related to the statement. The point is that you sourced Watt as the source for this statement, when Watt clearly did not say that. This shows that you are misattributing sources, which shows an immense bias. Also, your reliance on primary sources, over here [38] are typically without a secondary source. For example you can look at Ibn Ishaq's source, which is not accompanied with a secondary source. You also heavily rely on other primary sources such as Tabari, the Hadiths, etc. which are 1000 year old texts. They are typically not accompanied with secondary sources in your articles. Xtremedood (talk) 20:47, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Here is a PDF version of the Sealed Nectar [39]. Looking through your articles it is clear that the Sealed Nectar does not state what you include in your articles. You have a tendency of picking and choosing certain passages which conform with your own POV, while ignoring or neglecting positive passages and passages which do not adhere to your POV. Xtremedood (talk) 20:50, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I told you I give up with you. i need examples of where the source does not back up what is written. Otherwise please do not reply back to me--Misconceptions2 (talk) 21:11, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your refusal to effectively engage in the talk page has prompted other editors to be suspicious of your intentions and is causing editors to disengage. This is not an effective manner of discourse to adhere to. Xtremedood (talk) 06:34, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Afd is the wrong location to resolve a content dispute. Edward321 (talk) 23:25, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The content literally spans nearly several dozen articles. This justifies Wikipedia:Blow it up and start over, which states: "A page can be so hopelessly irreparable that the only solution is to blow it up and start over." The extreme POV, bias, and misinformation is so much that it deserves a restart. Not to mention it is simply a rehash of two already deleted articles which are List of killings of Muhammad and Muhammad and assassinations. See above for the deletion discussions. Also, the user was once indefinitely banned, but was allowed to operate again. Xtremedood (talk) 01:32, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. All else aside, this fails WP:LISTN, in that few reliable sources seem to focus on the group or set of expeditions by independent reliable sources. --Aquillion (talk) 14:13, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Do you know a lot of content has been removed from this article user:Aquillion ? It had content, it was removed. This is a content issue--Misconceptions2 (talk) 14:18, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think any of them would have solved the core problem, though. You need sources that refer to expeditions by Muhammad as a group to justify a list like this; throwing a bunch of unrelated sources together without that risks becoming original research. --Aquillion (talk) 14:22, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Source 1 which lists as a group
Source 2 which lists as a group
Source 3 which lsits as a group, type Ghazwah
Source 4 which lists a group, ordered chronologically year by year, starting page 3 from saudi arabian government website
Theres more going on here. The content has simply been removed. In fact user:Aquillion, theres an entire Islamic science on expeditions of Muhammad called: Maghazi, It deals entirely with military expeditions. Books dedicated only to this group !!!--Misconceptions2 (talk) 14:26, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

For more information on entire books, sources, literature dedicated to this topic and list please research Maghazi, example see: The Maghāzī literature. I quote--Misconceptions2 (talk) 14:41, 15 March 2016 (UTC):[reply]

In general, the word maghāzī means raiding expeditions, primarily for the sake of plunder. But as a literary technicality, it is specifically applied to the accounts of the early Muslim military expeditions in which the Prophet took part

Some famous Maghazi primary sources dedicated entirely to this group/list/topic:

Ibn Ishaq Sirat Rasul Allah
Kitāb al-ṭabaqāt al-kabīr
Al-Waqidi Kitabl al Maghazi
Tons of early Muslim scholars who specialized on Maghazi here

I also have already given links to some modern Maghazi books already. A lot of Muhammad's old and new biographies also have a section dedicated to "Maghazi"--Misconceptions2 (talk) 14:52, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Canvassing - Note canvassing has been taking place here. So we may see a lot of ip address accounts and SPA's. Just a heads up. If you have been asked to do anything on this article outside wikipedia, please do not. If you were please use the talk page and not this page if you want to give an opinion.--Misconceptions2 (talk) 16:08, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Coming here from WP:COIN, which declines to deal with the issue, since it's not really a conflict of interest problem. The article has content problems and battleground problems, but it's about a subject of significant historical importance. Deletion is thus not the answer. Yes, this article is going to be a headache. Wikipedia can handle it. John Nagle (talk) 00:29, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is a notable issue and a well referenced article.--Seyyed(t-c) 05:40, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It should be noted that the current version was from the changes done by user:CounterTime, whereas the version created by Misconceptions2 had a lot of flaws (mentioned above). Now the focus should be on the individual articles created by Misconceptions2 that should be deleted in accordance with WP policy. The changes may have salvaged this article, but the others are certainly not suitable for Wikipedia. Xtremedood (talk) 08:04, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article appears to be well-referenced with notable sources. David A (talk) 20:32, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@David A: I don't see how relying heavily on primary sources and violating both WP:SYNTHESIS and WP:MOS/Hadith is an example of a well-referenced article "with notable sources." 22:19, 19 March 2016 (UTC)CounterTime (talk)[reply]

The primary sources are in the primary sources column--Misconceptions2 (talk) 22:56, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Misconceptions2: That's not correct, many (in fact, too many) primary sources are used outside that column, c.f. our previous discussion as a single example.

22:58, 19 March 2016 (UTC)CounterTime (talk)

List some?--Misconceptions2 (talk) 23:09, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Misconceptions2: Here are some examples off sight: 4, 10, 11, 55, 71, ...etc -23:16, 19 March 2016 (UTC)CounterTime (talk)[reply]

We have discussed this on the talk page. 71 and others have plenty of secondary sources on their respective article page. --Misconceptions2 (talk) 00:58, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@CounterTime. This is 71: Expedition of Abu Qatadah ibn Rab'i al-Ansari (Batn Edam). All we have to do is add the references on that page to this page. Some references:
- Source 1: Atlas Al-sīrah Al-Nabawīyah, pg. 218, Dr. Shawqi Abu Khalil, Darussalam Publishers
- Source 2: Hawarey, Dr. Mohammad (2010). The Journey of Prophecy; Days of Peace and War (Arabic). Islamic Book Trust. ISBN 9789957051648. {{cite book}}: External link in |first= (help)Note: Book contains a list of battles of Muhammad in Arabic, English translation available here
- Source 3: The Sealed Nectar, pg. 250, Safiur Rahman Mubarakpuri, Darussalam Publishers. (archive)
This is 4's missing secondary sources:
- Mubarakpuri, Saifur Rahman Al (2005), The sealed nectar: biography of the Noble Prophet, Darussalam Publications, p. 244, ISBN 978-9960-899-55-8
- Haykal, Husayn (1976), The Life of Muhammad, Islamic Book Trust, pp. 217–218, ISBN 978-983-9154-17-7
- Muḥammad ibn Khāvandshāh Mīr Khvānd (1893), The Rauzat-us-safa: v. 1-2. The life of Muhammad the apostle of Allah, p. 282, Royal Asiatic Society
This is 10's missing secondary sources:
- Ruthven, Malise (2006). Islam in the world. Oxford University. p. 52. ISBN 978-0-19-530503-6.
- Jane Smith, in Yvonne Yazbeck Haddad, Ellison Banks Findly Editors (1985). Women, religion, and social change. NewYork:

...and so on. Every single one has secondary sources. Just go to the article page take it from there and add it here. How do you think the article pages you mention were made without secondary sources? Totally fixable problem if secondary sources are missing from 2 or 3 rows out of a 100 !--Misconceptions2 (talk) 00:49, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Being "well-sourced" does not suffice as a legitimate reason to keep an article on WP. Most of the sources are not appropriate according to WP:IRS, and the ones that may be are often misattributed. Xtremedood (talk) 06:11, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Misconceptions2: As we have discussed before, you didn't provide any RSs that solves the WP:MOS/Hadith problem.

10:50, 20 March 2016 (UTC)CounterTime (talk)

Delete with caveat For the same reasons outlined by Aquillion (talk · contribs), this simply fails WP:SYNTHESIS. If the article only lists Maghazi as a list (as in List of Napoleonic battles) then it wouldn't violate WP policies and could be kept. 22:19, 19 March 2016 (UTC)CounterTime (talk)

How does it fail WP:SYNTHESIS? That is, where does the article "combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources"? See WP:SYNTHNOT. Rentier (talk) 21:23, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete with caveat. This kind of bad authorship needs to be removed from wikipedia ASAP. But the problem is that these battles/expeditions actually happened so we are basically removing information, therefore my solution is to first ask the article creator if he is willing to work on these articles in his userspace/draft etc. If he is willing to make them worthy of inclusion I see no problem in giving him a second chance. So if he agrees we should just userfy or incubate these articles until they pass through AFC. However if the said user thinks that he has done "all that can be done" for these articles, then the problem arises that these articles are for the moment unable to justify their existence on the wikipedia. the Deletion is not cleanup policy does have its limits. It is not the job of wiki editors to be forced to keep articles that will never pass through AFC, we can vote to delete them until an acceptable version is created. So userfy if creator agrees to get it through RFc, otherwise delete. The bottom line, this needs to go, but it can return in a btter form if it wants to. FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 06:59, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. If there are problems with the article, fix the problems. Deleting it sounds more like pro-Islamic censorship. Did these events happen? Then why delete the article? Kanbei85 (talk) 14:25, 21 March 2016 (UTC)Kanbei85[reply]

@Kanbei85: "Did these events happen?" This is one of the main problems of the current article, it lists nearly 73 saraya, however there is no consensus on those,

In most instances, biographers give their account in the form of a narration of the incidents, without explaining the background and objectives of these expeditions, and they give different totals for these incidents, such as 35, 38, 47, and 56. These differences indicate that each biographer arrived at his own conception of what constituted a sariyah. For example, Ibn Sa‛d at the beginning of his book, following his teacher al-Wāqidī, states that the number of sarāyā sent by the Prophet was forty-seven, while the present study finds that he ends up referring to fifty-six sarāyā.Some biographers used the word ghazwah to refer to incidents others called sariyah, while some used the word ba‛th (delegation) in the same context. In many incidents, no encounter at all occurred with the clans. A number of incidents involved fighting and in some cases the number of victims is not given. According to the numbers that are given, eighty Muslims were killed, including sixty-nine preachers who were assassinated in one incident, while sixty-five non-Muslims were also killed. These accounts of sarāyā are a much less credible source than those of the ghazawāt, not only because of the lack of clarity and details about the reasons for and objectives of such minor incidents, but also because the narrations are not scrutinized and in some cases are unconvincing as stories.
— Ahmed al-Dawoody, The Islamic Law of War: Justifications and Regulations, pp. 29–30

Furthermore why include non-military events in a list of battles?

Of course, if fixed (and if the user who made that article starts to cooperate) then it would be kept, and I don't think there would be any type of conflict about that.

16:33, 21 March 2016 (UTC)CounterTime (talk)

This is a list of expeditions of Muhammad. not a list of battles alone. Hence description says: "This list of expeditions of Muhammad, also includes a list of battles of Muhammad and comprises information about casualties, objectives, and nature of the military expeditions ordered by Muhammad, as well as the primary sources which mention the expeditions." , although the description was altered by someone from this version: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_expeditions_of_Muhammad&oldid=639512671 --Misconceptions2 (talk) 18:20, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Misconceptions2: It's "List of expeditions of Muhammad" and not "List of expeditions under Muhammad".

But as said earlier, there are too many discrepancies and differences concerning saraya, you can't even respect WP:MOS/Hadith for Maghazi, let alone saraya.

18:31, 21 March 2016 (UTC)CounterTime (talk)

Keep. Quite by accident, I came across

one of the articles apparently included in this AfD in addition to the main article. I see a number of issues with the nomination:

First of all, the accusation of misattribution of sources is bewildering. I downloaded the PDF linked above. On page 105, William Montgomery Watt states: In the raids the Muslims were taking the offensive. How does that not justify the sentence in the article? If that is the strongest example of the alleged bias the nominator could come up with, then surely the articles are not bad enough to justify WP:BLOWITUP.

Secondly, the notability of individual events seems to be beyond doubt. The nominator calls for deletion under WP:BLOWITUP, but the partial reliance on primary sources, which is the only problem I see, justify at most the removal of a few sections and preferably only appropriate tagging. As for the list, good arguments have been put that it should be kept as well.

Finally, the whole ad personam issues with the user section reeks of WP:WITCHHUNT. Only the articles are under consideration here, not the author. Whatever flaws Misconceptions2 may or may not have should have no bearing on the outcome of this discussion.

Rentier (talk) 00:30, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Rentier: Which source Watt are you referring to? Watt's Muhammad at Medina, p. 105 doesn't state that.

13:06, 22 March 2016 (UTC)CounterTime (talk)

@CounterTime: The very source mentioned in the nomination and in the article: "Muhammad Prophet And Statesman", PDF available here.

Rentier (talk) 13:20, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Rentier: By the way, I think that there ought to be a shift in your assessment of the meant user, if there's a consistent pattern of problems in contributions by user X then I see no reason not to apply WP:TNT, by the way I have no doubt that the meant user does but problematic edits, and this from the very start of his WP contribs, see here for instance:

Some critics have said that "beheading is part of islam", and western Muslims who deny beheading has got anything to do with islam are "hippocrates". Beheading is also practiced in Saudi Arabia.
— Misconceptions2 (talk · contribs)

20:16, 22 March 2016 (UTC)CounterTime (talk)

Are you saying that the fact that one editor added content to some article seven years ago justifies the deletion of a completely different article, to which dozens of people contributed? By the way, I see nothing wrong with the quote you provided (except for a possible misspelling). Note that the references were promptly fixed.

Rentier (talk) 10:18, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Rentier: I didn't claim that because user X made an edit Y, Z years before means we should delete article A.

What I actually stated was that since user X has a consistent pattern of problematic edits, then WP:TNT can certainly apply if the allegations against him stand.

Concerning the present article at discussion, note that I didn't state that it should be barely deleted, but that it may be kept if we solve the issues present in it. See the talk page of the relevant article for a detailed discussion of all its problems.

10:38, 23 March 2016 (UTC)CounterTime (talk)

@CounterTime: You wrote: I didn't state that it should be barely deleted, but that it may be kept if we solve the issues present in it. But WP:TNT only applies to articles that are beyond repair. You cannot have both!

Rentier (talk) 10:53, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Rentier: Thanks for pointing that, I had to be a little more precise. Basically, the List of expeditions of Muhammad article contains both Maghazi (expeditions in which he took part) and Saraya (expeditions, most of whom aren't military, that he allegedly sent). One of the points of conflict was that the mentioned Saraya in "List of..." and the Saraya articles must satisfy WP:MOS/Hadith (and that they should be deleted from the list since they are mainly non-military, without even considering WP:MOS/Hadith), and if not satisfied they (the Saraya articles) should be deleted altogether (and since the meant user made pretty much most of the pages on saraya), so WP:TNT definitely applies, but not for this particular article "List of expeditions ...", but for these saraya articles. Hope that was clearer, if you want more details you can check the talk, particularly this.

11:07, 23 March 2016 (UTC)CounterTime (talk)

I REPEAT: :::This is a list of expeditions of Muhammad. not a list of battles alone. Hence description says: "This list of expeditions of Muhammad, also includes a list of battles of Muhammad and comprises information about casualties, objectives, and nature of the military expeditions ordered by Muhammad, as well as the primary sources which mention the expeditions." , although the description was altered by someone from this version: old ver --Misconceptions2 (talk) 18:20, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@CounterTime: Thanks for the elaboration. I assume that by WP:MOS/Hadith you are referring to this section. I took a look at the discussion. I attempted to summarise some of the arguments:

Claim	My reply --Rentier (talk) 14:26, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Saraya articles must satisfy WP:MOS/Hadith .	Are these articles about historical events? If so, the MOS/Haddith does not apply. A hadith is a report describing the words, actions, or habits of the Prophet Muhammad, not the words, actions or habits themselves.
If [MOS/Hadith] not satisfied they (the Saraya articles) should be deleted altogether	On its own, failing a single manual of style guideline is not a reason to delete content.
They [Saraya] should be deleted from the list since they are mainly non-military	The leading paragraph should be clarified. Is there any basis to exclude the non-military expeditions after the article has been renamed?
WP:TNT definitely applies, but not for this particular article "List of expeditions ...", but for these saraya articles	How so? I keep hearing accusations of violating NPOV, NOR, misattribution of sources, etc. but I am yet to see a specific example of irreparable problem in any of the articles proposed for deletion. Furthermore, where a specific example was given (the alleged misattribution of Watt's that the raids were offensive), the accusation turned out to be mistaken.

Rentier (talk) 14:26, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Misconceptions2: As I said earlier, It's "List of expeditions of Muhammad" and not "List of expeditions under Muhammad".

18:00, 23 March 2016 (UTC)CounterTime (talk)

@Rentier:

Are these articles about historical events? If so, the MOS/Haddith does not apply. A hadith is a report describing the words, actions, or habits of the Prophet Muhammad, not the words, actions or habits themselves.

The main sources synthesized by Misconceptions2 are al-Waqidi's Maghazi, Ibn Sa'd's tabaqat, the Tarikh of al-Tabari, Sirat Ibn Ishaq, ... and some secondary sources such as The Sealed Nectar which rely partly on these primary sources. When a report of a sariya for instance is mentioned there, WP:MOS/Hadith is demonstratively obligatory, since we're talking about historical events, hence there authenticity should be assessed. But in any case, the table violates WP:SYNTHESIS so in this particular version of the article, WP:MOS/Hadith is redundant.

The leading paragraph should be clarified. Is there any basis to exclude the non-military expeditions after the article has been renamed?

Renamed? I didn't speak about renaming the article at all. I don't see how you came up with that à priori since we didn't even talk about it as a possibility ("after the article has been renamed", implying an action) Anyway, that was weird.

On its own, failing a single manual of style guideline is not a reason to delete content.

So using unreliable hadiths to make up articles would be deemed correct simply because WP:MOS/Hadith is a "manual of style"?

I am yet to see a specific example of irreparable problem in any of the articles proposed for deletion

Synthesis. Simple. (Of course I can go on and on to describe how a violation of WP:MOS/Hadith draws to 0 the credibility of these articles, and their notability, but WP:SYNTHESIS is sufficient in this case.)

18:00, 23 March 2016 (UTC)CounterTime (talk)

@CounterTime: Thank you for the explanation! I understand your stance much better now.

Renamed? I didn't speak about renaming the article at all. I don't see how you came up with that à priori since we didn't even talk about it as a possibility ("after the article has been renamed", implying an action) Anyway, that was weird.

Apologies for bad grammar on my part. I did not intend to imply that you said anything about renaming. I got confused in relation to the articles deleted in the past ("list of killings ..."). Basically I fail to see why we should remove the non-military expeditions as long as the leading paragraph is changed to clarify the inclusion criteria.

So using unreliable hadiths to make up articles would be deemed correct simply because WP:MOS/Hadith is a "manual of style"?

Of course not. But the relevant guideline is WP:RS, not MOS/Hadith. The statement "articles must satisfy WP:MOS/Hadith [...] and if not satisfied they (the Saraya articles) should be deleted" is not justified. The articles should be deleted if their content has no basis in reliable secondary sources. I could be persuaded that this is the case! But in my view the proponents of deletion have not made a convincing argument.

Synthesis. Simple. (Of course I can go on and on to describe how a violation of WP:MOS/Hadith draws to 0 the credibility of these articles, and their notability, but WP:SYNTHESIS is sufficient in this case.)

Would you mind clarifying this for me? Which article "combines material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources"? In the spirit of WP:SYNTHNOT#SYNTH_is_not_presumed, can you explain what assertion is made that is not supported by sources?

I acknowledge your concern regarding the use of primary sources. I would appreciate if you could provide specific examples of original research - specifying articles and statements that are OR. What I have seen so far is not enough to justify a bulk deletion of articles.

Rentier (talk) 21:05, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Rentier: Thanks for your interest and your constructive questions,

I would appreciate if you could provide specific examples of original research

The whole table is, per definition, WP:SYNTHESIS, since it synthesizes multiple sources to make a table. @Eperoton: made a proposal which, if followed, would solve the problem, which is to use as an RS Watt's expeditions table in Muhammad at Medina as a core, although there's still a debate on the saraya (in particular their authenticity and relevance to a military expeditions article)

But I think a much simpler solution is just to render the table as a list, like the article List of Napoleonic battles, and this would of course only contain military expeditions, as it doesn't make sense to add non-military stuff in an article about military stuff.

Of course not. But the relevant guideline is WP:RS, not MOS/Hadith.

I think the best way to approach this is through an example, let's take for instance al-Waqidi as a primary source, and say, there's a book X that relies on him on a report without mentioning the authenticity of that report. As is known, al-Waqidi is unreliable, Ibn Hanbal (the founder of the Hanbali school of jurisprudence) denounced him as a liar, and according to al-Ghunaimi, al-Waqidi is considered as one of "the most famous four, among the many, fabricators of hadith"._{(— Ahmed al-Dawoody, The Islamic Law of War: Justifications and Regulations, p. 23.)} So should we add this report when classical Muslim scholars would deem it to be non-authentic?

Secondly, as Ahmed al-Dawoody says, "biographers give their account in the form of a narration of the incidents, without explaining the background and objectives of these expeditions, and they give different totals for these incidents, such as 35, 38, 47, and 56. These differences indicate that each biographer arrived at his own conception of what constituted a sariyah. For example, Ibn Sa‛d at the beginning of his book, following his teacher al-Wāqidī, states that the number of sarāyā sent by the Prophet was forty-seven, while the present study finds that he ends up referring to fifty-six sarāyā.Some biographers used the word ghazwah to refer to incidents others called sariyah, while some used the word ba‛th (delegation) in the same context. In many incidents, no encounter at all occurred with the clans. [...] These accounts of sarāyā are a much less credible source than those of the ghazawāt, not only because of the lack of clarity and details about the reasons for and objectives of such minor incidents, but also because the narrations are not scrutinized and in some cases are unconvincing as stories."_{(— Ahmed al-Dawoody, The Islamic Law of War: Justifications and Regulations, pp. 29–30)} So which total include? Or should we, as the present article does, combine and synthesize different primary sources (in this case works in which saraya are given)? (Note that the present article arrives at a total of 73 saraya, when biographers didn't even exceed 56 in their reports)

So as you can see, there's a whole range of problems that arise when considering saraya, and these problems are really unnecessary to say the least, we can, as I proposed earlier make a list of articles (so no need to use 400 ref), like the article List of Napoleonic battles, and this would of course only contain military expeditions, as it doesn't make sense to add non-military stuff in an article about military stuff.

Hope that was clearer,

22:46, 23 March 2016 (UTC)CounterTime (talk)

@Rentier: Congratulations on tracking Watt's citation. Now, do you want to address the *main* concerns raised against this article, like the fact that this was copy pasted from anti-Islamic propaganda website? (which btw isn't the first time, see Talk:Islamic military jurisprudence#WP:COPYVIO) or the fact that this article is a recreation of another article that was *twice* deleted: "List of killings of Muhammad", as pointed out by OP? I'm sure this is nothing but just a witchhunt against Misconceptions2. Right? Al-Andalusi (talk) 13:26, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Rubbish claims. What exactly is rehashed there. That article probably only has 2 similiar articles to this one, Asma bint Marwan and Abu Afak. Out of a 100. All sources on this article are accurate and reliably, more than 50% are Muslim sources themselves. None are anti islamic. Give me 1 example of an anti islamic soruce used here? --Misconceptions2 (talk) 13:31, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Al-Andalusi: It was not difficult. The reference is right there in the article. As for the rest:

Claim	My reply --Rentier (talk) 14:26, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The article was copy pasted from anti-Islamic propaganda website.	According to its revision history, the wikiislam.net article was created after the Wikipedia article. There are very significant differences between the two.
This article is a recreation of another article that was twice deleted: "List of killings of Muhammad"	Without access to the deleted versions, so I cannot tell how similar they are to the current one. There is no rule that forbids recreation of deleted articles if the new version fixes the issues that were the reason for removal. The closest thing to consensus on this: WP:RECREATE.

--Rentier (talk) 14:57, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Rentier: Kindly avoid the table format. It is not conductive for discussion. If you think that there are "very significant differences" between this article and the one on Wikiislam.net, then I think you are blind (sorry, there is no other way to put it). As for the 2nd claim that "there is no rule that forbids recreation of deleted articles if the new version fixes the issues that were the reason for removal." Except that, user Misconceptions2 has not addressed any of the issues raised against the original article (compare the deletion reasons for this article and that of the earlier List of killings of Muhammad, discussion 1 discussion 2, and you tell me if the issues have been "fixed" as you claim). The user simply made cosmetic changes and re-submitted it. The issues with primary sources, POV pushing, and wide mishandling of sources are still there. Finally, no word on Talk:Islamic military jurisprudence#WP:COPYVIO? Al-Andalusi (talk) 15:21, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The articles are totally different. Why dont you tell us what is similar between them? One is about several people Muhammad has assassinated and the other is about the expeditions he ordered --Misconceptions2 (talk) 15:24, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Al-Andalusi: I find the table format useful in talking to people who cannot present their arguments clearly and concisely. Anyway, I trust that the closing admin can see through your sophistry. If they cannot, nothing I can say will change that. So I will take this opportunity to disengage, unless relevant new arguments are put forward. (I have no idea why you think I should comment on a 4 years old issue in an article that is not a subject of this AfD) --Rentier (talk) 16:06, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I understand that you are distancing yourself from Misconceptions2, now that you found yourself unable to defend his/her article or editing behavior. Al-Andalusi (talk) 16:22, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Actually the Wikiislam.net version is older than this version, see here [40] (archived here [41]). I have been watching them for some years now, they converge pages, create new pages with the same or similar materials, delete history, and try hard to censor any edits that they don't agree with. Also you often can't trust the history on private Wiki's.

07:55, 27 January 2015 Axius (Talk | contribs) changed visibility of a revision on page List of Killings Ordered or Supported by Muhammad: content hidden, edit summary hidden and username hidden
13:46, 13 January 2015 Sahab (Talk | contribs) deleted page List of Killings Ordered or Supported by Muhammad
12:57, 22 December 2014 WikiSysop (Talk | contribs) (Page edit blocked for "List of Killings Ordered or Supported by Muhammad" by user *180.151.0.146 - Vandalism detected (Edit Monitor code #13))
10:53, 16 August 2014 Sahab (Talk | contribs) changed visibility of 4 revisions on page List of Killings Ordered or Supported by Muhammad: content hidden, edit summary hidden and username hidden (Inappropriate comment or personal information)
09:09, 26 December 2011 Sahab (Talk | contribs) automatically marked revision 68182 of page List of Killings Ordered or Supported by Muhammad patrolled

.Xtremedood (talk) 21:29, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete. The article is an affront to all muslims. As such, it does not belong to Wikipedia. Pious999 (talk) 19:25, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not censored, and this is not a majority vote. GAB^Hello! 19:30, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Its a SPA account, 2 edits. All today--Misconceptions2 (talk) 19:43, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Per Wiqi55's comments on the talk page:

"This article recreates the same material of another article that was twice deleted: "List of killings of Muhammad" (see deletion discussions, 1 2). Many of the issues mentioned in the previous discussions apply here as well (mainly poor and misrepresented sources). Also the creator of both articles, Misconception2, has a long history of meatpuppetry and sockpuppetry in the Muhammad topic area. I wouldn't trust his summary of primary/secondary sources. I took a brief look at this article and noticed that the "reason" column lacks context and relies on primary sources. We don't usually present similar information in a list form. The primary sources are also problematic. We should avoid turning what is said to be alleged, disputed, rumored in the primary sources into fact. I suggest we reduce this article to a simple list of expeditions, and leave the complex/disputed information to individual battle pages." Al-Andalusi (talk) 13:10, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Same reason given from Rentier and Gab --DJ SG Gayashan 13:23, 23 March 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by DJ SG Gayashan (talk • contribs)

This is a sockpuppet of Sajithgayashan and Misconceptions2. See here Al-Andalusi (talk) 13:33, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This is a user attack. Where do you have proof he is a sock puppet of mine? --Misconceptions2 (talk) 13:35, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep: This article is well-sourced and useful for everyone who needs it. It contains a lot of information about the begining of the Caliphate expansion and has no problem of NPOV or SYNTH that require a deletion. If there are source problems, those can be fixed easely without deleting the article and this article is far from offensive toward Muslims so all the users with DAESH flag in their userpage can't really call this offensive. This article is here for a long time and it is here to stay.--Bolter21 (talk to me) 13:56, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Bolter21: Could you please demonstrate how that doesn't violate WP:SYNTHESIS? The current table just synthesizes some dozens of different sources. However, @Eperoton: proposed to rely on Watt's table for Maghazi/Siyar (with some debate over the second class), that is present in his book Muhammad at Medina, so that doesn't imply immediate removal, since it solves the WP:SYNTHESIS problem.

As per sources, see the talk page of the meant article for a conclusive argument, that demonstrates that current sources violate WP:MOS/Hadith.

Besides that your other comments do not make an iota of sense.

17

41, 23 March 2016 (UTC)CounterTime (talk)

From Wikipedia:What_SYNTH_is_not#SYNTH_is_not_presumed: you should have something better ready than "Of course it's SYNTH. You prove it isn't." I am genuinely trying to understand which claims you believe constitute SYNTHESIS. Rentier (talk) 21:16, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

once again many of the sources are either misattributed, fall into WP:Synthesis (meaning that the author of the sources aren't actually saying what is stated in the article), are not in accordance to WP policies of Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources, or are self-interpreted (often primary texts) by Misconceptions2. An other example of SYNTH may be seen here, when Misconceptions2 blatantly misrepresents a source by Ibn Khavandshah, [42]. The author did not state what Misconceptions2 accused him of stating. Also, above we see him misrepresenting Watt. He is known to engage in OR and interprets texts according to his own whims. Xtremedood (talk) 21:21, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Almost every argument you make are just baseless claims without evidence. This time you gave evidence but the evidence does not back up what you claim. And the Kavandshah source was not even used in this article. It shows how false your claims and evidence are. --Misconceptions2 (talk) 09:58, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nonsense. This is not just about this article, but it is also tagged to a lot of other articles you made. The problem is that you misattribute sources and there is plenty of evidence and proof to show this. In actuality, it is you who makes the false claims. You did so in the vote section, in the Patrol of Waddan article, throughout this article, and elsewhere. Xtremedood (talk) 20:30, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note that two new users added some (admittedly not the best) arguments to this AfD's talk page. Rentier (talk) 11:53, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Actually that is a statement more applicable to your inclusions as well as Misconceptions2's. Xtremedood (talk) 20:33, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Please remember that this is not a vote. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 14:46, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 14:46, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:20, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Passes WP:LISTN per sources such as Encyclopedia of Arabic Literature which states "Several of these sub-genres were particularly important. One was maghazi ('military expeditions')..." Andrew D. (talk) 23:02, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Andrew Davidson: I'm in agreement with you, however, don't you think that this should be a list of articles (such as List of Napoleonic battles)?

13:54, 25 March 2016 (UTC)CounterTime (talk)

Sometimes a list is considered a good alternative to having lots of similar stubby articles. Anyway, in this case, the entries in the list are blue links and point to pages like Nejd Caravan Raid. The nominator wants to delete those too but I don't agree with any of that as he just seems to be trying to own the topic. Andrew D. (talk) 14:11, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Andrew Davidson: I think he's mainly concerned about saraya (e.g Expedition of At-Tufail ibn 'Amr Ad-Dausi), and not the other maghazi articles (e.g. Conquest of Mecca). 17:28, 25 March 2016 (UTC)CounterTime (talk)

Keep -- I cannot believe that an article with nearly 300 footnotes is inadequately sourced, even if the references come mainly from nine works. I am not familiar with the subject, but suspect that the number of primary sources will be quite limited, so that nine is not necessarily a small number. Equally the fact at a person has been guilty of sockpuppetry in the past does not mean that he cannot produce a valid article. The life of Mohammed was violent and there are unsavoury aspects to it, which Muslims may well want to hide from. That is all the more reason why the article should be kept. It is common practice in WP to have a general article with links to more detailed ones. That is what this one does. If there are errors in the content the solution is to correct it, not delete it. If the alleged errors concern differences of interpretation, such as what Muir (presumably an Englishman) wrote, the place to discuss those is in a more detailed article on the particular topic. This may mean pruning the detail in this article, but again that is an issue to be resolved by editing, not deletion. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:46, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Peterkingiron: Don't you see that this article violates WP:SYNTHESIS? I'm not suggesting a raw delete altogether, rather, as long as the issues I outlined here and in the talk are solved the article should be kept. 17:07, 26 March 2016 (UTC)CounterTime (talk)[reply]

This is an AFD debate. If there are problems with the article, they should not be resolved by applying the sledge hammer of deletion. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:18, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Peterkingiron: Yes, that's exactly what I stated, however I only commented on your assertion that just because this article has "nearly 300 footnotes" then it must not be "inadequately sourced". 17:25, 26 March 2016 (UTC)CounterTime (talk)[reply]

If you do not want it deleted, stop being so sensitive and continually pinging me. I have expressed my view, with which you to some extent seem to agree. I regularly go through history AFDs, and express an opinion on many of them, so the extent that I am sometimes pinged asking me to do so. I lack the knowledge to edit this article and I do not intend to. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:36, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your statement "I am not familiar with the subject" is proven through your incorrect assertions. The issue is not of it being "inadequately sourced" as you say. Rather the issue comes with the misattribution of a lot of these sources, the OR, the biased statements, the self-interpretation of primary sources by the author and the incorrect information in the article. You speak from a clearly orientalist perspective when you say "The life of Mohammed was violent and there are unsavoury aspects to it, which Muslims may well want to hide from", and academics like Zafar Ali Qureshi and Edward Said have debunked these 18th and 19th century European-supremacist biases that still permeate among certain groups till this day. If you look at the life of the Prophet Muhammad ﷺ , you see that violence was instigated by the Pagans against the Muslims after 13 years of immense persecution, oppression, harrassment, abuse and insults at Muslims. Western Orientalists have been debunked by reputable contemporary academics like Zafar Ali Qureshi [43], who have taken apart the slander, lies and incorrect assertions propagated by a variety of biased Orientalists. However, still the orientalist position of the Prophet Muhammad ﷺ dominates WP with Watt, Muir and others being major sources for information pertaining to Prophet Muhammad ﷺ on Wikipedia. This Orientalist bias has not been directed at any other religious figure to such a large extent on WP. I think it is about time to bring about more academic, neutral and correct information. What Misconceptions2 does, however, goes even beyond what Watt has done and he totally misattributes sources in certain instances, while neglecting altogether the historical, correct, and accurate information for these events. Xtremedood (talk) 05:34, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep The article is a valuable source of information on Muhammad's military career, something that is not possible to delve with depth in his biographical article.Andres rojas22 (talk) 19:44, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge. Clear consensus to merge, however per Coolabahapple some of these might be able to justify independence from a parent topic; editorial discretion on how to merge should be hammered out on a talk page. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 16:01, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Undead and Unwed

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

I am also nominating the following related pages, all books by the same author. None of these articles give any indication, either by assertion or citation, of passing WP:BOOK.

I propose redirecting the "Undead and..." titles to the series at Undead (series), redirecting Derik's Bane to it's series at Wyndham Werewolves, and deleting the rest. —swpb^T 14:51, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Books-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 15:41, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I got hit with Google's captcha a few times. Here's what I'm recommending:
- Redirect or selective merge to Undead (series): Undead and Unwed, Undead and Unemployed, Undead and Unappreciated, Undead and Unreturnable, Undead and Unpopular, Undead and Uneasy, Undead and Unworthy, Undead and Unwelcome, Undead and Unfinished, Undead and Undermined. Author is notable, series is notable, but the individual books are of questionable notability at best. Despite the existence of a few scattered reviews ([44], [45], [46]), I don't think there's really enough coverage for these books to exist independently. However, there seem to be a few reviews at USA Today, if someone can get their stupid website to work. I get server errors when I try to access them. Also, some of them were bestsellers. The plots could be condensed and merged to the series article.
- Redirect to Wyndham Werewolves or delete: Derik's Bane. There's no coverage of this in reliable sources. I'm skeptical that the series is notable.
- Delete: The Royal Treatment (novel), The Royal Pain, The Royal Mess, Sleeping with the Fishes, Swimming Without a Net, Jennifer Scales and the Ancient Furnace, Jennifer Scales and the Messenger of Light, Dead and Loving It. I see no coverage in reliable sources for these books. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 03:03, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
No valid rationale for deletion. If any of these books is not notable, it should be redirected to its author MaryJanice Davidson or to the article on the series of which it forms part, merging such content as is appropriate. This is obligatory under ATD, PRESERVE and R. In view of absence of any valid rationale for deletion, and the fact that this AfD is a WP:MASSNOM whose nominator freely admits he has not made even the most cursory attempt to search for sources (BEFORE), I think this AfD should be procedurally closed, to allow the question of redirection and merger to be settled in the correct venue, the talk pages of the articles in question. Judging by the coverage in GNews, GBooks, and the NYT site, at least some of these novels have sufficient reviews and other coverage to satisfy GNG. It is wholly unreasonable to ask AfD participants to do searches for 19 books in one AfD as there is simply not enough time. James500 (talk) 06:17, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Though I am partially inclined to merge, I am going to point towards User:James500's rational for procedural close -- we need real rationals, with reasonably good explanations. If the nominator did the prework -- would see that WP:Bold merges would probably be appropriate for some of these, Sadads (talk) 14:53, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 15:00, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, most of these books do have at least one reliable review; some have two reviews and so meet WP:NBOOK ie. "1.The book has been the subject of two or more non-trivial published works appearing in sources that are independent of the book itself." For example, Kirkus has reviewed Underwater, Unstable, Undermined, and Unappreciated[47], Publishers Weekly has reviewed Unforgiven, Unsure and Uneasy[48]. Booklist reviewed Unemployed[49], Unappreciated[50], Unpopular[51], Unwelcome[52], Swimming[53], Derik's Bane[54], Unreturnable[55], Unwary[56], Unappreciated[57], and Library Journal reviewed Unemployed[58], Unpopular[59], Unreturnable[60]. Also, agree with above editors that this should be closed, possible merge/redirect of some of these articles should be discussed on their talkpages. Coolabahapple (talk) 16:25, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 19:52, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: So far I support a merge but I'd like to see which books would have enough coverage to merit an article first. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 08:12, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I found three sources for Undead and Unwed. It's enough to where it'd pass NBOOK, albeit weakly. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 08:38, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There was a brief review/mention for book 1 here. 08:45, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

Offhand I do think that this would've been better as a merge proposal or at the very least, for the AfD to be lumped by series rather than altogether since it makes it somewhat awkward to argue for or against inclusion based on the series. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 08:39, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Undead and Unappreciated. This looks like it received a few reviews and was on the WSJ's bestseller list. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 08:54, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge the following to Undead (series): Undead and Unreturnable, Undead and Unemployed, Undead and Unpopular, Undead and Uneasy, Undead and Unworthy, Undead and Unwelcome, Undead and Unfinished, Undead and Undermined. I'm re-writing this slightly for clarity. The issue here is that many of these books would technically pass NBOOK since they have 2 reviews and/or were listed on a bestseller list. However these reviews are small enough to where the articles wouldn't be of much help or expand on a series page if we were to selectively merge information to that page. If these were all standalone books that were unconnected to each other, I'd probably recommend a keep but since they aren't and we do have a series page, I'm recommending a merge since there's not much in these pages that we can't summarize in the main series page. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 09:26, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to appropriate topics and improve. I don't know how much in depth can be said any one of these books, but they are all reasonable search terms for Undead (series) (which article needs improvement) or MaryJanice Davidson. LadyofShalott 19:55, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Per the rationale laid out by Tokyogirl above. While some of these books have weak notability and can be kept, others cannot really pass the threshold and should be merged. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 05:14, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for Undead and Unappreciated and Undead and Unwed that with their referencing meet WP:NBOOK and Merge other undead titles to Undead (series) which will bolster that article which at the moment is little more than a list of titles. Coolabahapple (talk) 15:11, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 14:43, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:14, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per Coolabahapple. --Wirbelwind(ヴィルヴェルヴィント) 06:01, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:59, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wadhanpoto

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

Doesn't appear to meet general notability guideline. Only source is user-generated and probably original research. Drm310 (talk) 14:10, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:12, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:12, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:12, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom as I also was unable to find anything of use. GAB^Hello! 21:28, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Should have been tagged for speedy deletion. sami ^talk 14:30, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) SST flyer 11:04, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

List of ghost video games

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

I'm also nominating the following:

Redundant list articles, already covered by their respective categories. See this discussion. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 14:06, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 14:19, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:41, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, meritless nomination. First, the only deletion rationale is contra WP:NOTDUP and so fails on that score. Second, every one of these lists is annotated with such information as year of release, platform, or developers, and so obviously provide more information than the categories do. I'm wondering whether this might even be a WP:SK#3, as it's such a clearly erroneous nomination that it makes me wonder how much the nominator even looked at the lists in question or relevant guidelines. postdlf (talk) 21:43, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. As noted by WP:CLN, lists of this sort are valuable even when there are corresponding categories. For example, the category includes nothing but the article names themselves, and it excludes nonexistent pages. I ended up at the List of World War I video games list while looking for a specific World War I game published in the 1990s — had I been stuck with using the category only, I would have had to look at most or all of the pages (as I don't remember the precise name) to determine which of them had been published in the 1990s, and I still wouldn't have seen anything about the Great Naval Battles V: Demise of the Dreadnoughts game that's mentioned in the list. Nyttend (talk) 05:06, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep (NAC). SwisterTwister talk 04:27, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jeanette Dousdebes Rubio

AfDs for this article:

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

Simply not notable, fails WP:GNG. Would have no mentions in media at all if her husband was not a senator and formerly a presidential candidate. Notability is not inherited. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 13:24, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note The actual wording of WP:INHERIT: "Individuals in close, personal relationships with famous people (including politicians) can have an independent article even if they are known solely for such a relationship, but only if they pass WP:GNG." This wording was worked out earlier this year in response to a spate of AFDs on candidate spouses. Having articles on people like Kitty Dukakis and Todd Palin, who have no notability outside the spousal relationship - and keeping them after the campaign because of the substantive media coverage - is a longstanding Wikipedia practice. And also see: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michael Haley (South Carolina).E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:05, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The argument is not that she inherits notability from her spouse. The argument, as in the recent AFD, is that her marriage has produced coverage that is sufficiently extensive and in-depth to maker her notable as per WP:GNG.E.M.Gregory (talk) 13:46, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep While I am of the opinion that Ms. Rubio has no accomplishments that might merit an encyclopedia article, she clearly satisfies our notability guidelines, as the previous AfD discussion established. — MShabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 15:10, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep Ms. Rubio is notable. She meets WP:GNG. This AfD discussion is a waste of time, just like the Heidi Cruz AfD.--ML (talk) 15:43, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Heidi Cruz.E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:51, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep Is this a joke? She is notable enough for an article and meets WP:GNG. This is a waste of time. Informant16 24 March 2016 (TC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:39, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:11, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:11, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep She passes GNG easily. It doesn't matter why she passes GNG, only that she does. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 21:21, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep plenty of sources in the article, and over half focus on her and not her husband. Mattlore (talk) 00:41, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 16:46, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Non-cooperation movement of Bihar

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

Article does not assert the significance of the subject. Ethanlu121 (talk) 13:07, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unreferenced, rambling POV piece. Should have been speedied? Neiltonks (talk) 13:20, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Probably because there isn't an obvious speedy criteria that applies, I would guess. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 17:03, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:43, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:43, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It is not clear what this article is about. - Kautilya3 (talk) 19:41, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I'm not sure what this article is about, either. It appears to be an attempt to link the 20th century Non-cooperation movement with events earlier in the region's history. As such, it looks to me like original research. I note that the same editor recently created the article Non-cooperation movement of South Canara (1836), which has the same problems with original research and lack of sourcing. Perhaps the nominator here might want to bundle the Canara article with this nomination. NewYorkActuary (talk) 20:36, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:SYNTH. This article only narrowly escapes WP:A1 speedy deletion. SST flyer 16:57, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as not yet anything to suggest a noticeably better article. SwisterTwister talk 04:38, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:49, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Walrus Dalzell

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

Vanity page - non-notable artist with limited secondary-source coverage. Includes personal details (e.g. birthday) not in sources. Clare. (talk) 05:34, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep - he has been covered at least twice in different newspapers: [61], [62], so I think he just about squeaks into the "multiple independent sources" criterion for WP:GNG. I could be persuaded the other way though. The fact that the page may have been written by the subject, or a friend of his, doesn't necessarily prove he isn't notable I guess. — Amakuru (talk) 10:06, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. Vipinhari || talk 18:09, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Vipinhari || talk 18:09, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep In addition to references below I found third mention - [[63]], so I guess it's on the edge, but still tend to keep. Arthistorian1977 (talk) 19:26, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The article claims he is notable for his contributions to Various Other art movements and cites that claim to an article about a farmer's market that uses his work for an illustration but does not mention him at all. Mduvekot (talk) 15:54, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 18:28, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now at best with too soon, simply not enough solid. SwisterTwister talk 18:55, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 12:50, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:09, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:09, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Mduvekot is correct that the Canberra CityNews article, which only mentions Dalzell in a photo caption, is a terrible source. The Canberra Times article, however, is solid. The 280-word portion of the article in The Age is not as deep, but to it could be added a similar depth article from The Sydney Morning Herald.[64] Neither is a trivial mention, and WP:BASIC tells us that where "the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability." I feel that together these three meet WP:BASIC, albeit not by a wide margin.

Would not object to draftify pending additional coverage. No prejudice against redirect/re-nomination at a future date if a lack of ongoing coverage threatens to make this a permastub. --Worldbruce (talk) 02:34, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep or possibly draftify as suggested above. I think the three Canberra Times articles are just enough to meet WP:GNG. Pichpich (talk) 17:44, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The article's subject is found to lack notability. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 14:55, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

John Couriel

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

Unsuccessful candidate for state legislature and former Assistant U.S. Attorney who has not received significant coverage in reliable sources. Fails WP:NPOL and WP:GNG. Hirolovesswords (talk) 15:56, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 18:15, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 18:15, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Unelected candidates for political office do not get Wikipedia articles just for being candidates — if you cannot make and properly source a credible claim that they were already notable enough for a Wikipedia article independently of the candidacy, then they have to win the seat, not just run for it, to become notable enough. But nothing here suggests that he would get over any other notability criterion, as his work as a lawyer is referenced entirely to primary sources (like a press release from his own law firm, etc.) rather than reliable source media coverage about it. So WP:GNG has not been met here either. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 03:45, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I have to disagree with Bearcat's reasoning. Criteria 3 of NPOL says that an unelected candidate is notable if they satisfy GNG. The source of confusion here is that a candidate who satisfies GNG may be excluded on grounds of BLP1E if he has received coverage only in respect of his participation in one election. The reason being that he can be covered in the article on that election. But BLP1E does not apply to a candidate who has coverage for participating in multiple elections because that is two or more events and there is no BLP2E. And Couriel appears to have coverage for participating in more than one election: see, for example, this coverage of his participation in the 2016 election in addition to the coverage for the 2012 election. 1E is also strictly one event, not one type of event. James500 (talk) 05:26, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No, an unelected candidate does not get over our inclusion bar just because they've run in more than one election and thus escape WP:BLP1E — at a conservative estimate, at least half of all unsuccessful candidates for office don't try just once and then walk away never to even dabble in electoral politics again, but rather try again a second or third time (sometimes for the same office, sometimes for a different one, but quite often still more than just once.) So if BLP1E were the issue, then we'd still have to keep articles about at least half of all the people who ever put their name on a ballot anywhere in the entire world, just because they ran more than just once. Notice, as well, that I said nothing about BLP1E anywhere in the entire comment you responded to — you're arguing with something I didn't say in the first place.

Rather, the issue is that because the media have an obligation to grant "equal time" coverage to all candidates in all elections taking place in their coverage area, meaning that all candidates for all offices could always claim to pass WP:GNG on the basis of that campaign coverage alone, such coverage can't carry notability in and of itself because it falls under WP:ROUTINE. Once the person has a valid and substantive claim of notability (i.e. by winning election to a notable seat), then it can be dug back into for supplementary confirmation of facts — but it cannot be the foundation of a GNG claim in and of itself, because it's a type of coverage that all candidates for all offices always get by virtue of having stood as a candidate.

If campaign coverage could pass GNG in and of itself, then we would have to always allow any candidate for any office at all (even "village dogcatcher") to keep a Wikipedia article on GNG grounds. So that campaign coverage cannot pass GNG in and of itself, because if it did, then there'd be no remaining way for us to control the onslaught of campaign brochures — and then we wouldn't be Wikipedia anymore, but Ballotpedia. Bearcat (talk) 16:13, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(1) WP:ROUTINE applies to events, not people. (2) An SNG cannot restrict GNG or another SNG. The introduction to N makes it clear that they are alternatives, not co-requisites. ROUTINE is only intended to restrict the inclusive criteria of NEVENT. (3) Before you mention it, NOTNEWS is inapplicable because this individual has received lasting coverage for several years. James500 (talk) 02:08, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(1) WP:ROUTINE most certainly does apply to people. It is entirely possible, and indeed quite common, for somebody to try to start an article about a person solely on the basis of purely routine "coverage": I've personally seen articles about people whose only source was their death notice in the local newspaper classifieds, even though every person who dies gets one of those regardless of their encyclopedic notability or lack thereof — or their "So-and-so announces their wedding to such-and-such" notice in the local newspaper classifieds, even though that's also a thing that anybody can get if they place one. Articles about musicians can and do get created solely on the basis of their inclusion in concert listings directories, without a shred of reliable source coverage about them. I've seen articles about people created solely on the basis of their own "our staff" profile on the website of their own employer. And on and so forth. The fact that the topic is a person rather than an event does not make those types of coverage "not routine" — any coverage which falls in the "to be expected in this context, and not distinguishing the topic as out of the ordinary in any substantive way" falls under ROUTINE regardless of whether the topic is an event, a person, a place or a giraffe.

(2) No, SNGs and GNG do not create exemptions from each other — they operate in tandem, not as alternative paths to each other. Passing an SNG, for example, does not exempt a person from having to be properly sourced — for one thing, many SNGs are so vaguely written that it can be debated whether they've actually passed it or not, and especially for people the passage of an SNG can be obfuscated with unverifiable and/or outright false public relations claims. We've actually seen writers try to get Wikipedia articles by claiming to have had a national bestselling book when they really hadn't, and musicians try to get Wikipedia articles by claiming to have had charting hit singles on Billboard when they actually hadn't — and we've seen total hoax articles about people who were claimed to have served in a national legislature but never actually even existed at all. So claiming to pass an SNG is not an alternative to having to meet GNG, because we still have to be able to verify in reliable sources that the claim of notability is actually true. And as I've already noted, every politician who fails NPOL could always claim to have passed GNG anyway, because local coverage of the election campaigns, and local coverage of local politics, always exists. So for coverage of a non-winning candidate, or a holder of an local office that doesn't confer an automatic NPOL pass, to count toward GNG at all, that coverage has to nationalize into something far beyond the scope of what that person could naturally expect to receive in the local media. And again, that's not a personal rule that I made up myself, but the established consensus about what counts as getting an NPOL-failing politician over GNG and what doesn't: nationalized coverage counts toward GNG; the purely expected and routine level of localized coverage does not.

(3) Kindly don't presume to be able to read my mind: I wasn't going to say anything about WP:NOTNEWS at all. Bearcat (talk) 17:28, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 10:47, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable person who fails WP:GNG and WP:POLITICIAN. The references are mostly election related, and include a Facebook page, several press releases, and other non-acceptable sources. The one source from an actual newspaper is about a scout hike he took when he was 14, and it doesn't even confirm the fact it is cited for; it is cited to show he was an Eagle Scout but in the article he was still only a Life Scout. This page should have been deleted years ago; kudos to the nominator for finding it now. --MelanieN (talk) 00:33, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 12:49, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) SST flyer 11:03, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

List of Afghan philosophers

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

I'm afraid this is a nonsensical POV/agenda loaded article created in an attempt to label medieval intellectuals (philosophers), in this case Persians, as "Afghans", long before anything remotely close to the foundation of this state (Afghanistan) was made and the demonym of "Afghans/Afghanis" was formed. Its the same nonsense to which the noted Rumi is sometimes labeled as "Turkish" on the internet simply because he lived on the soil of modern-day Turkey, or like the Roman Emperor Trajan being labeled as a "Spaniard" simply because the latter was born in what is nowadays Spain. Removing these medieval ones is also no option I believe, as the artile will simply become and remain a playground for IP hoppers, resulting in more nationalistic editorial editing. A list of actual Afghan philosophers would be way too small to warrant for a real article, looking at the number that are listed on Wikipedia. LouisAragon (talk) 00:42, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 02:06, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 02:06, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Afghanistan-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 02:06, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

- Regarding your views dear Louis I must mention you that according to the fourth article of the current Constitution of Afghanistan states that citizens of Afghanistan consist of Pashtuns, Tajiks, Hazara, Uzbek, Turkmen, Aymaq, Arab, Baluch, Pashayi, Nuristani, Qezelbash, Gujjars, Brahui, and members of other tribes. As an adjective, the word Afghan also means "of or relating to Afghanistan or its people, language, or culture". And, regarding ( attempt to label medieval intellectuals (philosophers), in this case Persians, as "Afghans") you must clearly review history of each personality listed in above article, and according to your word it is also the same nonsense to label King Mohammed Nadir Shah as an Indian just because he was born in Dehradun, British India or Said Jamal ad-Din Afghan as an Iranian just because his place of birth (i.e.; Asadabad district of Kunar province) is similar to the Asadabad of Iran. All the enlisted personalities are belonging to the territory of Afghanistan and are Afghan Persians, Persian can be an Afghan or an Iranian but not an Arab, Pashtun, Uzbek, etc. And you to view as all Persians are Iranians is totally wrong. \\'arrior 786 (talk) 22:32, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Afghanistan-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 16:39, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 16:39, 9 March 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by \\'arrior 786 (talk • contribs) [reply]

This looks like a content dispute that should be resolved first through normal talk page discussion, not something AFD can or should decide. If it turns out after that process that you think there are too-few editor consensus-supported entries that qualify for this list and its corresponding category Category:Afghan philosophers to merit keeping the list, then proceed to AFD. postdlf (talk) 20:01, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 20:09, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 12:48, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The selection criteria for this lost comply with WP:LSC. Any disputes about the individuals that should be included in this list can be resolved on the article's talk page. As an aside, if you'd like to know more about Afghan philosophers, check out this interesting interview from the Australian Broadcasting Corporation. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 16:33, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – Not sure what's going on between the two editors at the top but this seems to be a content dispute and not a matter for deletion. The list has ostensibly sound criteria per Notecardforfree and needs work, not deletion. —Nizolan ^(talk) 10:07, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. (non-admin closure) SST flyer 02:18, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Viktor Sotnikov (serial killer)

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

May not pass notability. Search results show other people with the same name. Captain Spark (talk) 06:50, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Vipinhari || talk 07:24, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Vipinhari || talk 07:24, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. Vipinhari || talk 07:24, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The references already in the article seem reliable and include significant coverage. A google news search of his name in Russian (Виктора Сотникова) and some help from google translate seems to show coverage in multiple news sites; enough to meet WP:GNG. Sarahj2107 (talk) 11:46, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Google news 1 and 2 ? Captain Spark (talk) 13:14, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"Виктора Сотникова" (with quotation marks). Sarahj2107 (talk) 13:43, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - references are reliable and significant. per WP:GNG,BabbaQ (talk) 15:07, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for several reasons. Among them the text: "Since childhood, characterized by cruelty. As a boy, he hung his dog. Constantly beating her sister and parents. Growing up, he began to sell moonshine. Two women accused him of rape, but he hushed up the matter by paying them. Later, he was constantly beaten by his mistress." A remarkable series of assertions, with little hope for improvement since the only sources I can find are in Russian. This may be suitable for the Russian version of WP. where someone can validate the claims being made. But I see no evidence that subject is notable outside Russia.E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:46, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Funny logic. As it is to carry 90 per cent of articles on the personalities of Russia (athletes, actors, singers, artists, the same serial killer), because they are outside of Russia little known. However, the same applies to personalities from other countries.--Кориоланыч (talk) 22:24, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - It's unusual to keep articles on crimes/criminals that lack English sourcing on the English WP.E.M.Gregory (talk) 22:41, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    - I'm not seeing anything in WP:BLP of Wikipedia:Verifiability that says articles about crime/criminals have to have english sources. Wikipedia:Verifiability#Non-English sources states that non-english sources are allowed and makes no mention of exceptions; it does say that a translation of the relevant part of the source can be requested which would be easy to do as there are editors here who speak Russian. Sarahj2107 (talk) 07:57, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      - Non-Russian speakers need some way to assess notability. For example, typing the url of a news source into the Wikipedia search box usually produces a page describing the news source (lemonde.fr takes you to Le Monde. But when I keyed lipetskmedia.ru into Wikipedia I got nothing [65] , What are these sources: [66] , [67] Sources # 1 & 2 did come up, lenta.ru, NEWSru, but even in an article about a criminal in the Anglosphere, this would be inadequate. Maybe bring some Russian-speakers to thei AFD, since I don't see how a non-Russian speaker can argue that this badly written, poorly sourced article establishes notability, even though this convicted murderer may be notable.E.M.Gregory (talk) 13:57, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        It's the sources available that matter, not just the ones that are currently in the article. Also the reliability of a source is not based on whether or not it has a page on Wikipedia. Sarahj2107 (talk) 14:07, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        Sarahj, We seem to have different perspectives. Your iVote: " A google news search of his name in Russian (Виктора Сотникова) and some help from google translate seems to show coverage in multiple news sites" to me reveals notability problems that may be insuperable for non-Russian speakers. 1.) google translate is just not all that reliable (I've tried using it in languages I actually know). 2.) We need to know what the Russian sources are that "seem to show" notability. 3.) A google news search on his name in Russian [68] produced a mere 10 sources, many of which are from media outlets unfamiliar to me. I just don't/can't know enough to judge this man notable. Hoping for more evidence.E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:01, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 10:43, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete This article presents poorly sourced, negative, and contentious content about a living person, so it shoud be speedy deleted. Ethanlu121 (talk) 15:52, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Serial killer convicted of eight murders. Of course he's notable. The fact the sources are in Russian is utterly irrelevant. Translating online sources is easy enough. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:50, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 12:47, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the above reasons. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 19:35, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Terri (film). MBisanz ^talk 03:00, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Venture Forth

(View AfD · for deletion/Venture_Forth Stats)

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

Article about a company which does not meet WP:GNG or WP:CORP. Yesterday I was looking at the logos for Black or White and there was no Sunlight Productions or instead we had Venture Forth on Google. Lifesavers2004 ^(talk)/_(contrib) 21:05, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2016 March 17. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 23:31, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 14:36, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 14:36, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

merge to Terri (film), since it did exist. But it looks like it was indred a minor stunt, since it is not mentioned in its bio article. Lifesavers2004 (talk) 17:39, 18 March 2016

Note: This debate has been included in the List of Film-related deletion discussions. Lifesavers2004 (talk) 17:47, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I can't really parse the second sentence of the nomination into anything meaningful. Something about logos? Whatever. Anyways, the OP brings up WP:GNG. Looking online, I see this, which by itself doesn't meet the guideline. There are lots of stories about the various movies that the company has produced, but they don't really cover the production company in detail. So I suppose weak delete, with the note that I could probably be convinced to change my !vote if one additional decent source could be found. The page might be more appropriate as a redirect to Jacob Pechenik, who likely does meet our notability guideline. Disagree with the proposed redirect to one of the company's movies, as it doesn't seem any more related to that one than all the others. VQuakr (talk) 18:35, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:30, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion was started by a now blocked sock of User:Hallerworld. — JJMC89 (T·C) 15:57, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The company lacks significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. — JJMC89 (T·C) 16:17, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 03:00, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Gateway C-Series

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

Unreferenced & promotional Rathfelder (talk) 23:03, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 14:37, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

delete I don't see it as particularly promotional, but it's run-of-the-WP:MILL and unsourced. Without independent sources as to what's special about this particular series (It invented the keyboard? It sold in gazillions?) there's nothing here. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:43, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:29, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:00, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

delete I SPAM. APS (Full Auto) (talk) 14:24, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Uncontested. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 16:44, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Romanian College of Medical Physicists

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

No reliable sources. Corresponding article deleted on roWP as lacking sufficient notability (see here). Randykitty (talk) 22:42, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 14:38, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 14:38, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:08, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a WP:GNG-failing organization. At first I thought this should be kept per WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES but this isn't a school. SST flyer 07:49, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:29, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I'm normally very pro scientific organizations, but there's just nothing to support this being notable. It's a very niche profession, with low membership (113 apparently) in a relatively low-scientific output country. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 18:35, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Consensus appears to be that this is a legitimate spinout article. (non-admin closure) Onel5969 ^{TT me} 17:10, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

List of awards received by Vanessa L. Williams

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

Delete - Unneeded extra page - can just use main page Vanessa Williams Programming G E E K (mah page! // use words to communicate page) 22:30, 17 March 2016 (UTC) Nomination withdrawn ProgrammingGeek (Page! • Talk! • Contribs!) 18:47, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 14:39, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Whether such a section has a large enough WP:SIZE to merit a WP:SPLIT is a matter for ordinary editing and discussion, not deletion. Here I see further that the split-off list has been expanded with more content since the split, so at best this would be a merge and redirect, something that should have been done in the first place rather than starting a completely unnecessary AFD. No one even tried to discuss whether the split was necessary before it was nominated for deletion, not even three hours after it was created. That's not how we should be doing things here. postdlf (talk) 21:26, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's brand new (obviously a work still in progress), appears to have enough sourceable content to meet GNG on its own, and the size/split issue raised by Postdlf seems to argue in favor of a summary style article. Note that the nom has not even linked to the right parent article, since Vanessa Williams is a disambiguation page. I daresay this probably has the potential to be a FL if fleshed out appropriately, and there's no good reason to be discussing deletion. Jclemens (talk) 06:05, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:29, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:59, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:59, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:59, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete - Just duplicated from her main page, where it probably should belong anyways. Though it is long, I'm not sure it warrants its own page. --Wirbelwind(ヴィルヴェルヴィント) 05:58, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Vanessa L. Williams as this is best and entirely best connected to that article. SwisterTwister talk 04:07, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge: Wikipedia isn't a repository of all knowledge. There really isn't enough notable content here to warrant a separate article. Chrisw80 (talk) 05:03, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Jclements. A legitimate spinout article because of its length, a standard for multiple-nominated/winner artists, it passes GNG on its own, and it even has the potential for being a featured article. I fail to see a valid argument for deletion in the comments above. Cavarrone 11:27, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I could go either way on this topic. I just wanted to point out that currently her awards are split between two articles - the main page and the discography article:
- Vanessa L. Williams discography

I disagree that the topic is not notable - it falls in line with an article such as this one:

- List of awards and nominations received by Whitney Houston

I do think that as it stands the Vanessa L. Williams article has too many charts and tables - one reason I moved the grammy awards to the discography. That being said, I will go with whatever decision helps to make the main article a good one.-Classicfilms (talk) 19:12, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Additional Comment - I went ahead and did a very minor clean up of this page. I added the awards tables from the discography article. One advantage to this set up lies in the acting section - the editor broke down the table from the main page in a very useful manner. If we decide to keep this article, I will remove the duplicate tables on the main Vanessa L. Williams page and the discography page. I will also develop this list a little bit, add photos etc. _Classicfilms (talk) 17:09, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

One more comment' - If we decide to keep the article, I would like to recommend that the title be changed to: List of awards and nominations received by Vanessa Williams. -Classicfilms (talk) 15:55, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I agree with Jclemens and Cavarrone that this is a legitimate spinout article because of the page's lengthy size. Cunard (talk) 05:26, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - It's only natural for large articles to have spinouts that can help summarize the main article for readability and size purposes.--MarshalN20 ^Talk 05:32, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep (NAC). SwisterTwister talk 04:50, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jayne Pierson

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

Outside of a few press releases and posts made by small blogs, there's not much coverage of the subject. The references in the article focus on other people and only mention the subject in passing. In short, there's no clear indication of notability. Elaenia (talk) 04:22, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 13:05, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wales-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 13:05, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kharkiv07 (T) 22:16, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep She has enough coverage in her home country of Wales to pass GNG. I am not as familiar with Fashion subjects, but I noticed that her collection is listed in Vogue annually and added the link to her Vogue Timeline in the external link section. The article is a mess, and I didn't do a lot of clean up, I just added my information where it seemed to fit. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 00:14, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:28, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There are enough sources discussing the subject in enough depth to establish notability. Aymatth2 (talk) 12:25, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per Aymatth2, kudos to Megalibrarygirl for her excellent work on it.♦ Dr. Blofeld 15:37, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:57, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The article has now been substantially improved.--Ipigott (talk) 16:32, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Uncontested. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 16:42, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Matthew Shell

AfDs for this article:

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

WP:N is not inherited from the artists worked with. Typical promo piece failing verification of source #1. Previously deleted at AfD, SPA/COI blocked sock promo spam article Widefox; talk 11:37, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 13:03, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kharkiv07 (T) 22:14, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:27, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:56, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:56, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington, D.C.-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:56, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as searches noticeably found nothing better and none of this is convincing to keep for the applicable notability. SwisterTwister talk 07:16, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, I just don't see how this meets WP:GNG or WP:MUSICIAN. My Google searches turn up nothing better than what's in the article. Chrisw80 (talk) 04:59, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Uncontested. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 16:36, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

E Na Bogi

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

Fails WP:NSONG. Only one of the references mentions the song, and that is a one-line mention. utcursch | talk 20:45, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:49, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:49, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oceania-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:49, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No evidence of notability. Insert CleverPhrase Here 05:43, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kharkiv07 (T) 22:08, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:27, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as none of this actually suggests a better notable article. SwisterTwister talk 04:37, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 02:59, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Liquid handling

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

Vague topic, with no sources to suggest that it's important. ubiquity (talk) 18:02, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. ubiquity (talk) 18:03, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now - what the term covers is an important topic in many areas (food preparation, water purification, chemicals manufacture...etc) but it would be hard to create a good article on this topic that actually says anything useful about it beyond what articles on each individual aspect (piping, pipetting, joining components, hose clamps, etc) can cover - my advice to the page creator is maybe get some experience improving those before coming back to this with experience of referencing and so on. So my thinking is delete but if someone wanted to improve it I might switch my vote. I've tagged for WikiProject Engineering in case someone there has any thoughts. Blythwood (talk) 23:08, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:19, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete in its current state. I would recommend disambiguation, but my understanding of this topic is limited. There should be multiple topics named "liquid handling" meeting MOS:DABENTRY. SST flyer 16:56, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 16:32, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

MCM Electronics

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

The topic of this article does not meet WP:COMPANY. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 17:41, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Article has suffient references. Why does it not meet WP:Company?--DThomsen8 (talk) 13:14, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 14:51, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 14:51, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as searches found nothing convincingly better. SwisterTwister talk 05:22, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:18, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Looking through the sources, 6 are basically about pages, 1 an earnings release announcement, and 3 don't exist. The last looks more like a school blog. I would think it fails WP:COMPANY. --Wirbelwind(ヴィルヴェルヴィント) 05:55, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG. Anything of note can always be added to the article of the parent company, Premier Farnell, to which this could be redirected. Edwardx (talk) 11:33, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. After discounting suspiciously new or possibly interest-conflicted accounts. Sandstein 21:08, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Smart Learning

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

I'm a little unsure if this falls under WP:NOT, so I am putting it at AFD for the community to weigh in on. The article reads promotional for "Smart Learning". Whether that is theoretical terminology, or an institution by that name, or a trademarked learning system, don't know. What confuses it is an internet search where it's capitalized in results titles, where all words in the results are capitalized. You can achieve the same capitalization results by searching for Teaching Students Better. There is a book "Emerging Issues in Smart Learning" published in London, but written in Hong Kong and Beijing. — Maile (talk) 16:54, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:31, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:31, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The problem right now is that, behind all the advertising, we do not even know what the article is supposed to be about. I would however lean delete. If it is this journal, it is likely not notable (I could not find it in Web of Science or Scopus). If it is a scientific topic, there does not seem to be many sources that establish it as a notable stand-alone topic (one single book is not enough). Tigraan (talk) 13:31, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Smart learning is a new instructional approach. It is evolving and there are a number of activities happening in smart learning area. Some examples include International Symposiums on Smart Learning Environments in 2012 in Canada and China, International Workshop on Smart Learning Environments in 2013 and the conference series on smart learning environments. A number of researchers are working in this area, such as Carlo Giovanella, Italy, Ronghuai Huang, China, Peter Brusilovsky, USA, Diana Andone, Romania, Kinshuk, Canada and Nian-Shing Chen, Taiwan, to name a few. In addition, there is a journal solely devoted to this area where top researchers in educational technology field, such as Marlene Scardamalia, Rob Koper, Mike Spector and others have published. A number of books are also available in this area, for example, within Springer's Lecture Notes in Educational Technology series, such as State-of-the-Art and Future Directions of Smart Learning and Smart Learning Environments. This page provides a centralized place for readers to understand various views and perspectives on smart learning. Kinshuk1 (talk) 02:05, 22 March 2016 (UTC) — Kinshuk1 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

I note a similarity between your username and the name of one of authors cited. Is this a coincidence? Meters (talk) 21:35, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, per the sources provided by Kinhuk1. Hawaan12 (talk) 14:06, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
As is common for educational concepts on Wikipedia, we have a plethora of identical or near-identical alternatives: smart learning, intelligent tutoring system (ITS), adaptive learning, personalized learning and, of course, personal learning environments. All of these have the same two essential components: artificial-intelligence algorithms/analysis and individually-differentiated instruction. As an example of the duplication of theme, we find that "A good account of the early work on adaptive learning and intelligent tutoring systems can be found in the classic book "Intelligent Tutoring Systems" (sic). And then there are adaptive hypermedia, adaptive educational hypermedia, computerized adaptive testing, and cognitive tutor, all very large subsets of the theme, that could probably all roll into one encyclopedic article, to the benefit of all of them. FeatherPluma (talk) 19:42, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Additional later comments: 1) There has been a spate of new editors making reasonable but slightly naive changes to this article and related topics in the last few days. I think that somebody may have assigned this as a course project, or less likely we have an actual meat puppet situation. 2) I have gone through this article and trimmed out the overgrowth. I will look at adaptive learning, intelligent tutoring system (ITS), personalized learning and personal learning environments, likely in reverse order, to see what should be merged where. I would not favor outright Deletion of what now remains here, but would favor eventual Merge (but I'm not sure which way yet) given that what remains is now reasonably referenced. Two initial steps are now underway: personal learning environment is tagged for merge to personalized learning, and adaptive educational hypermedia is tagged for merger to adaptive hypermedia. FeatherPluma (talk) 00:10, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As FeatherPluma points out, there appears to be a strong overlap of articles here. We don't need separate articles for different terminologies. Can anyone argue against merging the appropriate articles? (No opinion at this point on what the appropriate merged title would be.) Meters (talk) 21:47, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:17, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - There have been many edits to this article since I nominated it. Between those edits and comments above, we at least have clarified what the subject matter is. However, when I read it, I still feel like I'm sitting in a conference room listening to someone pitch the product. Definitely WP:NOTPROMOTION. And indeed, several of the unlinked sources seem to be either WP:OR or WP:PRIMARY. It's difficult to know without the links. And as noted above, one of the "Keep" editors has the same name as one of the sources. — Maile (talk) 13:14, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per Maile's reasoning. This sounds less like an article than a pitch - it's not clear that this is a real technology or development, that actually works and is having an impact. The article is totally un-self-aware and fails to give a critical perspective. Blythwood (talk) 13:29, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Uncontested. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 16:31, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Vaasara

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

Wikipedia is not a dictionary Arthistorian1977 (talk) 07:22, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:36, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:36, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - non-notable concept. - Kautilya3 (talk) 22:42, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:13, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, without prejudice against re-creating an article with this title. The content vaguely hints that the term has philosophic import, but doesn't suggest what that is. It's not clear to me (though it may be to someone versed in the Vedas) how the current article could be improved. Cnilep (talk) 01:24, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The consensus is to delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 16:29, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Weird (2016 film)

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

Fails WP:NFILM with no secondary sources, festival screenings or awards. McGeddon (talk) 09:46, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:39, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

and...

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

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

Delete for (at kindest) being far too soon. I gave the article a face-lift but this short film simply does not have the coverage to meet WP:NF. If that ever changes, it can always be resurrected. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 00:49, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A search brought up nothing that could establish that this per WP:NFILM. I wish the director and crew well, but this is too soon at best. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:22, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, I can confirm that no sources (at all!) were found. GAB^Hello! 19:41, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no independent secondary sources (apart from IMDB, which is insufficient), fails WP:NF crh23 (talk) 20:55, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and WP:TOOSOON. Opencooper (talk) 04:06, 29 March 2016. (UTC)
Do not Delete: IMDB must be a sufficient source, even without festival screenings and awards, but let's just wait until the responses of the film festivals.— 38.122.226.58 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 15:22, 29 March 2016 (UTC).[reply]

IMDb content is "user-submitted and therefore not generally reliable", it is not a sufficient source. If the film wins awards in the future, the article can be recreated at that point. --McGeddon (talk) 14:52, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:02, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

KKBOX

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

No evidence of notability. Most refs are own refs and one is a 404. One appears to be about copyright infringement and the other a press release. Fails WP:GNG Velella ^{Velella Talk} 07:14, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your comments Velella. KKBOX is is widely used in East and Southeast Asia. It is one of the most popular music streaming platform in Asia. Although it may not popular worldwide, it certainly have the ability to compete or even prevail over other big companies like Spotify or Tidel in the Asian market. As the music streaming market in Asia is still growing, the service of KKBOX should not be ignore. So this topic still have its notability. Regarding the problem of referencing, could you please indicate the unsuitable ones as a reference for us to improve our article. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Andyhihi123 (talk • contribs) 08:48, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:33, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:33, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:33, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Taiwan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:33, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:33, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep This is one of the most popular music platforms in Asia. Just linked the Chinese & Japanese articles. The references may be unsatisfactory, but notability is by no means a problem. Timmyshin (talk) 02:44, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep meets WP:GNG through multiple in-depth Taiwanese reliable sources, e.g. [69] [70] [71] [72]. SST flyer 02:10, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:56, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sorawit Panthong

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTY for now. JTtheOG (talk) 04:41, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

this is the biography of Sorawit Panthong footballer int thailand. reference : *http://sport.mthai.com/tag/สรวิทย์-พานทอง

http://www.supersubthailand.com/player_profile/detail/1-105-6650-สรวิทย์_พานทอง.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ministerboy (talk • contribs) 05:03, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:43, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:43, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Thailand-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:44, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:32, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - He has not played in a fully pro league or received significant coverage, meaning the article does not meet WP:NSPORT and WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik (talk) 19:37, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per WP:TOOSOON Inter&anthro (talk) 02:47, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

He has played in a fully pro league.this is the interview evidence : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ogeJxEB1PPk

i'm work in Thailand for Thai Football Association so I know about this player.Sir Sputnik please trust me this is true evidence.If you don't trust you can call to the Football Club to ask about this.

Easily resolved then, User:Ministerboy. Just tell us which match he appeared in; easy enough for me to pull up a match report to provide the evidence to keep the article. Nfitz (talk) 19:35, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 11:09, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nfitz the season was start only 4 match and he not play in 4 match yet because he just played in first team squad in this year.So this is the list of first team squad that play in fully pro league in Thailand http://www.mtutd.tv/player.asp and this is video that he play for the team in friendly match https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nLnVvrGbn6s In 2015 he play for Thailand in AFF U19 Championship and can score in this tournament https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rH0i2PM6goA But before he play for Muangthong United he play in division2 for Assumption United http://www.siamsport.co.th/sport_football/150424_289.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ministerboy (talk • contribs) 01:01, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment @Ministerboy:, players are only generally considered notable after they play in league matches, and in the future it is worth your time waiting until they play, before you create the article. Playing in friendly matches is nothing of interest. C 679 12:13, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – fails guidelines as mentioned above. Articles should generally not be created before players have played in first-team league matches in fully professional leagues. C 679 12:13, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
C No no!!! You misunderstand he was play with Assumption United in Division 2 in 2015.Division 2 in Thailand is fully professional leagues. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ministerboy (talk • contribs) 00:41, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails NFOOTY as has not played senior international football nor played in a fully professional league. No indication that subject has garnered significant reliable coverage for any other achievements to satisfy GNG. COmments above that the Thai second division is a FPL are not supported by current consensus. Fenix down (talk) 09:07, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTY. Contrary to @Ministerboy:, he has not played in a fully professional league. Joseph2302 (talk) 14:40, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Mindless Sinner. MBisanz ^talk 02:58, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Master of Evil

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

Unreferenced. Not notable Rathfelder (talk) 15:10, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 17:10, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:20, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect - Into the band page.--CNMall41 (talk) 03:17, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:28, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Otyg. (non-admin closure) SST flyer 02:13, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sagovindars boning

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

non notable recording Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:49, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to the band Otyg, merging such content as is appropriate (ATD, PRESERVE, R). James500 (talk) 17:28, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- It was a redirect and you removed it. You don't get to play this both ways. Could we please have statistics showing how many searches for this article have been done over the past year to determine if it is a valid search term? Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:31, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 21:52, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I believe the article covers notable and noteworthy subject matter. The album was made by Otyg, a band with associations to such musical projects as Vintersorg. Also, the album was released on Napalm Records, a highly noteworthy record label of underground metal music. While the sourcing could be improved and the article could contain more information, I think it is absolutely notable and worth keeping the article for. Mungo Kitsch (talk) 07:50, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I agree with the above comments and think the album passes WP:GNG, found some reviews here [73], [74] ,and [75] Atlantic306 (talk) 02:41, 15 March 2016 (UTC) 02:28, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Just to clarify, metal-archives.com is confirmed as a sourced that fails to meet WP:RS. From the looks of it, the other two do as well. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:48, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- RoySmith (talk) 13:58, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You're correct, metal archives is on the avoid list, but the other two are not on the list. Arcticmetal.no seems ok, its been going since 1999 and has a dedicated staff, while metal.de seems well established. The list of music RS has very few non-english sources which makes things difficult.Atlantic306 (talk) 17:56, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't say they were on the not-reliable list, I just said that they don't appear to be reliable. You're free to take them to WP:RSN to confirm. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:56, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:55, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Otyg. No reliable source coverage found, but as one of only two albums by the band it's worth a redirect. --Michig (talk) 07:23, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:27, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 16:22, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Divine Savior Church

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

It's a church. Nothing special is even claimed in the article. Delete per NOT John from Idegon (talk) 01:25, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:50, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:51, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:51, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:51, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:ORG. No clear claim to notability is made for this local parish, and no sources have been provided other than the parish's own web site. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:41, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not a notable parish and the article is completely unreferenced. Chris Troutman (talk) 11:56, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this seems to be a local church that gets local coverage.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 03:36, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- Local churches need something to make them notable. This looks like a typical NN church to me. Peterkingiron

(talk) 17:39, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Only of local note. Fails WP:GNG and WP:ORG. Edwardx (talk) 20:58, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Snow Keep. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 02:27, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jaegung-dong

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

Doesn't meet standards for notability: nothing is unusual or special about this neighborhood. Additionally, it's only a single sentence in length as well. I'm in school, so reply could take some time (talk) 00:49, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. Random86 (talk) 01:08, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - It's real place name. [76] -- Kanghuitari (talk) 01:09, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, "neighbourhood" in this context is a type of administrative division similar to a ward (see dong) and not just "a neighbourhood" in the casual sense. Article can be expanded with material from the Korean wiki. Also see List of neighborhoods in South Korea. —Nizolan ^(talk) 01:13, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Populated, legally recognized places are important per Wikipedia:Notability (geographic features). --Hanyangprofessor2 (talk) 04:29, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

deletionThis article is not have plenty of references and any picture which show its image and constructure. and there is very short term of description of palace. jeje1991 04:32, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Being short and not having a picture are not valid reasons to delete an article. —Nizolan ^(talk) 05:00, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

deletion it has no picture and any references and actually it is not important as sogong-dong where seoul city hall located in. there are too many dong like a this article. each city has one dong, where the city hall located in. so I think the kind of this article is not important--Berlinuno (talk) 03:36, 28 March 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Berlinuno (talk • contribs) 04:20, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

keep This article is about the actual place. Of course, it must be improved much more with picture, map and proof available references. But I don't think it must be deleted because it is real place and there are no lies in this article. beatlehoon 14:33, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Actual designated section of Gunpo [77] and its government center. --Oakshade (talk) 02:56, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for meeting WP:GEOLAND. Can be expanded. SST flyer 16:50, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:GEOLAND. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:30, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

keep Everyone has a sense of belonging. So, if someone who lives in Jaegung-dong searched the town in wikipeia, they want to see their town information on wikipeia. Also, if there is an article about their town on wiki, they can contribute theri town information to the article. So, Wiki can be more ample and rich. Thus, I want to keep being the article on wiki.Somde123 (talk) 06:50, 12 April 2016 (UTC)somde123[reply]

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 02:58, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ryan Totka

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

No indication of notability. Being an agent for some notable people does not automatically create notability. All but one of the sources on this article are not actually about Totka -- they're just about his clients, and he gets perhaps a brief mention as their spokesman. The one exception, an interview with Totka (the citation has the incorrect URL, correct link is here), is by an unreliable and unnotable publication, and isn't sufficient to indicate notability. IagoQnsi (talk) 07:43, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Again this article has been approved multiple times for several years. User:IagoQnsi has been trolling on wiki pages created by User:JellyFishFilms with a lot of accusations and misinformation. I reviewed the sources and found Ryan Totka to be very notable. Especially in comparison to other Wiki pages of people in his field. PatRoller2 (talk) 09:54, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Clerk note: IagoQnsi2, PatRoller2, JoeMahms, and WikiTorch2 are all suspected sockpuppets of JellyfishFilms; see the SPI I started for details: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/JellyfishFilms. -IagoQnsi (talk) 15:03, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Make that confirmed sockpuppets. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:31, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Struck content from confirmed sock above, per WP:SOCKSTRIKE. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:38, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:40, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:40, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:40, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:40, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as simply nothing for better notability, still not enough even considering the current list of sources. SwisterTwister talk 04:54, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. There are now no arguments for keep and so the deletion is uncontested. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 18:26, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

T.J. Maloney

AfDs for this article:

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

I have reviewed the current article, which is sourced mostly to a directory bio listing, broken links and primary sources. This Forbes piece is the only good source and it does not comply with the spirit of BLPCRIME, since Maloney was never found guilty. Additionally, some light research reveals that the plaintiff's case was repeatedly thrown out of court, because they had too many conflicts of interest and it was never really a noteworthy case.

This article was sent to AFD a few years ago and was just barely kept. Our standards have increased since then and I think there was some poor communication in that discussion. For example, it's misleading to say this means he was covered in Bloomberg.

I do not have a COI or any affiliation whatsoever. User:CorporateM (Talk) 02:30, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 04:01, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 04:01, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:34, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The reference to WP:BLPCRIME in the nomination is inappropriate. The article cited is about the subject being sued by a private party, not about him being criminally prosecuted. There is nothing in this article that says that the subject was ever charged by the government with committing a crime. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:45, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete at best as I will pursue my original Delete since the article is still noticeably questionable. Keep perhaps although I would've pursued Delete also because although DGG and I have both noticed CEOs of $1 billion and higher assets companies are acceptable and the article contains claims of named chairs and named libraries, this may be enough to keep for now...even if the article may still be questionable somehow. SwisterTwister talk 05:01, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. not notable. It can be assumed that being founder or president of a manufacturing or retail company wroth $1 Billion is notable, but because of the nature of their business, financiers are not necessarily so at this level--I'd be more included to say $10 Billion. Holding an endowed professorship is notable; donating one is not, because all it takes is on the order of $5 million. (I gave that estimate without checking the article, but I see the article gives the same value!) So all that his gifts prove is that he is wealthy enough to donate $10 or $15 million to his college. That level of wealth is not notability. I did argue otherwise at AfD1 3 years ago, but as the nominator says, our standards have risen. And I think that even by our 2013 standards, I was probably wrong at the time. DGG ( talk ) 05:33, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 02:58, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Vietnam representatives at International pageants

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Vietnam representatives at International pageants

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

It's clear that the Vietnam representatives at International pageants article is a duplication of List of Vietnam representatives at international beauty pageants. Miss Universe Vietnam representatives were already listed in Miss Universe Vietnam article. Miss World Vietnam representatives were already listed in Miss Vietnam article and repeated at the List of Vietnam representatives at international beauty pageants. Minor or not notable pageants such as Eco Universe, All Nations does not even qualify to have an article on its own in the English Wikipedia and minor pageants such as Miss Intercontinental, Miss Suprnational, and etc were deleted many times. The Grandslam concept is a promotional and advertisement from beauty pageant website called Global Beauties (not reliable source). Richie Campbell (talk) 01:46, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD cannot be processed correctly because of an issue with the header. Please make sure the header has only 1 article, and doesn't have any HTML encoded characters.—^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 01:50, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2016 March 17. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 02:08, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 04:01, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Vietnam-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 04:01, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:32, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Most of the pageants mentioned in this article barely qualify as notable, if at all, so a list of the representatives to them from one country is even less notable. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:53, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 02:57, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

List of media agencies

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

poor, outdated article (list), just a list dump from one source. Rayman60 (talk) 01:09, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 02:00, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 02:00, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:56, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Management-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:32, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:32, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unrestricted list, will always be out of date and could become very large. Neiltonks (talk) 13:11, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Clear consensus after relisting. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 16:17, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Bill Ferris

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

Insufficient notablity; zero reliable sources. —swpb^T 14:50, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. —swpb^T 14:51, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. —swpb^T 14:52, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as none of this satisfies WP:CREATIVE and WP:ENTERTAINER. SwisterTwister talk 05:19, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 18:32, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:21, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per above, quality sources are either inadequate or simply non-existent altogether. GAB^Hello! 00:42, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per above. Self promotion? Mattximus (talk) 01:17, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No evidence of notability - all references are to his own website or imdb, not reliable sources. Searches don't turn up anything better. Reads like a bio his agent might send to movie producers. Neiltonks (talk) 13:16, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:18, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete comes no where near staisfying the notability criteria for actors.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:08, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. SOFTDELETE per low participation herein. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:54, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

NEXUS International Broadcasting Association

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

Unable to find sources to indicate notability. Only sources are government registration databases, which any registered organization would have. Author is connected to the subject. Elaenia (talk) 22:28, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 00:40, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 00:40, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 04:38, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as searches clearly found nothing better. SwisterTwister talk 04:38, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 18:35, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:20, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 16:15, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Playlist Tv

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

Recently launched TV channel. Not sure if is notable. XXN, 21:16, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 01:55, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 01:55, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete at best for now until convincing coverage is found as this is still questionably solid SwisterTwister talk 23:06, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:16, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete "MTV India and Zee-Turner"...There's your hoax sign. Viacom and Time Warner are bitter enemies, no way they would ever cooperate on anything, even in India. Site 404's to a domain park. Nate • (chatter) 02:23, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete: Delete as WP:G3 hoax. Article has been copied and tweaked from VH1 India (where Viacom and Zee-Turner did cooperate ref the Financial Express source and http://www.televisionpost.com/television/vh1s-10-year-journey-in-india/). No indications of "Playlist" or "Play List" in an Indian tv channel context.

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. User:Retired01042016 should refrain from creating pages and editing about conferences that they organise as they have a conflict of interest. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 16:14, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Symposium on Integrated Circuits and Systems Design

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

Brazilian conference on integrated circuit design; page created by one of its organizers. Seems fairly arcane and non-notable. Sources search turns up lots of event calendars and promotional pages. I think this is the kind of thing that should be promoted on its own web host/site, and not on Wikipedia, as it is not particularly notable to a general readership. HappyValleyEditor (talk) 00:02, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:22, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:22, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:22, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Page based on former Wikipedia page (thus, has been reactivated). Further, a >30 years old annual event should have a certain significance, especially as similar events can be found easily in the Wikipedia, too. Additionally, this event possess a high standing in the microelectronics community (academic/industry) in South America. Last but not least, Wikipedia is not seen as promotion base, considering that there are much more appropriate channels. But, due to our activities during conference organization we realized the lack of combined information about the event for an interested audience (not possible participants, but readers interested in the field of microelectronics in South America). Retired01042016 (talk) 02:22, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Retired01042016 unfortunately repeatedly insists on editing, despite COI warnings, this page for the conference that s/he is organizer of.HappyValleyEditor (talk) 04:29, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It exists, but isn't notable. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NEVENT. Joseph2302 (talk) 23:03, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per Joseph2302 and HappyValleyEditor, there are too many COI editors and promotional articles. Insert CleverPhrase Here 02:30, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not a notable conference according to [78] --Lemongirl942 (talk) 03:47, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

[1] te|url=https://www.rnw.org/archive/wilders-calls-mass-deportation-muslims|title=Wilders calls for mass deportation of Muslims|}}

[2] ttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FyxOpjcojGM

[1]

[2]