Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2016 September 27

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 26 September	28 September >

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 speedy keep. Wrong venue WP:RFD is thataway → (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 00:03, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dakota Field

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

There is not enough sufficient evidence or reference that Queen Beatrix International Airport was ever called Dakota Field and therefore a REDIRECT to QBIA is not appropriate. Further when Dakota Field is entered into Google or Yahoo only links to the Queen Beatrix International Airport Wikipedia page comes up. Request that it be fully deleted. YborCityJohn (talk) 23:37, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: This should probably be a procedural close as incorrect location (WP:AFD rather than WP:RFD). That said, the airport was formerly known as "Dakota Airport" (ref), and has been written as "Dakota Airfield" (ref) and "Dakota Field" (ref). ^~Hydronium^~Hydroxide^~(Talk)~ 14:19, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Laboratory. Spinoff with more and better content later remains possible. Sandstein 11:24, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Industrial laboratory

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

Don't know if this is the right process, but article duplicates content found in Laboratory article and states Edison's Menlo Park Lab was first industrial lab in 1876 (from Time article) when it clearly wasn't. Alfred Krupp had one in 1863 in Germany, and various chemists allied to iron mines built the first prototype industrial labs around the 1850's, in Europe.

^[1]

References

^ John L. Heilbron (27 March 2003). The Oxford Companion to the History of Modern Science. Oxford University Press. pp. 443–. ISBN 978-0-19-974376-6.

Possible merge with accurate facts or more balanced coverage would be ideal. Scope creep (talk) 23:08, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:48, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:48, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ Pls see below: Original comment: unneeded content WP:FORK & inaccurate information. This is strange cross of WP:PROMO for the laboratories listed with a hoax. K.e.coffman (talk) 23:37, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. a vert real topic about which dozens of books have been written---se, jsut as a start, the LC listing at [1]--some of these are directories, but many are more substantial. . The only problem is that is is woefully incomplete; what it needs is expansion, not deletion, Edison's may have been the first in the US, tho I'm not certain of that, so a worldwide view is required. Looking back over the last 15 years, most of our core articles have grown fro incomplete stubs like thia. The editor who stated this just needs encouragement. ``
Comment I agree wholeheartedly. Everybody knows there is far too much western bias on WP, but this takes the biscuit. A simple two second search on Google Books, or indeed several dozen sites would have show the facts clearly. Scope creep (talk) 12:24, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to laboratory. Doesn't seem clearly to be a separate topic. Blythwood (talk) 16:44, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Laboratory; not independently notable. K.e.coffman (talk) 22:40, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I was talking to a research scientist at the weekend about this, he reckoned that almost everything you see that's man made, was invented in a research lab, So in that sense I agree with DGG, at some point it's going to be a huge article. The editor who created it does need encouragement. Scope creep (talk) 16:52, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:34, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Brian Constantine

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

Not a notable presenter. Searches showed nothing significant in independent/reliable sources. Rayman60 (talk) 21:19, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:21, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:21, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:21, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete surprised I can't find anything about him either, but there you go - perhaps there are printed profiles or something - David Gerard (talk) 15:25, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as there's one thing and that only listed here, that he's been a TV host, nothing else at all of information and sources, this is essentially a BLPPROD considering there are no sources, there's simply nothing else actually convincing from there to suggest the needed substance, let alone improvements. SwisterTwister talk 18:17, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. He is a "regional" presenter. That rings CS7, no allegation of notability, to me. Bearian (talk) 00:26, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete regional television presenters are rarely notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:52, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to List of named devils in Dungeons & Dragons. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 00:03, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Cozbinaer

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

This article fails to establish notability. TTN (talk) 21:07, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 21:07, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 21:07, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge to List of named devils in Dungeons & Dragons. BOZ (talk) 03:15, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per BOZ. Jclemens (talk) 04:27, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 14:18, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge as above. Josh Milburn (talk) 01:24, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as suggested. Stars Stripes Forever (talk) 15:33, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. I don't think I've ever done a D&D related merge before. I shall put on my robe and wizard hat. A Train^talk 11:52, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Lupercio (Dungeons & Dragons)

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

This article fails to establish notability. TTN (talk) 21:05, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 21:05, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 21:05, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge to Demon lord. BOZ (talk) 03:13, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per BOZ. Jclemens (talk) 04:27, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 14:18, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge as above. Josh Milburn (talk) 01:23, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, I note that we have List of demon lords in Dungeons & Dragons, which would probably be a better target. Josh Milburn (talk) 01:25, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - You're right, and I agree with that. BOZ (talk) 03:31, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Josh. Stars Stripes Forever (talk) 15:35, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Kamen Rider Hibiki. The article clearly cannot stay (also, I am not convinced that TV Tropes would consider this material acceptable, either, not that it matters much), and there are substantial doubts about a merger, so going for a redirect to preserve the history in case someone can use it for a very selective merge (and then also for attribution purposes). Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 05:56, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Takeshi (Kamen Rider)

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

This article fails to establish notability. TTN (talk) 21:03, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 21:03, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (partial merge): Is there a "Wikipedia is Not TVTropes" page? There should be. Maybe a tenth of this page should be clipped into the Kamen Rider main page. Jergling (talk) 21:15, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Note that per WP:CWW, delete-then-merge-parts-of-it are quite difficult to accomplish, legally. Jclemens (talk) 04:22, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I hadn't thought of that. I always assumed intra-wiki moves were fine since the content is copied with initial attribution and a change record thereafter. I guess that doesn't work if you delete the original source. Ugh. Jergling (talk) 21:19, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Kamen Rider Hibiki. Jclemens (talk) 04:25, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; no evidence of notability. I'm not sure what's worth merging to where, but if anyone is convinced that something should be, I suppose I've no particular objection. Josh Milburn (talk) 01:22, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Kamen Rider Hibiki. The article is just a massive amount of fancruft that offers absolutely indication of notability. Perhaps a very selective merge can be done, but since this article is mostly just a large amount of unsourced cruft, I'd be wary about doing so. 64.183.45.226 (talk) 18:20, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 05:52, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Christopher T. McAllister

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

After proposed deletion declined, my concerns remain: Non-notable academic per WP:SCHOLAR or WP:BIO. Article bloated with personal details that suggests strong conflict of interest. The claim that this person is notable for having eponymous species names is contradicted by WP:NACADEMIC Specific criteria notes: Having an object (asteroid, process, manuscript, etc.) named after the subject is not in itself indicative of satisfying Criterion 1. Even with all of the uncited personal fluff removed (see e.g. this version), this subject appears to be a perfectly respectable and accomplished biologist that however fails to meet criteria for inclusion in an encyclopedia. --Animalparty! (talk) 20:23, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:24, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:24, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The article really is almost vacuous, once the "essay-like" personal chit-chat, and conventional CV stuff is removed. Imaginatorium (talk) 07:59, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above what on earth - David Gerard (talk) 09:45, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as certainly not convincing for WP:AUTHOR (no library holdings either) or WP:PROF, it's simply a local community college, certainly nothing to suggest substantiated notability for an article. SwisterTwister talk 20:09, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No where near being a notable academic, the article is plagued by fluff.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:18, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. We have no evidence of passing WP:PROF or any other actual notability criterion, "notable injuries" caused by stepping on glass as a kid aside. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:30, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

India and state-sponsored terrorism

The result was No valid result. This is not even a "no consensus", it's just no discernible result at all. This whole AfD has been just as big a mess as the article itself, and very little in it can serve as a valid basis for an AfD decision. This is mostly due to the pathological amount of national tag-teaming evident here (and in the editing of the article itself), with all the Indian editors voting delete as a block and all the Pakistani editors voting keep as a block – a situation that unfortunately reflects the pathological state of editing in this topic area in general. It is also due to the fact that the situation has attracted the usual assortment of sockfarms and throwaway accounts on both sides – again, a situation that is only too typical of the entire topic area, which is ripe with an insane amount of socking. Between all the socks and all the nationally-aligned me-too-voters, I can make out only a very small number of well-reasoned votes evidently based in independent assessment of policy; among them, that of User:Vanamonde93 probably stands out. In light of this, I'm pulling the emergency brake on this article and this AfD: I'm going to IAR on some of the normal AfD procedures and close this with a draftify and redirect. The draft as well as its talkpage will then be put under the new "Extended confirmed" protection level, shutting new editors and socks out. Established editors will still be welcome to work further on the draft; if and when they have reworked it into something appreciably more sensible, they can request having it moved back here into article space and we will run the AfD afresh (probably with the AfD page under 300/50 protection too). Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:31, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

I can't find any reliable sources that say that India has indulged in "state-sponsored terrorism". All the content that has been shoved into the article from various other pages are basically accusations reported in the news media, but not a single reliable source is seen to assert anything close. Kautilya3 (talk) 20:19, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Snow keep This AfD is in haste, as the article hasn't been stand-alone for a sufficient time. It will develop further. Kautilya3 hasn't used the talk page to mention any such concerns, which makes it moot. I suggest that it be withdrawn for the time being. AfD is not a venue for content disputes. Also, the claim in the nomination is not true, as the number of sources at State-sponsored terrorism and outside reliable mainstream sources have extensive coverage of such allegations, so notability is implicitly present. Wikipedia's criteria is verification, which is also present. Also, the India section at State-sponsored terrorism is very long, so a split is inevitable per the WP:SPLIT policy. Mar4d (talk) 20:45, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ Draftify Per Mar4d's explanation. Basically every major entry on the main page has their own spinoff, and the sources are as good as any of the other ones. Keep in mind that "State-sponsored terrorism" is primarily a collection of accusations, not convictions, and is clearly referenced as such. This article follows the same scheme. Not up to standards. Needs RS for everything, not just accusations. Other sections/articles should probably get the same treatment (On my to-do list now). Jergling (talk) 21:12, 27 September 2016 (UTC) UPDATED BY Jergling (talk) 14:22, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: There are many many sources in the article which establish the link between India and state-sponsored terrorism. Sources do not have to use the exact words to describe an action by state. If a source says that India is supporting insurgency in Balochistan, the insurgency which is killing people in that province then it is testament of state-sponsored terrorism but....but if you are looking for a source which uses the exact words then here is one such source:

Pakistan & Gulf Economist, Volume 20, The University of California, 2001, Pakistan had already suffered a lot by Indian sponsored terrorism since independence. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 21:17, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, right!^[1]

So what? You need more? Then, ask for it? You said single and I gave you single! You will ask for more, I will give you more! Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 22:58, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You have seen one, you have seen them all. I was asking for a reliable source. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 23:56, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or Merge into State-sponsored terrorism#India. Jarble (talk) 22:15, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Redirect to State-sponsored terrorism#India. where it belongs. It is exactly similar (forgive my eyes if I did make a mistake). If there is something different merge Varun FEB2003 07:12, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ Lt. Col. Asad Ali (29 October 2001), "Pakistan and war against terrorism (Et cetera column)", Pakistan Economist (Pakistan's leading Business Magazine for the last 25 years)

Oh good lord. Is this where the India-Pakistan POV debate has gotten to? That for every article critical of Pakistan, we need one critical of India, and vice-versa? I'll say it straight up: most of this page is bunk, and unencyclopedic content (whatever title it is at). Here is why:

1) A very large part of this page centers around accusations, mostly by folks with vested interests (ie not third parties). All accusations by various governments and officials come under this category. These individuals are not reliable sources.

2) Some of the content is WP:SYNTH trying to link the Indian government to Hindu terrorist groups. Now these groups have been documented by reliable sources, but turning a blind eye, and support from retired army officials, does not count as "state-sponsorship."

3) A small section describes support for insurgencies. This is obviously genuine information, and Indian support for insurgencies is probably far larger than documented here. However, insurgency and terrorism is not the same thing. In order to include a group, or an incident, on this page, it needs to be described as a terrorist group/terrorist incident by reliable sources. And that does not mean reliable sources reporting an individuals elsewhere describing it as terrorism.

4) What this leaves is a substantial portion about Indian support for the LTTE. Unlike for of the rest of this article, this is genuinely encyclopedic information, because it is described by reliable sources writing in their voice. Therefore, I think Renaming this to "[Indian support for the LTTE]]" or something would be a reasonable option, after, of course, purging the inappropriate information.

As a final comment, none of the keep votes are based in policy, because none of them demonstrate the encyclopedic nature of this information. The fact that a different page contains accusations, as User:Mar4d argued, is not a reason to include them here: likewise, a fact that a page exists about a different country, as User:Jergling argues, is not a reason to have one here. I myself created the page about US sponsored terrorism, so I'm well acquainted with this topic: and the sources treat that topic very very differently. Vanamonde (talk) 16:37, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Nomination is not based on the policy either, it complains that there are no reliable sources but since the nomination, the article has been expanded further and many more sources have been added so delete would not be because the article lacks sources. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 18:07, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sheriff, the nomination does not say the article is not verifiable: the nomination says that there are not reliable sources discussing the topic as a topic. This remains true. As I have said above, the only part of the article that is substantively covered by reliable sources is the support to the LTTE. Vanamonde (talk) 05:15, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

But, actually, there are reliable sources discussing the topic "as a topic". Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 17:43, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Vanamonde93: Thanks for expanding on your concerns. There are points I would have to disagree with however. It is unfair to judge the article in its present shape because, as I pointed out, the AfD was made in haste and the current coverage is hardly indicative of the in-depth material available. These state terrorism articles are part of a series of pages with similar structure, and based purely on sources and coverage, the material on India is no exception. Pakistan, in particular, is quite vocal and accuses India of supporting both Pakistani Taliban and Baloch insurgent groups through proxies in Afghanistan [2] [3] [4] [5] [6]. These concerns have been shared by UAE officials as well [7] [8]. U.S. defence secretary Chuck Hagel has said that India finances trouble inside Pakistan via Afghanistan [9]. In addition, Paul R. Pillar in Terrorism and U.S. Foreign Policy (B.I.P., ISBN 978-0815770770) writes that "The closest thing to a major power supporting terrorism is India" but that it is on "a small scale and aimed solely at Pakistan, not at U.S. power and influence." So as you can see, this is a complex topic and not so black-and-white. And then there is the issue of Indian agents like Kulbhushan Yadav and Sarabjit Singh being caught, who have been accused/convicted of terrorism. Mar4d (talk) 18:57, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mar4d, that argument is not based in policy either. First, you are flinging at me a number of sources containing accusations, and hoping something will stick. You need to find reliable sources covering Indian sponsored terrorism, not accusations thereof. Second, if a page is not policy-compliant, it needs to be deleted or fixed pronto. If it is in development, then why on earth did you move it to mainspace? Work on it in your userspace as a draft, and move it when it's ready. You can't have it both ways: if you want it in mainspace, it needs to meet the standards for mainspace. Vanamonde (talk) 05:15, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

See, I'd normally agree with you, but it kind of looks like the most things in State-sponsored terrorism are accusations by involved parties, and they're quoted as such. There is some serious SYNTH going on in this particular entry, but I don't quite understand why it's deletion-worthy. Pakistan and India aren't reliable sources on each other, at least in this particular category, but aren't some of the sources accusing India actually from India? (Honest question, I don't know this part of the web well enough to pick URLs) Jergling (talk) 21:06, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jergling: Yes, many of the sources are from India, but it's not the place of publication I am concerned about. My issue is that the articles is based on reliable sources reporting the accusations of politicians. We cannot build articles on such accusations, else Wikipedia would be filled with complete bunk. If other pages have the same problem, it should be fixed there, too. Now I understand there is always going to be an element of accusation involved; no country accepts that it sponsors terrorism. But, for example, when I wrote [[10]], I made sure to include only events that are documented to have occurred. The CIA might not accept that it funded terrorism, but there are plenty of reliable sources describing the actual incidents: not simply accusations of no substance. Look at the first sentence of the article under discussion here: the bit about Pakistan is based on two sources that have the briefest coverage, and three that report accusations: which is why I call it bunk. Vanamonde (talk) 05:15, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Vanamonde I agree. I've changed my vote to reflect this, but I think we're going to get no-consensus'd by accounts with vested interest. Jergling (talk) 14:25, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 03:26, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 03:26, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 03:26, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletion discussions. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 03:26, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 03:27, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify: As Vanamonde says, and reading and cleaning through the article so far, the article is full of allegations made by politicians and army chiefs with no much weightage to fact checking. For example I removed one claim as it was retracted later on and edited another claim which made to media at first as "evidences" but later was changed by the officials a month later after the media hype was probably over. There are a few verification issue in the provided refs too. We can work in draft space and depending on the length of legit content keep a new article or merge back to it's original place. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 09:06, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to State-sponsored terrorism#India. Most of the article content is based upon accusations. I agree with the opinions of Kautilya3 and Vanamonde. Bharatiya 29 11:02, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Article is fine. AFD based on rejecting Media Reports. Considering this logic, main article 'state-sponsored terrorism' will be deleted. Chulbulchaudary (talk) 12:21, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete The article is propaganda. Bulletproof Batman (talk) 13:19, 29 September 2016 (UTC) sockpuppet, since banned[reply]

Clarify please? Mar4d (talk) 16:00, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep none of the delete rationale's stick. "most of the article is based on accusation"? really? ALL articles in this category are "based on accusations". TouristerMan (talk) 14:18, 29 September 2016 (UTC) - banned sock.[reply]

Comment Please read the discussion carefully. The problem isn't accusations, it's first-party accusations by involved sources. This is decidedly different from the other articles in the category, which cite accusations by analysts and state departments. Jergling (talk) 15:26, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I see a little contradiction in that. You see, even for "analysts" and "state departments" to discuss sponsored terrorism, there is in nearly all cases a trail of accusations made by what you termed as first parties. And just because a first party makes an accusation does not render its views unreliable. We just have to see how corroborated and widely covered those views are amongst reliable sources including third parties. Mar4d (talk) 16:05, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No, that's pretty much exactly what renders it unreliable. Involved parties shouting "terrorist!" at each other as a tit-for-tat slap fight is the whole problem with quoting every single politician who raises his hand. This is a textbook case of WP:FALSEBALANCE - you're giving undue weight to what amounts to emotionally-invested individuals' conspiracy theories. Jergling (talk) 14:34, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not all, but most of the !votes posted in here are entertaining. I expect and plan on reading more before adding my !vote. Anup [Talk] 17:39, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete/Draftify as per nominee, Dharmadhyaksha and Vanamonde. --Human3015^TALK 17:42, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep All cited sources are reliable contrary to nomination grounds. sami ^talk 22:31, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete/Draftify per nom. The section for India at State-sponsored terrorism was serving quite well and I do not see a need for a separate article. This page was a draft for a while until the recent rise in India-Pakistan tensions. Filpro (talk) 23:51, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep The nomination seems to have been made based on personal liking of an editor. If a person does not like a particular page they should not nominate it for deletion as wikipedia is not owned by anyone. The concerns that have been shown are akin to boilerplate templates. Editors wanting to delete the article have made vague statements without giving any examples. There some hilarious rationales here as well, like a person who says that "turning a blind eye, and support from retired army officials, does not count as state-sponsorship." With flimsy rationales like this I highly doubt that the AFD will go anywhere. Danishkan (talk) 02:44, 30 September 2016 (UTC) blocked for using multiple accounts (obviously somebody's sock)[reply]

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

Completely, agree with Danishkan here, this nomination is an example of WP:IDONTLIKEIT and WP:CENSOR. We are not supposed to touch this subject here on Wikipedia which we have tried in this article. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 16:42, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There are a lot of very poorly reasoned arguments being put forward here. To have an article on Wikipedia, a subject needs to have substantive coverage in multiple reliable sources. The folks defending this article have consistently failed to demonstrate the existence of such sources. What we have right now is an article about "Accusations of Indian sponsored terrorism" (again, with the exception of the Sri Lankan content). @Mar4d: says "We just have to see how corroborated and widely covered those views are amongst reliable sources"; and he is absolutely right; I just wish he would abide by his own argument. The accusations are widely covered, but they are not corroborated in substantial form anywhere. Most of the arguments here completely misunderstand the nature of the sources. A newspaper article which reports individual A saying "the world is flat" is not a reliable source for a sentence in Wikipedia that says "the world is flat." All it can be used for is "Individual A says the world is flat"; and in this case, including that opinion would be inappropriate, because members of every government fling accusations at members of every other. Vanamonde (talk) 04:33, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete - Non-notable conspiracy theories and WP:POVPUSHING. Article is full of one-sided unproved claims, solely promoted by Pakistan as retaliation to the proven facts that Pakistan has been sponsoring terrorism. (Pakistan and state-sponsored terrorism) Looking at the section like [11], it becomes clear that article can be created only to mislead the readers. Capitals00 (talk) 04:38, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Curious to know, how can you brush the content as "conspiracy theories" when there are a gazillion sources? Mar4d (talk) 08:05, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep All information is well sourced the arguments for deleting are purely motivated due to nationalist pov. Superman-roof (talk) 10:32, 30 September 2016 (UTC) — Superman-roof (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

~~:: Who are you imitating my username? Bulletproof Batman (talk) 09:03, 1 October 2016 (UTC)~~ sockpuppet, since banned[reply]

Keep I dont know why is there this 'accusations' part of the argument to delete the article? There are other articles out there which are based on accusations. Article on Kulbhushan Yadav is based on accusations - mostly what it contains are accusations from both sides, 2016 Uri attack is having lot of accusations with claims and counter claims, 2016 Kashmir unrest article too take accusations into account etc etc. Like it is here at WP, we base articles on coverage, notability, encyclopedic content etc and not whether the topic is true. WP:NOTTRUTH is the case in point. Enough RS covers these 'accusations' which makes the article eligible for WP.—TripWire ︢ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︡ ︢ ︡ ^ʞlɐʇ 12:04, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete - As per nominator, Vanamonde and WP:POVPUSH. Pratyush (talk) 18:22, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: An editor has expressed a concern that PratyushSinha101 (talk • contribs) has been canvassed to this discussion. as per this diff said user mass canvassed many editors sharing his POV at the same time. Danishkan (talk) 08:06, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Danishkan: It's funny you are saying this when I have written my above opinion before that user's edit to my Talk page. The least you could have done before making such accusation is note the timings of the edits. Pratyush (talk) 07:13, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

WP:POVPUSH deals with WP:UNDUE and WP:FRINGE content. That contradicts with the reliable mainstream coverage present. Both you and Capitals00 have not explained how it applies here, so it appears as a red herring. Mar4d (talk) 18:52, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

How is it not WP:POVPUSH, when most of the sources are from Pakistani media/authors. Pratyush (talk) 07:13, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete/Draftify/Redirect - Wikipedia is becoming an outlet of the Pakistan Inter-Services_Intelligence. Whether directly or indirectly we can only speculate.VictoriaGrayson^Talk 19:02, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@VictoriaGrayson: That is preposterous, your speculation is unwelcome! Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 19:12, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

All I am saying is that Wikipedia is becoming an outlet for the ISI, even if this is indirect. Only Admins looking at IP addresses can see if the ISI is directly involved.VictoriaGrayson^Talk 19:15, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Again, why exactly you are concerned about that even if ISI is involved? Is Wikipedia for anyone to edit or not? You need to concentrate on the content not on who is editing and who is not? Do we know who you are and what you do in your personal life? What if I say that RAW, MOSSAD, CIA, FBI and KGB all are editing Wikipedia because they have nothing else to do? What weight my comment would have? The only vote I see here which should be declared null and void is yours. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 19:19, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No, Wikipedia is not for anyone to edit. There are IP blocks for many organizations.VictoriaGrayson^Talk 19:39, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

But, your vote is based on an absurd speculation. You are voting Delete because you think that Wikipedia is becoming an outlet for ISI and by voting Delete, you are trying to correct the situation without any regard to what you are trying to delete. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 19:57, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Majority of contents in article are based on primary sources. There also seems to be some WP:BLP issues, where few living people has been held guilty while the case is still pending in court. For example, look into there what ref#49 is and what it is cited for (one can open respective wiki-links for detailed information).

After removing these unencyclopedic and unverified contents; very thin piece of information would be left and that would most probably question the validity and need of a standalone article. Anup [Talk] 22:18, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete - This page comes just after Uri Attacks, and is an obvious attempt at POV pushing. Vagbhata2 (talk) 00:06, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

— Vagbhata2 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. User has only edits on wikipedia are to a couple of drafts, since rejected. No other edits. Danishkan (talk) 11:59, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete There is already a section about India on the State-sponsored terrorism page. This article was initially redirected back in June 2015 and was created again by another user at a time when tensions between India and Pakistan are soaring (September 2016). The user who created the article, appears to be trying to mask their support of Pakistan by claiming the main article is too long (A giant "Pakistan flag" on their user page, does not help either). If that's the case, why keep the India section on the main article, wouldn't one just include the link to the new article on the main article instead of keeping the entire section about the country? I'm not buying it, there are much longer articles on Wikipedia than State-sponsored terrorism and its creation seems to have been motivated by political issues between India and Pakistan. I'm not taking sides on the India-Pakistan issue but I feel that such an article does not need to exist, at least not right now, as the main article has a good section about state-sponsored terrorism by India. (101.160.165.21 (talk) 00:10, 1 October 2016 (UTC))[reply]
Strong Keep classic case of WP:IDLI, WP:POVPUSH, WP:OWN and many other policies where the nom just wants anti-India stuff "off" the wiki. I have read the sources and 95% of them a WP:RS, other 5% are WP:PRIMARY sources, but their use is in thier place. This article contains almost zero% WP:SYNTH as editors have taken care not to include anything from themselves. In a nutshell it is a pretty OK article, albeit an irritating one for Indians. 182.186.167.206 (talk) 02:55, 1 October 2016 (UTC) — 182.186.167.206 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

~~::The above IP knows many many policies. Someojne is IP socking. --Bulletproof Batman (talk) 09:02, 1 October 2016 (UTC)~~ sockpuppet, since banned[reply]

Delete and redirect - This page should be deleted and get redirected on State-sponsored_terrorism#India.☆★Sanjeev Kumar (talk) 07:16, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This page should be deleted as there is a section on another page as others have pointed out. --Rajan51 (talk) 13:50, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: An editor has expressed a concern that Tajan51 (talk • contribs) has been canvassed to this discussion. as per this msg left on his TP. Danishkan (talk) 11:52, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sock and canvassing alert Please note we have sock accounts being used to WP:CANVASS users from the 'delete' camp in violation of this AfD, while another user has deliberately canvassed at least twelve users to this AfD. This is highly disruptive for the purpose of this discussion. All predetermined opinions coming from these involved parties should be treated with caution as WP:VOTESTACK. Mar4d (talk) 14:25, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about that, I didn't know about canvassing. This will not be repeated again. WP:PAKISTAN has also been notified of the nominations along with WP:IN. Both Pakistani and Indian editors have now also been notified. All of these notifications (including the original ones) should be seen as appropriate due to its neutral message and open transparency. I guarantee that consensus will not be swayed in any direction as a result of these notifications. Filpro (talk) 18:01, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry but I have to say this that the idea of informing WP:PAK and Pakistani editors to counter the earlier canvassing is not a good omen. Unfortunately this shows that this debate is being seen as India vs Pakistan, which it should not. --SMS ^Talk 19:02, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This should have never been an India vs Pakistan thing but it automatically does become one when the creator of this article is pushing for the deletion of this other article. It's quite clear that there is a WP:BATTLE going on between Indian and Pakistani Wikipedians and it is hurting Wikipedia. Unfortunately, it looks like there will be no consensus. Filpro (talk) 19:31, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Mar4d:, I want to put this out there, I'm not in any way a sockpuppet. I know you didn't explicitly name me but I just wanted to let you know that I am a regular IP user whose IP address constantly changes. I geolocate to Australia and I am not of Indian or Pakistani descent. There are registered users on Wikipedia that I've gotten to know and they are well aware of how my IP address constantly changes for some reason. So what I'm saying is you shouldn't disregard my vote. I have regularly taken part in discussions like this, the most recent one being to restore a Wikipedia page article for the song "Side to Side". My IP address from yesterday is 101.160.165.21 (talk · contribs). (121.214.173.232. (talk) 00:04, 2 October 2016 (UTC))[reply]

I was referring to the following sock. Also, you should consider creating an account per WP:REGISTER as the advantages are many, and it makes it easier for other users to recognise you (especially on discussions). Mar4d (talk) 05:37, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, thanks @Mar4d:. (121.219.125.183 (talk) 06:31, 2 October 2016 (UTC))[reply]

Keep All the arguments from the keep camp are irrelevant to the discussion sources clearly show India is indulging in Terrorism in Pakistan and elsewhere. The Indian editors need to be more mature and understand wikipedia is not owned by Indians or the propaganda wing of the BJP government. Inaghetto (talk) 14:59, 1 October 2016 (UTC) — Inaghetto (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Keep - The article about state sponsored terrorism contained as section about India since long. This appears to be merely an a split to a full article which is completely per wikipedia norms and well sourced. The debate here seems pretty contentious and I would request the closer to ignore !votes asking for censorship. The delete !votes stating that the main state sponsored terrorism article already has a section are infact logically in support of the "keep" argument. I'll thank User:Flipro for inviting me to vote even though his own comment was in 'delete', but I'll also like to note that this is not a vote and his comment is merely a vote. --lTopGunl (talk) 18:19, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Mar4d. Let's see where this ends up before judging it. It seems to have gained significant coverage. The quality of the sources could do with improvement.--NadirAli نادر علی (talk) 19:14, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There are clearly enough 3rd party sources to merit an article for this issue, I'm surprised that this is even being considered for deletion. cӨde1 6^TP 19:20, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/merge into state-sponsored terrorism per Capitals00. There's a lot of CIO-users in here.74.70.146.1 (talk) 02:33, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/Merge' There are 10 citations in this article which claims to be of such import of which 4 are one sided biased accounts from Pakistan. Definitely POV pushing.HemaChandra88 (talk) 02:41, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete- This article is a violation of Wikipedia's neutral point of view. This article is an attempt to create WP:FALSEBALANCE.Jayprakash12345 (talk) 04:15, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That's a red herring. WP:FALSEBALANCE is for uncited "fringe theories" and "extraordinary claims". This article falls into neither, nor have you proven how. Mar4d (talk) 07:22, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Mar4d: No, you have that wrong. It is not possible to prove that something is a fringe theory, because that involves proving an absence of sources, which is impossible. The burden of proof is on you: you have to demonstrate that the content you wish to add is supported by reliable sources. This you have consistently failed to do. The article is improving slowly, but that is because several editors, including me, have ruthlessly pruned the original research from it. Vanamonde (talk) 10:58, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Merge into State-sponsored terrorism#India but make sure to cite reliable source there. GSS (talk) 05:55, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: An editor has expressed a concern that GSS-1987 (talk • contribs) has been canvassed to this discussion. as per this diff The offending user (Who has no edits on wikipedia articles) has canvassed other like minded users to this page as well. Danishkan (talk) 08:06, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Danishkan:, Are you serious? You possibly WP:SPA user who registered on 21 September 2016, and have only 32 edits which are only related to this topic accusing me? I not even recieved any notification about this so call sock and I dont need anyone to canvas me as I'm not blind or deaf. GSS (talk) 08:28, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

~~@User:GSS-1987 there is a diff which shows the canvass. Danishkan (talk) 11:45, 2 October 2016 (UTC)~~[reply]

More convassing taking place by a pro-India sock here. Would again like to remind fellow users of WP:VOTESTACK. Mar4d (talk) 07:19, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dear admins please not the persistant socking and canvassing for delete votes on this discussion and please ensure the outcome takes into account the major efforts of Filpro et al on swaying this vote and muddying the waters. 82.132.236.252 (talk) 09:28, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete/Redirect – The article has been expanded significantly since the 2016 Uri attack and following India's counter strike, the sources are not reliable. It must either be deleted to redirected /merged to State-sponsored terrorism#India. The article's tone doesn't adhere to WP:NPOV. Moreover there are many maintenance tags on the page such as citation needed, not in citation given, discussion etc. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 15:30, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note to admin: Krishna was canvassed from his talk page. Mar4d (talk) 15:36, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note to admin: Mar4d is a Pakistani nationalist who has a serious COI of making India look bad.74.70.146.1 (talk) 16:29, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@74.70.146.1: I suggest you keep your unwelcome personal attacks to yourself, and also educate yourself on what WP:COI is. Focus on the content and discussion, not vitriol. Mar4d (talk) 16:45, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This is a lower quality article. The subject is notable but this presentation of it is problematic. The article would benefit from following any narrative of a book which directly addressed the subject. Right now, I do not see any single source giving an overview of the subject which immediately stands out as a strong summary of state-sponsored terrorism from India. Blue Rasberry (talk) 02:26, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

~~There are no RS sources to keep this article. This is Mar4d and SheriffIsInTown's attempt at pushing their anti-India POV. Googly Drive (talk) 03:42, 3 October 2016 (UTC)~~ sockpuppet, since banned[reply]

Keep - I have randomly picked three citations (numbers 10, 49 and 2 respectively) and the sources cited are reliable and do say what has been mentioned. So the requirements of Notability, Reliability and Verifiability have been met. The requirement for Neutrality may not be met because I note a lot Synthesis in this article which may be addressed once the AfD is closed and other neutral editors get a chance to work on it. In reply to the comments posted above, Wikipedia is not an appropriate forum for championing your personal opinion or for fighting with those of others. Further, a Google search brings up other sources that may be cited here. So the requirements of keeping this article are more than justified. Note: The comments posted here are merely those of a Wikipedia editor. My personal opinions on the topic are not suitable for discussion on this article talk page. -Wikishagnik (talk) ::@Wikishagnik:, How many reliable sources are there, where the name of the book, the name of the article is "India and state-sponsored terrorism"? How many books are written with the exact name of this article? How many non-Pakistani website, non-Pakistani author has written articles/books titled "India and state-sponsored terrorism"? List them here please. The only option in your favour is something suggested by Vanamonde93, is to move this to Indian support for the LTTE.

*Strong delete No academic book with the exact name. And only Pakistani websites making their claims. No reliable websites from neutral countries Googly Drive (talk) 05:20, 3 October 2016 (UTC) — Googly Drive (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. sockpuppet, since banned[reply]

Comment: Danishkan has falsely accussed me of being canvassed to this discussion. All his other 'spa' and 'canvassed' tags should be checked. Pratyush (talk) 08:00, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete While casually moving on this wiki for searching of an article, found this discussion.The article doesn't meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines and therefore should be deleted in my openion.

--V.narsikar (talk) 10:29, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete It is an anti-nation article holding motive of spreading misinformation regarding specific country. There is no proof for information provided on this page. It can observed that this article is running by some community who has wrong intention, also this article violating Wikipedia guidelines for keeping neutral information. सुमित सिंह (talk) 11:16, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and move some contents to another appropriate title such as "Indian support for LTTE": I have browsed through the references. No third party sources have used language which supports the loaded language in the title itself. Except for the Indian support of LTTE, I dont think most other content would go out because of WP:NRV. Reports of accusations by parties involved in disputes cannot be considered as independent evidence!! Also, WP:NOT#SOAP (the article appears to be for the advocation of a pet point of view which is not shared by independent sources) and WP:NOT#ESSAY (it is not a site where original research can be peddled). Get some independent sources who say that India has some connection with state sponsorship of terrorism first. --Drajay1976 (talk) 13:54, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep, The article is well referenced, Books, newspapers references are given at the sentence end in the article, "The Wikipedia is concerned with the reliable sources, to which this article fully accomplished". And sorry for those brothers/ nation who has been accused of state sponsored terrorism, for them I would say its not the people of any state terrorists, but the governing elite is the master mind of such atrocities, Pakistan and India was divided by the Goraas as they were feared that United India will be very dangerous to their objectives. If the article has some sentence corrections, unwanted words that may be excluded and this article is strongly recommended to be KEEP as it fulfills all the criterion of Wikipedia. Thanks for inviting me for this discussion, India and Pakistan should live with peace, resolve every issue with peacefully... --Jogi 007 (talk) 14:00, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Danishkan and Mar4d: I think you forget to add the WP:CANVAS template for the above message by this gentleman or you are ignoring because it's a "Keep" vote? or you are waiting for someone else to do it? GSS (talk) 05:15, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User:GSS-1987 read the above discussion. Filpro mentioned him when filpro was "caught red handed" canvassing his friends. Discounting this person vote will be the height of complete bad faith. What happens if I mention every single Indian editor? Are thier votes bad? Put the blame where it is due, on Filpro. He canvasses, it is his problem. Report him if you want. Anyone who was mentioned by Filpro in his "reaction" msg is not a canvass. Danishkan (talk) 05:22, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oh really? hope this isn't a joke anyways good luck. GSS (talk) 05:27, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User:GSS-1987 really what? No he was caught red handed, the discussion is right here. It does sound like a joke that an editor will be bad faith enough to canvass, but sadly it is not. Danishkan (talk) 05:33, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Dissecting through the delete arguments I find three issues mentioned the most .i.e. 1). lack of reliable sources covering the topic, 2). POV and 3). Accusations. But I find that there are plenty of reliable sources covering this topic in parts. Those vying that there are no reliable source covering this topic, I suggest they take another look at the article. Unfortunately for some the criteria of a source being reliable or not has come down to the perceived citizenship of the author .i.e. whether the author is Pakistani or not. It does not matter to them if it is published by an academic publisher. Some of the editors opining delete/merge also agree there is significant coverage of India's support to LTTE to warrant an article. So, I would like to present two sources that discusses a part of rest of the topic significantly.i.e. India's support to terrorist groups of Pakistan and Myanmar (Burma):

Extended content

RAW's support to Al-Zulfikar

The Indian Reseach and Analysis Wing, RAW, was the prime espionage agency of the country, and far more efficient than the amateurish KHAD, its Afghan counterpart. As AI-Zulfikar men began to arrive in India from Pakistan and Afghanistan from the beginning of September 1982, RAW set up a reception centre and camp for them in the city’s Surya Nagar locality. It was under the charge of Sardar Salim, a PPP worker from Rawalpindi. Every new arrival was fingerprinted and photographed by RAW and given a code-name that was always Hindu. The agency did not want the junior training staff to know that these men were Pakistanis or Muslims. Sardar Salim’s name was Kashi Ram, while Yaqub Cheena was Ashok and Umar Havat was Deepak. Sohail Sethi was Prakash and Murtaza Bhutto the leader was Kumar.
RAW was not only careful with the code-names; it took security seriously. For instance, it knew that some of the men would eventually be caught by Pakistani agencies such as Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI), and so it took steps to prevent them from knowing where they had been trained in India. These men were transported to and from their camps by helicopter. Where the training camp was located they did not know, except that it was in a hilly area about three to four hundred miles from New Delhi. Actually the training centre lay in the city of Bhuj. What they learned there included the use of light weapons and techniques of sabotage, including bomb-making. When they were ready, the men were brought back to the Surya Nagar facility in the Indian capital, where they were always met by Murtaza, Shahnawaz and Sohail Sethi. They were organized into groups of four and smuggled across the border into Pakistan to carry out different missions. All AJ-Zulfikar affairs were controlled and guided by a RAW officer named Chawla.
In September 1982, two RAW-trained Al-Zulfikar groups were sent across the border to Pakistan to assassinate two leading members of the Majlis-i-Shoora. General Zia’s hand-picked advisory council. The group sent to Sialkot and Lahore was lcd by Rehniatullah Anjum and included Umar Ilayat and Talat Jaffrev. The fourth member, according to some accounts, was Afzal Razzaq — code-name Dr Trailo. The other group went to Karachi. It was led by Ayaz Sammu, and also included Yaqub Cheena, Ilyas Siddiqul, and Javed Malik. Siddiqui and Anjum were among those who only a year and a half earlier had been brought to Damascus by the Pakistan government in return for the hijacked PIA plane, its crew and passengers. Both Rehmatullah Anum and Javed Malik were wanted for the murder of Chaudhri Zahur Elahi. ......
Anjum’s party crossed the border near Sialkot, stole a car from the city and on the night of 2 September Umar Hayat and Taiat Jaffrey headed for the house of the respected veteran politician Khwaja Muhammad Safdar, armed with hand-grenades. One Al-Zulfikar man recalled in 1990 that Khwaja Safdar’s three-storey house was located in an old part of the city. There was a lot of overhead wiring in the street and around the house and the two operatives were afraid of lobbing a grenade into the house because it could easily hit the wiring and rebound on them. In fact, though, the grenade exploded on the flat roof of the old-fashioned house, and the two made an easy getaway.
The attack on Khwaja Safdar’s house was meant to be a symbolic warning, ......
The car stolen in Sialkot by Anjum was abandoned at Daska, a small town about twenty miles away. Here they stole another car and drove to Lahore, where on the night of 5 September, they threw a hand-grenade at the residence of Justice Saecd-ur-Rehman, killing a security guard by the name of Murid Ahmed. Two months after this incident, the judge resigned his post, something Murtaza must have added to his trophies. The group’s luck held, and the four made it safe back to Delhi.
— Raja Anwar, "The Terrorist Prince: The Life and Death of Murtaza Bhutto" (1997), Verso, pp 138-

RAW's support to Kachin Independence Army

... in the 80s, RAW supported tribal and ethnic factions fighting the SLORC in Myanmar. One of the factions supported by India was the Kachin Independence Army. The Kachins, known more accurately as Jingphaws or Marus, account for some 3 per cent of Myanmar's ethnic population. They inhabit the north-east of the country and have the reputation for resorting to arms to assert what they believe are their rights.
A senior officer in RAW deputed to Bangkok in the 80s made contact with Burmese underground leaders in the hope of gaining some information. Then this officer decided that the KIA could be beneficially used to channelise information. And RAW could aid them with money and arms. Having made contact, the idea was to get members of KIA into India for training and contact creation. After the controlling officer returned from Bangkok, infiltration of KIA cadres was started. They came as students, youths touring India and helpers, sent for training to Chakrata and other locations in north and north-east. Arms and other material began to filter through to camps in North Myanmar and this reached its peak in 1991-92. Arunachal Pradesh and Mizoram provided exfiltration sites, while some material went via Bangkok. This was the post election period when Aung Sang Suu Kyi had won but was not allowed to take power by SLORC. All this was stopped by Prime Minister Narasimha Rao, as part of his "Look East" policy.
Looking back, one may well ask what purpose did this operation serve? What national interests or foreign policy goals did it serve? Keeping in mind the dimension of policy in the 80s. that of coercive diplomacy there is little doubt that the Government thought it fit to aid all rebels across the borders, wherever it suited us. But on many an occasion it backfired, as it did in Sri Lanka.
— Pankaj Mehra; Bhashyam Kasturi, "Geo-Politics of South Asian Covert Action"(April–June 2001), Indian Defence Review, Bharat Verma (ed), Lancer Publishers, Volume:16 Issue:2, pp 26

Then India's support Mukti Bahini (that is also regarded as a terrorist organization) is well documented in multiple reliable sources. Regarding the argument that article has POV issues, even if true, its not a reason for deletion. Another argument is that there are only allegations or accusations of state-sponsored terrorism by India. Be it accusations, our job is to present those accusations/allegations neutrally in the article. We are not a judiciary to judge whether those accusations are admissible enough to pronounce someone guilty or not. This is an encyclopedia, a collection of information based on verifiability not WP:TRUTH. To me it more looks like content dispute. I see some of the editors suggesting deletion are engaged in content related discussions on the talkpage also. Apart from this are mostly WP:IDONTLIKEIT arguments which I don't think needs to be answered. --SMS ^Talk 05:29, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I see a very strong assertion on so called "reliable" sourcing of article. Yes, there are sources which are generally considered "reliable" by Wikipedia, but in present case most of them, are neither "secondary" nor "independent" of the issue being dealt with.

A plethora of Pakistani publications has been thrown in without wp:attribution to support allegation of sponsored terrorism against Pakistan by India. Like North Korea has tons of against South Korea, U.S. and other countries. There is a dearth of "secondary, independent and reliable" sources to support the article.

I understand this discussion is most likely to be closed as "no-consensus". In that case, the title is better moved (based on present sourcing and contents) to, Accusation against India for state-sponsored terrorism. Anup [Talk] 07:27, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This is bad faith editing. How can you claim that an article is based on unverifiable sources and then say that it is based on RS? I disagree with this completely. There are multiple, independant RS that show that RAW was involved in terror activities globally. Please do not make this a Pakistan vs India debate. The article deals with other countries as well. For example All RS state for a fact that RAW was involved in training the terror group LTTE in Srilanka, many of these RS are Indians. Danishkan (talk) 07:52, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Heh! Even Sri Lankan Prime Minster said, "his allegations was based on incorrect information" (BBC). That's an official retract, if you know what does it mean (may be Google it?). "ALL RS" is a personal opinion and better you keep it confined at self.

Pakistani government officials, Pakistani military experts, Pakistani newspapers do not meet the standard of "secondary, independent and reliable" sources to back-up information on India's alleged behavior against Pakistan. In India, there are thousand times higher such publications against Pakistan. In fact, every other country has against its rival ones. Anup [Talk] 08:33, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@User:Anupmehra please do not toss about these red herrings. You knwo, as well as I do, that your link to the BBC is talking about a recent allegation that camps were there in 2011. They denied that camps were there in 2011. No one in the article is claiming that there were camps in 2011. This is complete bad faith. You are quoting something that has nothing to do with the article in question and trying to pass it off as a reliable quote. Yes I am well aware that India has publications. Actually I have used Indian publications to prove the role of RAW in Sri Lanka. Danishkan (talk) 09:08, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:40, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Paola Lazzarini

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

Prod removed as sources have been restored. However, looking at the article and the sources, I don't think she meets WP:MUS. Google didn't turn up much more. That said, this is not an area of expertise for me, so if the claims in the article do confer notability, I will withdraw. agtx 20:16, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Comprehensively fails both WP:GNG and the alternative criteria at WP:MUSICBIO. After an extensive search, the only independent published record of her performing that I could find was her listing in the cast of an utterly non-notable one-act opera as part of a chamber opera competition in her hometown of Udine in 1995 [12]. The only remaining sources are her identical official biographies on the websites of the two very minor music schools where she now teaches, brief announcements like this for free concerts put on by one of the schools, and a student performance from 1999 on the self-published website of another singer here. No evidence of major competition awards or recordings. No evidence of performing leading roles or as a soloist in major opera houses or concert halls. Her name is a fairly common one in Italy, and she should not be confused in searches with at least three others of the same name—a poet from Vercelli, a sociologist from Turin, and a tennis player from Nulvi in Sardinia. Voceditenore (talk) 09:51, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been notified to WikiProject Opera. Voceditenore (talk) 09:58, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. not a shred of notability, per Voceditenore. --Smerus (talk) 12:09, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. per voceditenore. Close per WP:SNOW.4meter4 (talk) 13:18, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I'm not finding any significant coverage of her in independent reliable sources. Created by an SPA account to promote her. Softlavender (talk) 11:02, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MelanieN (talk) 02:34, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Matthew Rigby (Rugby League)

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

Fails WP:RLN and WP:GNG as he has not played for an professional club side or an international side in a top-level tournament. The European Tri-Nations does not reach this level, and Rigby is an assistant coach. Mattlore (talk) 19:26, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

29/09 - What I have heard from the international rugby league scene, Matthew Rigby is joint Head Coach, not an assistant. The European Cup has been split into 5 leagues, the Tri-Nations is part of the European Cup, to be played between Belgium, Germany and the Netherlands. I believe Matthew Rigby should be noted/credited and accepted as a full article within Wikipedia as the doubts raised have been confirmed by many involved with the International Rugby League Federation. In addition, the Den Haag Knights are in the Top-Tier division of Rugby League in the Netherlands. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.149.52.205 (talk) 15:24, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The guidelines specifically refer to the European Cup tournament, and not other tournaments run by the European federation, such as the Tri-Nations. Also, playing for Den Haag does not meet the club requirements, as it is not one of the two professional leagues. Mattlore (talk) 19:01, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi mattlore, the Tri-Nations is the European Cup. There are more than 2 professional Rugby League Divisions. Namely, Super League, NRL, Kingstone Press Championship and Kingstone Press League 1. However, within rugby league, any player that receives payment from playing in the sport is classed as a professional athlete. In the Netherlands league, all players not based in the Netherlands receive payment to play. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.94.164.139 (talk) 07:33, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, please have a look at WP:RLN for a summary of the notability requirements. The Tri-nations is not part of this. Mattlore (talk) 23:47, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:45, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Clearly fails WP:RLN and WP:GNG. J Mo 101 (talk) 15:23, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As fails the previously held WPRL notability rationale.Fleets (talk) 19:14, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy Deleted (G!!) by RHAWorth. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 00:04, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Findworka

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

Non-notable website. Nothing significant than some website like over thousands in the world. For being in Wikipedia need to be much more significant than this. Else Wikipedia will become a directory for websites like this. Light2021 (talk) 19:17, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 19:46, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Typical tech startup promo sourced to self-authored PR. Jergling (talk) 21:20, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- badly promotional; no indications of notability or significance. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:09, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Broad support for redirecting the article and for keeping it outright; clearly no consensus to delete. If discussion continues about the redirect on the article's talk page, it may be worth considering if many of the supplied sources are actually about the character or the actor playing her.A Train^talk 07:42, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ellaria Sand

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

A minor character, the only reference demonstrates that it exists, but does not really show notability Ymblanter (talk) 19:09, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I do not consider Ellaria Sand a "minor character", as if she was a minor character, she would not be credited in the opening sequence. I am hoping that people will put more detail on the article, which I cannot add, especially for her appearances in the novel, since I have only just started a Clash of Kings. TedEdwards (talk) 19:19, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I am also hoping people will find sources and add them to the page. TedEdwards (talk) 19:30, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There is a (relatively) massive category of ASoIaF/GoT character pages that have no business existing here. Fictional characters aren't supposed to get pages unless they receive significant, independent coverage. This might be something for the arbitration committee to check out. Jergling (talk) 21:26, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- 1) ArbCom doesn't handle content. 2) Your assertion is blatantly untrue with respect to this particular character. It's probably true for some of them, but per WP:ATD-M, NN fictional characters should be merged to lists rather than deleted. Jclemens (talk) 06:02, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:18, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of A Song of Ice and Fire characters as paucity of sources does not warrant a standalone article although as a fan of the books and films i can understand how some people might argue for articles on every character in the series (probably a similar situation with lotr, star trek and so one), as for other characters, afd awaits ... Coolabahapple (talk) 00:41, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as there are multiple significant mentions in independent RS: Telegraph, Radio Times (interview with the actress about this show), [13] (speculation about the character's influence on upcoming Season 7), Yahoo (speculation on the TV character's influence on RL fashion), [14] (more speculation on her role in next season), and[15] (People in Ireland naming daughters after her). Then let's look at books: Women of Ice and Fire: Gender, Game of Thrones and Multiple Media Engagements [16], Collection Editions: A Game of Thrones: An Inside Guide to the Hit Show [17], and Inside HBO's Game of Thrones: Seasons 3 & 4 [18]--not bad for a TV show that's still running. Oh, and then there's scholar: Regulating Bisexuality: Binormativity and Assimilation to the Homonormative Order in American Scripted Television Series [19]... again, not bad for a show that's still running. Overall, the article sucks but the character clearly meets the GNG. The ASoIaF Wikiproject can only do so much at once, and while this character is not exactly central, it still is pretty much indisputably notable. Jclemens (talk) 06:00, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. Jclemens (talk) 06:03, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Jclemens (talk) 06:03, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment@Coolabahapple:I do not believe every single ASoIaF should have an article to do with themselves, either because they're are such minor characters, or if they are starring characters, some of the plot lines of characters such as Talisa Stark or Gilly's are parallel with another character who does have an article, in these two cases, Robb Stark and Sam Tarly respectively, meaning if they did have a separate article, it would effectively be repeated info from another article. However, Ellaria Sand is not parallel with any character for her whole story line, so giving her an article is worth it. TedEdwards (talk) 11:56, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Redirect as described above. I came to this discussion ready to redirect (perhaps too ready), and after reading User:Jclemens's first link (IMHO a bare mention) I felt reassured with my call. That editor and I have disagreed about quality of sourcing before. However, a further reading of his presented sources compels me to change my initial assessment. I believe Jclemens has provided adequate sourcing to meet GNG. For my part, I don't generally think many fictional worlds should be deeply covered in pagespace, but given the enormous cultural significance of the books and TV series and given the character's rapid "promotion" to leadership in the last season, I feel comfortable bowing to the results of Jclemens's reasonable search. I'd appreciate it if he chooses to add links to the best of those found to anchor this unsourced page. BusterD (talk) 04:13, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- @BusterD:, I would have more time to actually improve articles if people would follow WP:BEFORE and stop nominating clearly notable topics for deletion. As is, what little time I have to devote to Wikipedia is substantially consumed with searching for sources for such fictional elements--some of which are kept, many of which are redirected, and only a few are legitimately deleted. Jclemens (talk) 06:16, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - No argument from me. I appreciate your search efforts. Because of what you've presented there's zero reason to delete; in this case keeping is my preferred option to redirection. Adequate reason to assume this page can be much improved as upcoming books and series episodes (and coverage thereof) are released. BusterD (talk) 11:27, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - There's really not that much worthwhile in the above sources. They're not all entirely without merit, but anything useful can easily fit on a character list entry. I don't believe notability is establish or that the sources warrant an article currently. TTN (talk) 22:14, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect--yeah, I'm with TTN here; Jclemens, you have found nice mentions, but as far as I'm concerned that's just what they are. I mean, if a couple of mentions (that Bloomsbury book, for instance, only mentions her once, and not with much discussion) is enough to make a person notable per GNG, then one wonders what we should put in "main" articles that does not pass the GNG. In other words, if we lay the bar so low everything is notable. No, I do not accept this depth and breadth of coverage as sufficient--sorry. Drmies (talk) 03:05, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- You looked at all of them? Even the Buckland book? How about Gjelsvik? Both are problematic in that they're truncated, but obviously continue to cover the character in depth. If you've done so and don't see that this fictional character is covered non-trivially in multiple independent reliable sources, which it is, then what sort of standard would you propose for a standalone article? Jclemens (talk) 04:14, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - Buckland is self-published (Lulu) so I put no stock in that at all; the "Inside Game of Thrones" book is the kind of book that chronicles the entirety of the show so that just about every character would be discussed is a given. The standard I have in mind is Unferð, for instance. Drmies (talk) 14:24, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    - This seems an unfair (sorry) comparison, given the thousand years since Beowulf hit the newsstands. I doubt much was written in contemporary literature about the significance of this minor character which appears only a few times in the text. On the other hand, in this case while this epic is still under production, we have a scholarly imprint which seems to directly detail this novel character and its TV adaptation at some length (four mentions in the single paragraph), a brief interview with the actress in an almost 100 year-old media outlet, a discussion of the character's impact on contemporary fashion and a discussion of the character's actions in a women-written professional website devoted to discussing mothers and motherhood issues, a deep discussion of the character in the context of middle age mythology by a "Fellow and Tutor in Medieval English Literature at St John's College, Oxford" in an international imprint, a defense of the character's actions in a rightest, somewhat controversial political website. The character has received way more than passing coverage and in reputable sources deemed notable in themselves for inclusion in Wikipedia. While the page deserves improvement, it does not deserve deletion or at this point redirection. BusterD (talk) 20:40, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      - BusterD, I totally approve of your pun. I am not convinced still by the sources or by the standard you propose, but I approve of the pun. BTW, it's only been a century or so since Beowulf got any kind of serious press coverage. I suggest we can wait a few years--there's no rush. Drmies (talk) 02:52, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
CommentJust to let you know, the page has recently improved significantly, due to edits by myself and Catholic nerd. TedEdwards (talk) 19:04, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- During a formal xfd discussion, expansion without citation does not equal improvement. BusterD (talk) 20:40, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - Plot lines do not need citation as long as no interpretation has been made by editors, from my understanding of previous editors' actions. TedEdwards (talk) 20:56, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment According to C2 of WP:Before, editors should consider leaving time for other editors to develop an article before nominating the article for deletion, if the article was recently created. After I turned the article from a redirect into a proper article, it only took just over 24 hours for Ymblanter to nominate the article for deletion. This is absolutely ridiculous, the article should be allowed to be improved for a good amount of time before the article is nominated for deletion. TedEdwards (talk) 21:06, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If you're talking about proper process, the topic should have been limited to the relevant character list and then split out only when the weight given to the topic became overly large. All and all, it's still just a minor character. Being part of an extremely popular and recent series, it's going to get some attention, but it's hard to say if that attention truly gives it the necessary weight to stand on its own. This could easily be part of a strongly sourced minor character list at this point. The actual plot information looks like a paragraph would suffice and a strong paragraph of development and reception would be good if it's possible from the above sources. TTN (talk) 21:18, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@TTN:One, if Ellaria Sand was a minor character, why does the name of the actress who plays her appear in the opening credits from Season 5 onwards? Two, could I please have some time to find critical response for Ellaria Sand's character and Varma's performance? Also, I think you're under the impression that I'm planning to create an article for every single character in ASoIaF, I'm not, I can't even think of any more characters who I think should have an article, except maybe Pycelle. I don't even think major characters such as Shae, Talisa or Gilly need articles, there storys are closely intwined with another major character's plot line. TedEdwards (talk) 21:29, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Plenty of minor characters get noted during intros depending on the series, and given the sheer amount of characters in the series, the designation of being a minor character is going to hit a lot more characters than a series with a smaller cast. Either way, it's a fairly irrelevant designation for this discussion anyway. Secondary or minor, my point was that you should have started by editing List of A Song of Ice and Fire characters#Ellaria Sand first thing, assuming we're talking about proper editing etiquette. Regardless of this ending in keep or redirect, I do think it would be very beneficial to merge this article back after completion of the AfD and then split it out should the weight become too much for the list. That could very easily become a featured list if someone gives it the proper TLC. TTN (talk) 21:41, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Jclemens. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 21:22, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, "According to C2 of WP:Before, editors should consider leaving time for other editors to develop an article before nominating the article for deletion, if the article was recently created." but there is also WP:BURDEN - "All content must be verifiable. The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material, and is satisfied by providing a citation to a reliable source that directly supports the contribution.", also editors who change a redirect to an article can do plenty of things to ensure articles aren't nominated quickly, the easiest thing is to ensure the article has pleny of sources, start the article in your sandbox before taking it 'live', place messages in relevant project/article talkpages saying what you're doing, ditto with the article talkpage so editors know that someone is working on it and hasn't just done a 'flyby' article, and of course there is always the Template:Under construction that lets editors know that an article is ... well, under construction. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:39, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 05:53, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

God Is in the TV Zine

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

Non-notable blog. Nothing significant than some blog site over thousands of many in the world. For being in Wikipedia need to be much more significant than this. Else Wikipedia will become a directory for such blog websites. Light2021 (talk) 19:11, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:10, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:10, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:11, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- unreliably cited advertorial; no indications of notability or significance. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:12, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Not finding sufficient reliable sources/coverage to pass WP:GNG. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 18:08, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Article needs a cleanup as it's currently a soup of obscure acronyms. I'll tag accordingly. A Train^talk 07:48, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Saffa Riffat

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

Overly promotional article full of stuff you would find on a resume (WP:NOTCV). Severely undersourced. Mostly WP:OR. Also is an autobiography by a WP:SPA who already had this page deleted once before. Zackmann08 (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 19:06, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE - One of the main sources for the article is a dropbox link to Saffa Riffat's resume. WP:NOTCV and clear WP:COI. --Zackmann08 (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 00:56, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:13, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Passes WP:Prof#C1 on GS citations. BLP is overly promotional and needs to be cut down to 10% of present size. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:18, 1 October 2016 (UTC).[reply]
Keep and I will be willing to restore it if the copyvio is simply removed, the list of honorary and special professorships (which is numbering at over 20 now) is by far enough. This by itself will be enough, since although it seems he's not a significant publisher of books, WP:PROF is certainly enough. SwisterTwister talk 04:22, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I would consider the article to be a hoax. I've tagged it under CSD G3. 2600:1:B14D:7DDE:1083:AF16:FFFD:3BBA (talk) 23:42, 2 October 2016 (UTC)— 2600:1:B14D:7DDE:1083:AF16:FFFD:3BBA (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Would 3 edit spa please explain why BLP is a hoax? The person exists and has adequate GS citations. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:48, 2 October 2016 (UTC).[reply]

@Safiel and Xxanthippe: even as the original nominator for deletion I agree with you both. --Zackmann08 (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 02:48, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per previous keep arguments. Also, I have cleared quite a deletion tag farm from the article, most having been applied in bad faith. Safiel (talk) 01:56, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep - article reduced from 15KB when nominated here down to 3.5KB now. Some real concerns about COI editing lately, but there are refs which show him to be a Professor here and by convention, full Professors of UK universities are deemed intrinsically notable. It would benefit greatly from the subject of the article stopping editing and the addition of a few independent editors adding balanced text with refs. Velella ^{Velella Talk} 14:29, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. —SpacemanSpiff 07:16, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Gaganendra Nath Dash

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

Not notable – he's mentioned as an author when others use his works as references, but that's all I could find.
No sources
Basically some dude's CV Prof. Squirrel (talk) 18:36, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:37, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:37, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:37, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:39, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: WP:TNT. Meets WP:NAUTHOR and WP:ANYBIO though (25 works in 42 publications in 2 languages and 242 library holdings many notable awards). Anup [Talk] 23:05, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Subject of this apparent autobiography does not meet WP:ACADEMIC. Of the four sources in the article, two are primary. I see no evidence of "notable awards", and IMO the subject does not meet WP:ANYBIO or WP:AUTHOR. Miniapolis 20:08, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

At least Odisha Sahitya Academy Award [20] & Atibadi Jagannath Das award [21] seem notable. More coverage should be in Odia language sources. Anup [Talk] 22:35, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nothing for WP:AUTHOR since there are no major publications and books and then nothing for WP:PROF, nothing else convincing. SwisterTwister talk 04:23, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:PROMO with a good dose of WP:TNT. Nothing to salvage here. K.e.coffman (talk) 08:01, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Low citation counts and minor awards (best seems to be Atibadi Jagannath Das award which at least has its own article) don't add up to notability. And the article is a mess of unsourced detail so WP:TNT is in play as well. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:07, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Consensus is for deletion. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:46, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dennis Maley

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

PROD removed with the basis that the word "martial artist" was used instead of "boxer", but this is because the notability is still closely linked, they also cite that he's a journalist, which he's not only not notable for, that has no bearing for an article at all simply by that. I still confirm the PROD as I noted he's not notable for any of the applicable notabilities, and the best claims here are that he played with a team that competes for the Olympics, but the article clearly never states any of this. SwisterTwister talk 18:17, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 18:17, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:50, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:50, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:50, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:50, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:50, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:51, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Does not meet any notability criteria. Published his first novel last year - article reads like a promo piece.Peter Rehse (talk) 19:53, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, does read like a promo piece and I don't see where his first novel has sold or been reviewed on a level to meet notability guidelines at this time. Kierzek (talk) 16:33, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'm not seeing evidence of notability.

Fails WP:ATHLETE as a boxer (both pro WP:NBOX and amateur WP:NCOLLATH). The college All American and military Golden Gloves boxing claims are interesting but are poorly sourced. Even if the All-American claim were properly sourced, Shippensburg University of Pennsylvania is only an NCAA Division II school so All-American there does not seem sufficient for notability. Similarly the military Golden Gloves claim is not properly sourced, and does not appear to be notable. Golden Gloves states that the term is also used for lesser titles than the National Golden Gloves, and Maley does not appear on the lists of Nation Golden Gloves champions.

Fails WP:SOLDIER.

Fails WP:CREATIVE as an author and as a journalist. According to http://thebradentontimes.com/bio-dennis-maley-p16665-158.htm he was nominated for the Pulitzer Prize in the editorial writing category in 2012, but http://www.pulitzer.org/prize-winners-by-category/214 shows that the Editorial Writing prize was not awarded that year, and Maley does not appear as a nominee that year (or any other year). Meters (talk) 20:16, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Forgot to mention that I found a source on the the Olympic Trials. He did compete at the Olympic Trials but did not make the Olympics. Nothing notable there. Meters (talk) 20:20, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete My search didn't find the significant independent coverage required to meet WP:GNG. In addition, I didn't find anything that shows any SNG is met. His Golden Gloves title must have been local because he's not listed among the national champions at the Golden Gloves website. There is insufficient coverage of his book to support a claim he meets WP:NAUTHOR. Papaursa (talk) 00:35, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable writer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:23, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 05:57, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Filip Johansen

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

Unremarkable person. Just a puff piece. Zackmann08 (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 17:56, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Filip Johansen is a notable person as he is the youngest entrepreneur in Sweden(He has not gotten a special award for this, but is registered as this in the Almi databases) as he started his first company at age 10. I might agree with you on that some of the content in this article isn't the well written, but I would rather recommend that this is rewritten instead of deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SABframe (talk • contribs) 18:13, 27 September 2016 (UTC) [reply]
~~Keep Filip Johansen is the first chef and the face of the social economy app AirDine — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ninni89 (talk • contribs) 18:16, 27 September 2016 (UTC)~~ [reply]
~~Shouldn't a nomination include an argument or reference to the wikipedia guidelines in the nomination ? SunnivaG (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 18:37, 27 September 2016 (UTC)~~ [reply]
Please note that all three accounts above have been blocked. For more information, see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Ninni89. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:55, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:58, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:58, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:58, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I am new at wikipedia. Is there anyway I can help improving this wiki? Tanyeezy7 (talk) 11:23, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

delete per nom - this is puffery, and the sourcing is unconvincing as to WP:GNG. The sockpuppetry doesn't help, of course - David Gerard (talk) 20:11, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I am new at wikipedia. Is there anyway I can help improving this wiki? Tanyeezy7 (talk) 11:23, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:PEOPLE as I can't find significant, verifiable sources to support notability. Geoff | ^{Who, me?} 20:49, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:PROMO; strictly a vanity page. No indications of notability or significance. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:21, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy Delete by David Gerard, who did not close the discussion. (non-admin closure) --Zackmann08 (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 22:25, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hisham Abdel Khalek

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

Wholly unsourced biography that is being perpetuated by Hishamabdelkhalek who is clearly the individual the article is about. Zackmann08 (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 17:40, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Zackmann08: You can easily verify the source of my wiki page instead of asking to delete it, you can go to references like website, imdb, broadway world ... ect. I am a well know producer and director and working in the business since 20 years. best Hisham Abdel Khalek

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:50, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Egypt-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:50, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Zackmann08: I am Hisham Abdel Khalek, an Egyptian film and theatre producer and director been in business for more than 20 years. you asked to delete by page on wikipedia and removed all my references and even my filmography and works … Please can you check this,

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hisham_Abdel_Khalek

And here is some references, which has been removed too

I have been offering a lot of references and data about me, my work, even my verified social media.

@Zackmann08: And here is some more references for you too

@Hishamabdelkhalek: you have a CLEAR WP:COI and are actively creating a WP:AUTOBIOG. You are continuing to add extraneous links but none of them are footnotes. They are just external links. None of this serves to show you are a notable individual it is simply promotion. Adding the links here also is not helpful. This is a place for discussion, not for adding spam links. --Zackmann08 (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 18:53, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Zackmann08: I am not putting any spam, I am showing you the references about my work and news, and why instead of asking to delete the page, why you don't suggest modifications to it, and I will be thankful for that and even thank you if you like on my social media ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hishamabdelkhalek (talk • contribs)

@Hishamabdelkhalek: There are so many things wrong with that last message I don't even know where to start. First, Suggestions have been made NUMEROUS times. The top of the page has a whole section detailing the issues and what needs to be fixed. Second, you continue to post without signing your comments. Third, thanking editors on social media is so beyond irrelevant. We are here to build an encyclopedia not to get credited on your Facebook page. You are clearly NOT here to build an encyclopedia. You are here to promote yourself. Fourth you have had MULTIPLE messages left on your talk page which you have flat out ignored. You have not read WP:COI or acknowledged that you are creating an autobiography. --Zackmann08 (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 19:13, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Zackmann08: I am really not need to promote myself, it is an info page about my work and my career, and I was just adding my new titles I produced and make the page up to date. I am not a wiki editor like you... I think you can't prevent someone from update the info to be to the most recent. You just asked to delete the page without suggestion modifications or even you could ask me for any updates or references to this. When I suggest thanking you it is for your efforts nothing more. but I really see you are not trying to get the point here... hishamabdelkhalek (^{Talk to me}

If you don't need to promote yourself, then there's no reason to keep this blatantly promotional article written by yourself, right? So that's a Strong Delete from you? Jergling (talk) 20:44, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedily deleted by User:Ponyo under criterion G3. (Non-admin closure) "Pepper" @ 03:19, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Big Brother: Total Drama Edition

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

Either a hoax or a completely non-notable Youtube-based BB variant. The only reference is a link to Big Brother: Over the Top, an on-line variant of BB streamed by CBS All Access, which is different (compare the contestant lists). Searches for this one find only a Wikia page with a link to a 33-second Youtube clip. Contested PROD. JohnCD (talk) 17:35, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Tagged for Speedy Delete This is a hoax, or possibly some kids' project on deviantArt which might as well be a hoax. Jergling (talk) 21:43, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural note I've speedy deleted the articles as a blatant hoax.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 22:34, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 "keep" opinions don't address the reasons for deletion. Sandstein 11:25, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Kasymbek (given name)

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

Article was proposed for deletion with the rationale: "We have no biography of someone bearing this name so it's hard to believe that it is as common as claimed. All three references are garbage." Article author removed PROD, so taking it to AFD with the same rationale. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 17:11, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I originally put the PROD tag and stand by my rationale. Pichpich (talk) 17:56, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 23:38, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as a valid given name article per WP:APONOTE. Now there are articles about people with the name: Kasymbek Yeshmambetov and Kasymbek Medievich Mediev. Uanfala (talk) 23:59, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that the references are useless. Remove them, trim the article, and transform it into a disambiguation page. - Mike Rosoft (talk) 20:47, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I understand the rationale behind this AfD but suspect that it could be a valid disambig page, albeit confused with the complexities of transliteration from other languages where phonetic representations are spelled differently depending on the recorded or dialect used. There may also be issues of mutations within the language that change critical letters (c.f Welsh where Melin = Felin depending on context) Velella ^{Velella Talk} 20:48, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment As only one person with this name exists at en.wiki (the second article was deleted per WP:CSD#G5), WP:APONOTE no longer applies. Further, the page's creator has been blocked as a sockpuppet (see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Оразбаев Касымбек/Archive, so WP:CSD#G5 applies to this page as well (and has been applied). Finally, as there is no verifiable evidence that "Kasymbek" and "Qasim bey" are, in fact, linguistically similar names, there does not appear to be a rationale for this page's existence that can't be chalked up to original research. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 14:12, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - @WikiDan61:, WP:G5 only applies to pages created by a blocked user in violation of their block. Anything they created before getting blocked isn't eligible. Uanfala (talk) 14:20, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    - @Uanfala: Perhaps technically so, although it is common that all pages created by the sock farm are deleted based on the discovery of the sock puppetry. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 01:18, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      - Is this current practice? Then maybe these pages get deleted for reasons other than G5, and if there aren't such reasons, then there's abuse of process. Uanfala (talk) 06:17, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      - I don't know why WikiDan61 thinks that it is common practice to delete pages created by sockpuppets even if there was no block at the time of page creation. I have no memory of seeing that done. (Naturally, I am not referring to rare occasions when an administrator makes a mistake, and as often as not restores the page when he or she realises.) It is certainly true that pages are very often nominated for deletion by editors who think that G5 applies to any pages created by sockpuppets, but such nominations are normally declined. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 07:53, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. --Zackmann08 (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 16:15, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. We have only one article for someone with this name (Kasymbek Yeshmambetov) now, so while it might be a valid disambiguation page per WP:APONOTE there isn't much to disambiguate. We could create a redirect to Kasymbek Yeshmambetov but I don't think that really makes sense. There's also a geographic Kasymbek to add to the confusion. FalconK (talk) 08:12, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. We have one article about someone with this name, so evidently it exists, but there is no evidence that the name is common. It is totally out of keeping with Wikipedia practice and policy to keep an article because someone "suspects" it could be a useful disambiguation page; that is, in fact, very similar to saying "Keep.There must be sources" without actually providing any sources. All of the "keep" arguments are based on the idea that there are plural articles about people with this name (one of them explicitly mentions two articles, and the others suggest it could become a disambiguation page), but in fact there is only one, so all of those reasons fail. (I also see that the section Articles of the page Wikipedia:WikiProject Anthroponymy/Standards casts doubt on whether an article about a name like this, with just one article about someone of that name, should exist. Personally I attach limited weight to pages on "WikiProjects", which are often read and edited by only a limited self-selecting group of editors, but it is further evidence that there is consensus at least among a range of editors against an article in this situation.) The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 08:21, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

Note: there's an AfD for a very similar article at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Qasymbek (given name). – Uanfala (talk) 21:04, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note I've recreated a trimmed down version of this article at Qasymbek. – Uanfala (talk) 10:40, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 05:57, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ángel Viadero

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

Contested PROD. Subject fails both WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTY, never managed in a WP:FPL. MYS 77 ^✉ 16:27, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Subject does not meet general notability requirements. 17:08, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:56, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:56, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:56, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:NFOOTY and WP:GNG. - Yellow Dingo (talk) 10:54, 28 September 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) 15:03, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 19:07, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable footballer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:25, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
SNOW Delete as there's obviously nothing from his career to suggest he coached major teams, the ones listed are not convincing, and then certainly not convincing for establishing his own notability. SwisterTwister talk 06:21, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 11:43, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails NFOOTY as has not played or managed senior international football nor played nor managed in a fully professional league. No indication that subject has garnered significant reliable coverage for any other achievements to satisfy GNG. Fenix down (talk) 14:05, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MelanieN (talk) 02:38, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Karim Hype

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

Musician with no reliable sources found indicating notability. Google hits are largely self-generated, databases, and simple event listings. Nat Gertler (talk) 19:05, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:34, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Caribbean-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:34, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:00, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable musician.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:49, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:26, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 15:39, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:UNOPPOSED -- AFDs with no one taking the keep side are really just a PROD.--Paul McDonald (talk) 21:25, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above and also as a WP:PROMO; strictly a vanity page with no RS. K.e.coffman (talk) 08:58, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Dance Plus (season 2). Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 05:58, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Tanay Malhara

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

Delete or Redirect to Dance Plus (season 2) per WP:TOOSOON, Winner of an Indian reality dance show very recently. GSS (talk) 15:39, 27 September 2016 (UTC) GSS (talk) 15:39, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk) 15:40, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Appears to violate WP:BLP1E. --AussieLegend (✉) 15:52, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Dance Plus (season 2): yes, BOI1E, for now she would make a good redirect. Anup [Talk] 23:13, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect In ictu oculi (talk) 20:24, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Dance-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 23:20, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sam Walton (talk) 10:35, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Suara Anak Malaysia Batu Pahat

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

Fails WP:GNG. Cannot find anything other than Facebook page in Google search. Unreliable references with all of them only linking to the Facebook page and some of them was even unavailable. NgYShung ^huh? 11:56, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 11:59, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 11:59, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:16, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NgYShung ^huh? 13:14, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as it doesn't satisfy WP:ORGDEPTH which requires a certain depth of coverage. I am literally unable to find anything in reliable sources. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 16:22, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 15:36, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – Not finding any significant coverage in reliable sources; fails WP:N. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:00, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 11:26, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Steven cruz

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

This autobiography is on the line for a speedy, but opening an AfD instead out of an abundance of caution. Media references cited in article are not sufficient to establish notability. A case of WP:TOOSOON, if nothing else. agtx 15:32, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - WP:COI, non-notable and WP:TOOSOON at best. --Zackmann08 (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 16:57, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Bbender90 (talk) 18:03, 27 September 2016 (UTC)I have added more sources and reviewed Steven Cruz's notability in regards to a TV spokesperson and activist. To me it seems that the references are sufficient to establish notability. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bbender90 (talk • contribs) 18:00, 27 September 2016 (UTC) — Bbender90 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Delete - waaaaaay TOOSOON. See Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Daniel_Hernandez_Jr. for a similar situation. This guy has even less of a claim to fame. Bearian (talk) 00:42, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 00:07, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Laura Stack

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

This article has been recreated again without any RS to notability other than advertorials advertising the author's books. Since the articles re-creation, have Googled around and can not find any notability. --Aspro (talk) 15:07, 27 September 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 September 27. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 15:29, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 23:06, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 23:06, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

delete per nom and salt, possibly G4 - as well as the 2011 deletion it was recreated in 2012 and speedied with almost the exact present text - David Gerard (talk) 09:11, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:AUTHOR and WP:GNG. The references are not ABOUT her; she simply gets quoted in articles about something else, which is specifically not enough for notability. --MelanieN (talk) 02:47, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep actually as although given the history, her books are held in over 15,000 libraries suggesting there is certainly the capability of an article, especially since the highest held book is in 786 libraries alone, the NYT review also helps, and if this exists, other reviews exist, especially with 15,000 libraries worldwide collecting the books. The Keep vote is not suggesting they actually considered the NYT review and the massive library collections as the same can be said about the 2nd Keep vote, so my analysis shows here there's enough for an article, past article controversies put aside. SwisterTwister talk 04:40, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
~~Tentative Keep~~ -- appears to meet WP:NAUTHOR per ST. K.e.coffman (talk) 07:07, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- hmm, ok - do we have sources for an actual article, though? - David Gerard (talk) 10:01, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The fact that her books are held in many libraries is completely irrelevant. What is relevant is that there is precious little out there about her that is independent and substantial. The NYT review possibly makes a case that her book "Leave the Office Earlier" may be notable, but it contains a grand total of one sentence about Stack herself. Does not meet WP:NAUTHOR. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 04:26, 8 October 2016 (UTC).[reply]
Delete on second thoughts, as I could not find any coverage either. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:31, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 05:58, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ramón Tejada

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

Contested PROD. Concern was that the article Fails both WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTY, [because he has] never appeared in a WP:FPL. PROD was contested by an IP without providing a reason. Sir Sputnik (talk) 14:35, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 14:35, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Non-notable manager, only managed teams in Segunda División B or lower. MYS 77 ^✉ 16:30, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 20:20, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails NFOOTY as has not played or managed senior international football nor played nor managed in a fully professional league. No indication that subject has garnered significant reliable coverage for any other achievements to satisfy GNG. Fenix down (talk) 08:05, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Yellow Dingo (talk) 01:48, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. Yellow Dingo (talk) 01:48, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:NFOOTY and WP:GNG. - Yellow Dingo (talk) 01:49, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete per WP:CSD#A7. (non-admin closure) Mr. Magoo (talk) 15:47, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

RAF Babbacombe

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

article without references, nor clearly defined notability — billinghurst sDrewth 11:39, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Although there is consensus that the subject is notable, there is also consensus that this article is more a personal essay rather than an encyclopedia article on the subject. A new article on this subject can certainly be written, but I will not userfy this one, since discussants did not find it to be an acceptable starting place for an article. MelanieN (talk) 02:54, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Science and the Bible

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

The article contains too POV problems. Given the fact that it is a religious (hence a bit controversial) topic, it is often reasonable to expect extreme discrepancies in the text. For example, portions of the article reads like:

"Panbabylonianists regard the Hebrew Bible as entirely derived from the culture and mythology of Babylonia as it stood during the 6th century BCE, during the Babylonian captivity."
"Current mainstream views suggests the possibility that some elements, particularly of the Torah, are independent of Babylonian influence, dating perhaps as early as the 9th or 10th century BCE, but the significant influence of Babylonian mythology and Babylonian cosmology on the worldview presented in the Tanakh is still beyond doubt."
"The worldview of the Tanakh (or Old Testament) appears to be that of a flat earth (e.g.Isaiah 44:24 ) in a geocentric universe (e.g. Joshua 10:12-13, Ps. 93:1, 1 Chron. 16:30), a view in line with Mesopotamian astronomy of the period"

On the other hand, the other extreme appears:

"The most supportive bible passage of their view was Job 26:7, where Job declares that God "hangs the earth on nothing", which for its time was very close to how modern astronomers would describe the Earth's position."
"Biblical cosmology provides sporadic glimpses that may be stitched together to form a Biblical impression of the physical universe."

Furthermore, I do not think a literary criticism article should be here, especially when there are a very wide range of views and interpretation of any text. Kevinjonpalma11 (talk) 08:32, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It's a poor article which needs fixing but a notable topic. I'm not clear which of the reasons at WP:DEL-REASON you believe apply. ~~NPOV issues aren't a reason to delete~~, nor is your opinion about literary criticism (which should be discussed at the article talk page). Doug Weller talk 09:47, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:40, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:40, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bible-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:40, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:41, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NUKEANDPAVE. This is an OR fest and should've never been written in the first place. Chris Troutman (talk) 15:28, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- This is a rather bad ESSAY trying to attack the alleged unscientific nature of the Bible. The tag that it needs to be rewritten is fully deserved. However, TNT is a much better solution. I suspect that all the content is rather better dealt with elsewhere in WP. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:07, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I, too, could have sworn there were already articles for this. Something like "Scientific criticism of religion" and "religious persecution of science" at the very least, but I can't find them now. Could someone share those? Also, to the delete bids, if you're going to call WP:OR or WP:SYN, please provide examples. This article is heavily sourced and (in general) correctly cites opinion in context as a quote from a reliable source. Don't nuke the whole article because of a crappy intro! Jergling (talk) 22:02, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Clearly many technical problems with the article, but the topic is important and improvement can be made. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:23, 27 September 2016 (UTC).[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 14:23, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 14:23, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, numerous books held in libraries on this subject, see here so appears to be articleworthy, would be surprised that this is not covered in religious courses/at seminaries, possibly some words need to be added to Relationship between religion and science with a link to this article. Coolabahapple (talk) 15:05, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Article reads like literary criticism. Library books about "science and bible" (or any other religious texts like Quran) would either 1) prove the bible scientifically accurate, or 2) dismiss the bible as scientifically inaccurate. Its hard to be neutral in this comparison, given that interpretations are very varied - even references would be nothing but interpretations. As a neutral encyclopedia, is it even a good idea to have an article like this? 130.105.225.176 (talk) 06:20, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:TNT; this is badly referenced personal essay. I don't believe it's adding value to the encyclopedia at this time. The topic may be notable but the current execution is too far below what one would expect to find in an encyclopedia. Better to start from a clean slate. K.e.coffman (talk) 08:00, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:TNT. The subject matter could very likely have a good, decently sourced article, but this particular version is most certainly not it. As mentioned, it just seems like this is someone's personal essay. While it seems to cite numerous sources, if you actually look into some of them, you'll see that a lot of the sources used are not actually supporting the claims being made, which results in large portions of the article being pure synthesis. So, in short, while the subject is potentially notable, this article is pretty much unsalvageable, and would need to be completely rewritten from the ground up. 64.183.45.226 (talk) 18:31, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete; essay with original research by synthesis. The cosmology topics are better covered in the respective "history of ..." articles or sections; the other stuff seems peripheral both from the biblical and scientific history perspectives. Sandstein 11:31, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It's a notable topic by our criteria and I don't think that salting it can be justified. I realise that we can delete it for NPOV reasons, but stubbing it might be a better alternative. Doug Weller talk 13:11, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as it currently seems questionable for the necessary improvements that it would need, therefore let's not cause ourselves unnecessary work by simply letting it stay and no one actually taking care of it. SwisterTwister talk 22:03, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to List of Forgotten Realms deities.. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 00:07, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Moander

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

This article currently fails to establish notability. TTN (talk) 18:37, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 18:37, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 18:37, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge to List of Forgotten Realms deities. BOZ (talk) 21:35, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per BOZ. Jclemens (talk) 14:14, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 15:09, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Your welcome | Democratics ^Talk→ Be a guest 09:22, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:29, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge as above. Josh Milburn (talk) 01:13, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of Forgotten Realms deities. I remember the Moander level in Pools of Darkness. He's appeared in novels, computer games, and a fair bit of lore. That's good for a merge even if it can't establish notability. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 23:40, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Forgotten Realms deities. The subject, while possibly notable within the fictional world it originates from, has no wider notably outside of that. There are no sources that describe the god in any meaningful way that are not first-party (i.e., the actual D&D sourcebooks and novels). Merging isn't really necessary, as the subject is already including in the target article, so a redirect would be sufficient.64.183.45.226 (talk) 18:37, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. WP:SOFTDELETE equivalent to an expired prod; nomination for deletion for nearly two weeks with no dissent. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 04:28, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Doodle Army 2: Mini Militia

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

Non-notable video game. Very poorly referenced with little available besides this Touch Arcade article. Anarchyte (work | talk) 07:48, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It is rare for an article to fail notability criteria for video games, but this one does not cite any reliable sources, so for now it goes. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:30, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 12:08, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 04:29, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Scorpio (Blake's 7)

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

This article does not currently establish notability. TTN (talk) 23:35, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 23:35, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and tag for notability before deleting, as I believe it is notable but nobody has tried to clean the article up in this way Stephenb (Talk) 06:46, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The article has been tagged for verification since 2009. It is far past the point of good faith tagging it. If there are sources of actual quality, all you need to do is provide some. TTN (talk) 19:38, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- So tag it for notability, and give me (or others) some time to do it - I'm busy IRL so it may take me a few weeks.Stephenb (Talk) 20:46, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - My point is that it has been tagged for years with absolutely no attention. That shows the article is far past any point where tags can be expected to accomplish anything. If the outcome ends up being removal of the content, it's easy enough to bring it back assuming there are actual sources. 21:17, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
    - You missed my italics. In general with long-standing articles (this one has been around for 10 years) I definitely prefer the approach "hey guys, I've found an old article that doesn't conform to modern Wiki standards, let's find some way to clean it up" rather than "Delete! Delete! Delete!". Just because an article has been tagged for a long while (and Lord knows there are a lot of them!) doesn't mean we should automatically reach for a gun. Stephenb (Talk) 06:49, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      - I won't bother responding on the other AfD again. As I said, tags cannot be expected to accomplish anything at this point. All it would be is yet another indicator sticking on the page for the next five years. Tags are also for articles that the user feels can actually be improved by the tags. I don't feel that way. TTN (talk) 20:25, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Stephenb. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 18:06, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:03, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:03, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep a cursory review of the sources found above shows multiple RS mentions, demonstrating that WP:BEFORE was clearly not followed. An improved deletion rationale should deal with the obvious references available and explain why they cannot simply be incorporated into the article. I'm not doing so myself, as I'm unfamiliar with this fictional franchise. Jclemens (talk) 02:33, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Given that your standards for sources are non-existent, I'm quite hesitant to believe your assertions at all. TTN (talk) 20:25, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I'm also puzzled by these admonishments of the nominator. I've reviewed the sources available in a more than cursory way, and I don't see the significant coverage in reliable sources of this fictional ship in an obscure TV show. I see a few mentions in fanzines, etc. Like the other one, it utterly fails GNG. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 11:01, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 11:01, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep has received coverage in Den of Geek ([22] [23] [24] [25] [26]), which means Scorpio has actually been the subject of independent sources. —Mythdon 23:16, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That's not how notability works. They are recounting the plot and mentioning characters and plot assets in the context of the plot. They do not provide any real world information on the topic, so they are useless in the context of establishing notability for this article. TTN (talk) 23:28, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, TTN, it is precisely how notability of fictional elements is established: The reviews, plot summaries, etc. are the real world impact. Jclemens (talk) 07:40, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - Those reviews need to actually provide some kind of commentary for the topic. You seem to have gotten the idea that "topic is mentioned in reliable source = topic is notable", but it has to be "top is mentioned in source in a non-trivial way that can actually be utilized in an article = topic is notable." Maybe those are hiding a bunch of gems on this ship if you read each of them top to bottom, but searching just the name of the ship gives nothing but plot-context descriptions that are used in only the context of their direct summaries. TTN (talk) 11:54, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SST flyer 07:39, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The sources provided do not have any sort of in depth discussion on the ship, or establish any sort of notability whastsoever. Having actually looked through the mentioned sources, they only talk about the ship in question in the context of plot summaries, and do not actually say anything more than mentioning its name. IE "the crew returns to the Scorpio" and things like that. Out of all the sources that actually mention this ship, none of them do more than establish that yes, this ship was a thing on the show. They do nothing to establish why the fact that it exists is in the least bit notable. 64.183.45.226 (talk) 18:47, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:V and WP:GNG, contains no third-party references. That such may be available is irrelevant; it's what in the article that counts. Sandstein 11:28, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete only as there has been consensus as it is that these are not capable of being a sufficient independent article or being merged elsewhere and therefore there's nothing to suggest we should attempt so. SwisterTwister talk 22:02, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- same as the other AfD: not independently notable of Blake's 7 and no RS offered or available. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:12, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. I haven't redirected as I don't view this as a plausible search term, but if someone wants to take responsibility for merging some of the content somewhere as suggested by User:Peterkingiron I'll happily restore to their user space. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 04:31, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Liberator (Blake's 7)

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

This article fails to establish notability. TTN (talk) 23:34, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 23:35, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and tag for notability before deleting, as I believe it is notable but nobody has tried to clean the article up in this way Stephenb (Talk) 06:47, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The article has been tagged for reliable sources since 2011. It is far past the point of good faith tagging it. If there are sources of actual quality, all you need to do is provide some. TTN (talk) 19:40, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- So tag it for notability, and give me (or others) some time to do it - I'm busy IRL so it may take me a few weeks.Stephenb (Talk) 20:45, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - My point is that it has been tagged for years with absolutely no attention. That shows the article is far past any point where tags can be expected to accomplish anything. If the outcome ends up being removal of the content, it's easy enough to bring it back assuming there are actual sources. 21:16, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
    - You missed my italics. In general with long-standing articles (this one has been around for 10 years) I definitely prefer the approach "hey guys, I've found an old article that doesn't conform to modern Wiki standards, let's find some way to clean it up" rather than "Delete! Delete! Delete!". Just because an article has been tagged for a long while (and Lord knows there are a lot of them!) doesn't mean we should automatically reach for a gun. Stephenb (Talk) 06:50, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Stephenb. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 18:06, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:04, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:04, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep a cursory review of the sources found above shows multiple RS mentions, demonstrating that WP:BEFORE was clearly not followed. An improved deletion rationale should deal with the obvious references available and explain why they cannot simply be incorporated into the article. I'm not doing so myself, as I'm unfamiliar with this fictional franchise. Jclemens (talk) 02:34, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'm also puzzled by these admonishments of the nominator. I've reviewed the sources available in a more than cursory way, and I don't see the significant coverage in reliable sources of this fictional ship in an obscure TV show. About the best I can find is this. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 10:59, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Blake's 7 is certainly not obscure! Stephenb (Talk) 11:01, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever. I've added it to the UK delsort in an effort to help. Find me the significant coverage of this fictional ship in reliable sources. That's where you need to focus your efforts. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 11:03, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 11:02, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"Whatever" - patronising much? This is a 38-year-old show and most good references are going to be in hard-copy form, so it will take me a while to collate them (as suggested above). Here's something from the Telegraph online if you want something right now: [27]. But I don't see why there is a rush to delete a 10-year-old article. Stephenb (Talk) 11:30, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That's better than anything I could find. The article is not about the ship, it's more of chatty piece about "a show so gloriously low budget that even the apostrophe was missing in its opening titles. The Liberator was the best looking thing in it, being a super futuristic spaceship that resembled the Starship Enterprise bred with a Toilet Duck. Turns out that some bloke (and it will be a bloke) had got the original model of the Liberator parked in his back garden and suddenly wanted rid of it," etc. But I grant you it's a start. Still a long way from meeting WP:GNG. As for the 10-year-old thing, that's utterly irrelevant. The fact that we've waited this long to address this problem shows we're not in a rush. The are other wikis where kruft like this belongs -- I don't see it belonging here. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 11:41, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not going to vote as I don't have any particular interest one way or the other in this topic, but I will say to the North Americans, who maybe are a bit baffled by the strength of opinion from some British editors on this topic, that if you are British this TV show is most certainly not obscure, having been broadcast during the primetime early evening slot, and is very fondly remembered by many misty-eyed 40 and 50-something Brits. Nevertheless, none of that is particularly relevant to these two deletion discussions, and I do wonder if there are enough sources even in print form from the 1970s that actually discuss the ships in detail, rather than the TV series – at the moment they do seem to be mainly OR. Richard3120 (talk) 23:45, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep has been the subject of independent coverage by Den of Geek ([28] [29] [30]), and in addition, coverage in other sources ([31]). —Mythdon 23:31, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SST flyer 07:38, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge or redirect -- My view is "one franchise: one article". Sometimes it may be appropriate to have an article on the series and a list article on its characters. It might be appropriate to have one list article on Starships in Blake's 7; that is as far as I would be prepared to go. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:24, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- So... Star Trek, Doctor Who, and Star Wars only, eh? Your opinion is certainly understandable, but not in line with Wikipedia policies or past consensus on such articles. I don't mind a merge as an editorial decision, but to compel one through the AfD process is not supported with the sourcing, as I've opined above. Jclemens (talk) 06:30, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and then redirect to Blake's 7. When you take out the large amounts of unsourced fancruft, you really aren't left with much. In fact, since the current build of the article has no sources, you are left with nothing. As with the other current AFD related to this show, the Den of Geeks sources mentioned here do not act as reliable sources. They only talk about the ship in the format of a plot summary of the episodes, and do nothing to talk about the ship in any sort of depth, or establish any sort of wider notability. The closest thing we have to a source that actually does talk about the ship in any way beyond a simple plot summary is the Telegraph article, and even that is mostly about the show as a whole, only talking about the ship in the context of the recent sale of its model. And that just isn't enough to act as the sole reference for an article. 64.183.45.226 (talk) 19:00, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:V and WP:GNG, contains no third-party references. That such may be available is irrelevant; it's what in the article that counts. Sandstein 11:27, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as there's nothing at all to expect that this, when there's been consensus for other articles, would have the necessary improvements needed and that's because it's non-existent, it's simply a trivial character article. SwisterTwister talk 22:04, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- not independently notable of Blake's 7 and no RS offered or available. Den of Geeks is not RS. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:11, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 which is also then a Speedy Keep, considering not only is the user simply stating some apparent "access information violations", but there is no other countercomments suggesting why and how we should not actually consider the WP:PROF notability, which he certainly satisfies therefore Keep, with no outstanding suggestions of Deletion (NAC). SwisterTwister talk 04:25, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Edward J. Zajac

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

This page is deleted as a result of privacy violation and of unauthorized access to personal information page — Preceding unsigned comment added by ThomasNDT (talk • contribs) 22:46, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·C) 06:55, 27 September 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 September 27. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 07:03, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. He's the James F. Beré Chair Professor of Management and Organizations, and someone who holds a named chair appointment at a major institution of higher education and research is considered notable. The Kellogg School of Management definitely sounds like a major institution. We can delete articles here about notable topics, but basically only if the article is really bad, and I see no real issues with this stub article — in particular, nothing privacy-related. ThomasNDT, would you explain your rationale more fully? Where is the privacy violation, and what personal information page was accessed improperly? And how should those influence our opinion as to whether Zajac passes our inclusion criteria, or how should those influence our opinion as to whether the article's so bad that we need to trash it and start over? Nyttend (talk) 10:21, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nyttend: Thank you for having considered my request. As the person who created the article, I request deletion of this page for three resons. First, due to my fault, the information that Edward Zajac is a Chair Professor is incorrect, and he does not hold any chair appointment. Given the huge number of academic at Northwestern, he may not pass the nobility criteria. Second, the wikipedia article contains information that I took from his personal website, which restricts any reuse of information on any other websites, and wrong information (e.g. influenced person). Third and most important, his person picture was stolen from his personal laptop as part of information theft and privacy breach. Therefore, I would like to ask for permission to delete Edward Zajac's article. Thank you for your time and consideration — Preceding unsigned comment added by ThomasNDT (talk • contribs) 11:10, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- What are you taking about?? His official profile page[32] at Northwestern says: James F. Bere Professor of Management & Organizations. So he does hold a named chair appointment. Regarding the photo File:Ed Zajac profile pic.jpg: You uploaded this photo to Wikipedia yourself describing the source as "Own work", that is, that you took the photo yourself. If you lied in specifying that the photo was your "Own work", you should unlink the photo from the article and tag the photo file for deletion. But that's not a good reason to delete the article. Nsk92 (talk) 11:55, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep. ThomasNDT, I think you have misunderstood what AfD is for and how things work around here in general. When you created and made any subsequent edits to the article, you agreed to irrevocably release your contributions to the Wikipedia community and anybody else who wants to use it (have a look at the text right above the "Save changes" button on any page). You don't own the article, so you can't simply ask for it to be deleted because you now regret writing it. AfD is a process where the community discusses whether or not an article should be deleted, based mainly on whether or not its subject meets our criteria for inclusion – see the deletion policy.
As for your three reasons above – Northwestern's website clearly states that Zajac holds a named chair which satisfies our criteria for the inclusion of academics. I don't understand why you would now claim this is false. Your second two reasons are also troubling. If you copied text verbatim from Zajac's website then you released copyrighted text without permission and this will need to be identified and removed. However, simply taking information from a website, so long as you properly reference where you got it from, is standard practice and how all articles are written. Could you please clarify which is the case? Regarding File:Ed_Zajac_profile_pic.jpg, you uploaded it yourself last May and claimed it was your own work, so are you saying you stole it (or his laptop)?? Joe Roe (talk) 12:14, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Joe Roe: There is some misunderstanding of the difference between plagiarism and copyright infringement. While plagiarism is claiming attribution for a work you did not create, or using someone else’s work without proper attribution, copyright infringement is using someone else’s work without obtaining their permission. Therefore, the fact that the article has a reference link to the source of information (for example his CV or personal page) does not mean that copyright is not infringed. On top of that my declaring the photo as my own work does not mean I have the ownership right over the photo. The photo belongs to Ed. Zajac and I I was not aware of the problem and wrongly provided it to Wikipedia without permission. Therefore, I would like to acknowledge the copyright infringement and unauthorized use of the photo, and take correction actions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ThomasNDT (talk • contribs) 16:44, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - @ThomasNDT:. There's no confusion on my part, at least. Infringing the copyright of text consists of copying or closely paraphrasing it. There is simply not enough prose text in Edward J. Zajac to constitute a copyright violation. If you did not, in fact, have permission to release the photo then yes it should be deleted – I've nominated it at FfD. However, you have not advanced a valid reason that the article should be deleted apart from the fact that you (or Zajac?) want it to be. What do you mean when you say it is a violation of privacy? Joe Roe (talk) 17:17, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. All of the information in the article appears to be non-private, and (the photo excepted) too brief and factual to be a copyvio. The case for WP:PROF#C5 is a little weaker than it might normally be, as (according to http://www.kellogg.northwestern.edu/faculty/directory/zajac_edward.aspx#vita) he was given the named title two years before being promoted to full professor, rather than (as is more commonly the case and the criterion expects) it being a marker of distinction at a level beyond a normal full professor. Nevertheless, his Google scholar profile also shows a clear pass of WP:PROF#C1. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:49, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep Zajac passes the notability guidelines and the nominator hasn't presented a clear rationale for this article's deletion....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 22:23, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 23:47, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Holds a named chair at a major institution. We are here to debate notability of the subject, not quality of the article. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:11, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:54, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Appstar Financial

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

Clear and exact PROD removed with the basis of "improvements helping" but a month has come and no such improvements have happened at all, certainly not sufficient, and I honestly believe this is because there are no such improvements; not only are none of the listed sources actually convincing, the one presumably best, USAToday, never actually mentions this company, my own searches are finding nothing else, aside from their own websites of course. This should've been deleted at PROD because, in the several years this has existed, nothing has become convincing and the assuring here seems to be it will not happen. SwisterTwister talk 06:58, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:58, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:58, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 07:01, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: At best the given directory listings confirm this to be a firm going about its business. My searches are finding no evidence of notability. AllyD (talk) 07:14, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
delete per nom and above - David Gerard (talk) 10:00, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) Sk8erPrince (talk) 02:08, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Aya Endō

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

Announcements from Anime News Network do not equate to notability. Also, lack of strong references, news coverage and significant roles. Sk8erPrince (talk) 06:51, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 11:59, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 11:59, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. Knowledgekid87 (talk) 14:07, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep 3rd Seiyu Award winner for Best Supporting Actress. [33] and 2nd Seiyu Award winner for Best Singing [34] She stars as Miyuki in Lucky Star, Annalotte in Queen's Blade: Rebellion, Matsu in Sekirei, Fumi in Yo-Kai Watch, Sheryl Nome in Macross Frontier. Although VADB lists 208 roles [35], a bunch of those are supporting, but the ones I listed up front are significant starring. Video games include Elie in The Legend of Heroes: Ao No Kiseki. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 15:37, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 15:38, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Theatre-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 15:38, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 15:38, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Fix the article with the above citations, and gimme a more detailed bio, and then I'll withdraw this AFD. --Sk8erPrince (talk) 16:17, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per Angus' findings, passes WP:GNG. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 15:53, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Good job, people. I'll withdraw this AFD. --Sk8erPrince (talk) 02:05, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 05:58, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yōko Honda

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

Serious lack of inline citations, no news coverage, and barely any significant roles to display the subject's notability. Sk8erPrince (talk) 06:33, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 12:00, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 12:00, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. Knowledgekid87 (talk) 14:07, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete She's the main character Ichika Tachibana in Uta Kata, a main cast character Mana Ishizuki in Sola, a main cast character Megumi in Kyō no Go no Ni. Problem is that none of these titles particularly stand out as big-time anime titles, but small-time visual novel adaptations. 67 entries in VADB, again mostly visual novels and stuff. [36] AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 18:26, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 18:27, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 18:27, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The only thing I could find is an announcement of her wedding which doesn't scream notability. Looking at sources in Japanese all point back at her blog. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 00:00, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of MTR stations. I don't see anything that's worth merging, but the history is still there, so if somebody really wants to mine this for material to merge, they can go ahead and do so.

It's worth mentioning that this didn't really need to be brought to AfD. A merge or redirect could have been discussed on the article's talk page, and acted on quicker than bringing it here. -- RoySmith (talk) 02:18, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

List of MTR station codes

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

Suggested to merge into List of MTR stations. These station codes are listed in that article. Shwangtianyuan Talk Here 06:38, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:43, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:43, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of MTR stations. The list is redundant.—CycloneIsaac (Talk) 01:42, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. G12: obvious copyvio Black Kite (talk) 10:05, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Live Chess Ratings

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

Simply duplicates content from the website 2700chess.com. The website concerned has no standing with chess's governing body FIDE, which among other things publishes monthly rating lists. 2700chess.com merely calculates expected rating changes of the top players in between FIDE's rating lists. It conducts WP:OR, if you like. Since this is merely duplicating stuff from a self-published website with no official standing, it has no real encyclopedic value and would be an absolute nightmare to maintain. MaxBrowne (talk) 06:32, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete according to WP:CSD criteria. (WP:G12 I think.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Democratics (talk • contribs) 09:09, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 04:31, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Fuyuka Ono

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

Weak and limited sources, and not enough significant roles to display notability. No news coverage, nor are there any strong references. --Sk8erPrince (talk) 06:27, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. Knowledgekid87 (talk) 14:07, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:05, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:05, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete roles are mostly supporting characters. Hiro Hiyorimi in Princess Resurrection is about the only main character role I can find so far, and it isn't for a significant title. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 18:35, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 18:35, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Theatre-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 18:35, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 18:35, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep I would look at Eko Miyazaki as she is a main character for one of the Ballad of a Shinigami stories. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 13:55, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Eko is a one time character, having only appeared in one episode in the entire series. The significance of this role is just about as much as Mayu (Bleach EP315) and Mai Suzuki (Bleach EP261). Additionally, the subject's role of Eko is not bolded on ANN; bolded roles on the site mean they are of considerable significance. --Sk8erPrince (talk) 15:24, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ballad of a Shinigami is broken down into short stories, more looking is in order here. I also suggest Comic Natalie as they quite often have mentions of these voice actresses/actors. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 15:38, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm well aware of that; but in anime such as Ballad of a Shinigami, there's a limited main cast (Momo and Daniel; Group 1), the rest belong to Group 2, which in this case, could range from one time characters to extras. The aforementioned anime is a rare exception where a consistent supporting cast does not exist; much like Mushishi. And regarding Comic Natalie, has the subject been mentioned on the website? --Sk8erPrince (talk) 15:47, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable voice actress.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:41, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 05:59, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Zerona

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

The article is written as a promotional piece that uses original research, and the medical sources appear to be inappropriately used. There is very little coverage of this device in the media or reliable information about it. Delta13C (talk) 06:24, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:33, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:34, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

TNT with extra dynamite. My god. How has this extension of Erchonia's website into WP survived since 2011? Jytdog (talk) 06:44, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There are two questions to answer here: first, is this a notable topic; second, is this article so irredeemably noncompliant that we would be better off without it. The answer to the former is: marginal. There is some discussion in the popular press, but virtually none in the specialist medical press. Most of the coverage has a strong appearance of churnalism. As a case for notability it is weak, to say the least. The answer to the latter is: absolutely. The content of the article, give or take stylistic fixes, was written entirely by one WP:SPA whose username strongly suggests that he is an individual prominently associated with promoting the device. Guy (Help!) 09:25, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
delete per nom and above - David Gerard (talk) 09:57, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:PROMO with a dose of WP:TNT; purely promotional drivel. K.e.coffman (talk) 14:48, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per nom; not notable and promo piece. Kierzek (talk) 14:57, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, couldn't agree more with all the reasons stated above. --Daffydavid (talk) 04:50, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sarahj2107 (talk) 19:44, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Anri Katsu

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

This article relies too much on references to primary sources, and a biography of a living person is supposed to include a list of references, but its sources remain unclear because it has insufficient inline citations. So in short, weak sources. The subject does not appear to have voiced as any main roles, and there aren't any significant news coverage to display Anri's notability. --Sk8erPrince (talk) 06:25, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:05, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:05, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 14:31, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 14:31, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 14:32, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete almost all major roles are down there in supporting: 1) Motoharu - magical index - first among the supporting cast 2) Hiroto - date a live - supporting 3) Arugo - guilty crown - sixth overall in list 4) Randy in Majestic Prince - supporting / recurring for sure 5) daryl - gundam unicorn - supporting 6) Naoki - Nana - supporting, band member in trapnest 7) Ko-chan - wangan midnight - supporting. JA Wikipedia is a credits dump as well. No biography to fill in. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 14:43, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep This person doesn't have any major roles but has done at least 30 others. There must be some reason why they keep using this person. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 13:49, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it is a fact that the subject is repeatedly cast as supporting characters, but that isn't a substantial claim that the subject passes WP:ENT. Hence, I assert again that the subject has yet to voice as a main role, so he isn't notable. --Sk8erPrince (talk) 15:19, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable voice actress.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:28, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as only trivial and unconvincing characters listed, none of it amounts to actual independent notability. SwisterTwister talk 06:18, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 05:59, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mckenzie Small

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

Delete. Advertorially toned WP:BLP of an actress and singer with no particularly strong claim of notability under either WP:NACTOR or WP:NMUSIC. Her notability as an actor boils down to one role in an ensemble cast teen drama series, and her notability as a singer is parked on a self-released single and some YouTube videos -- as always, however, the number of YouTube views a video gets is not a notability freebie if the sourcing ain't there to support it. And once I stripped all the primary sourced "referencing" to her own self-published social media accounts, all we have left for sourceability is one Q&A interview in an entertainment tabloid about one of the YouTube videos. This is not enough sourcing to get her over WP:GNG. Bearcat (talk) 06:02, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 15:07, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 15:07, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 15:07, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unacceptably bad referencing for BLP of a minor, let alone the notability issues per nom - David Gerard (talk) 09:44, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as WP:TOOSOON. I was hoping someone was going to tackle this problematic article (I'm the one who added the {{Notability}} tag), and am glad someone finally has. In about two years, it may be possible that Small will justify her own article. But, as of right now, she does not. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 13:45, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. No prejudice against recreation if sources can be found. A Train^talk 08:13, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Rongos railway station

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

Not notable enough Nickrds09 ^{(Talk to me)} 05:50, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It is vital for you to briefly elaborate WHY you think this article isn't notable. If you want the deletion to happen, you have to strengthen up your argument. --Sk8erPrince (talk) 06:06, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

My bad. Anyway I don't find any sources relating to this railway station. The only result you'll get is the article itself. --Nickrds09 ^{(Talk to me)} 11:21, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm really having trouble verifying the existence of this station, no less a place called Rongos. On g-maps I've looked really closely at the rail line between Sipocot and Naga and can't any such place. The article contradicts itself by saying its on the Sipocot-Naga Line and then says this is on a branch line. There doesn't seem to be any branch line either as the article suggests. I'm leaning towards delete unless this can be a verified town/station.--Oakshade (talk) 16:40, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:36, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:36, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:36, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:36, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This could be one of PNR's many closed stations, which is why it doesn't show up on a modern map. Still, in the absence of WP:RS, deletion seems the only option. De Guerre (talk) 21:12, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) Sk8erPrince (talk) 03:51, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wataru Hatano

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

Either that alleged Seiyu Award be sourced, or face deletion. Weak news coverage, and the references listed do not talk about Wataru Hatano as the main subject. Definitely non-notable. --Sk8erPrince (talk) 05:32, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. Knowledgekid87 (talk) 14:06, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Seiyu Awards is a major award for voice actors in Japan, and it is now sourced. ANN shows 74 news articles about Hatano, which suggests more than just plain cast announcements in terms of notable roles in notable productions. VADB shows 314 roles. [37]. In Fairy Tail he voices Gajeel Redfox, a major character in the series. He is also the main character in Nogizaka Haruka no Himitsu, Josuke Higashikata in some of the JoJo's Bizarre Adventure games, and Rufus in Street Fighter. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 14:24, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

74 news articles from ANN? Suuuuuure. How about you find a way to reference at least half of those articles in a more detailed biography? If you could manage that, I'll withdraw this AFD. --Sk8erPrince (talk) 15:08, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per AngusWOOF. Passes WP:ANYBIO for having received a significant award, and passes WP:ENTERTAINER for having significant roles in multiple notable works. Calathan (talk) 15:23, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, ok. Limited sources is still a thing, though. What happened to the importance in writing more detailed biographies? 2 sentences, that's it? You guys could do better than that if you really intend to keep the article. --Sk8erPrince (talk) 16:24, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

AFD is not cleanup. Articles are kept based on the notability of the subject, not based on the quality of the current article. It's true that the article could be improved by adding more sources. Please go ahead and add them rather than trying to make everyone else do the work. Calathan (talk) 16:59, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You need strong, reliable sources to assert the subject's notability; what part of that do you not understand? The quality of the article DOES matter; how else would I know whether or not the subject is actually notable? Also, I'll have you know, different Wikipedians specialize in different areas. Did I offend you for not specializing in the field of expansion? Well, did I? I'd like to think that I specialize in nominating articles for deletion, and forming arguments to state my case. When I nominate an article for deletion, it is YOUR burden of proof to assert the subject's notability, not mine. Do understand that I don't have that responsibility. As the nominator, my duty is to see that the article eventually gets deleted, though I don't think Wataru's article is going to be erased due to some of the alleged references you people claim to have. So far, Angus has added the Seiyu Awards citation. I'd really like to see more, so that I may be inclinded to withdraw this AFD. --Sk8erPrince (talk) 17:23, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Again, read WP:BEFORE it states: "Before nominating: checks and alternatives" "Carry out these checks". WP:BURDEN applies to editors who add/remove content from articles, and not to the AfD process. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 17:44, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

To Knowledge: Learn to read revisions in the history section before you lecture me on A, B and C. Before Angus added the citation on Wataru's Seiyu Award, the limited and weak sources lead to believe the subject himself isn't notable enough. Is that a problem? You have no grounds to dispute me on this matter. Be more like Angus, who actually bothers to look for strong sources. Also, would anyone have BOTHERED to look for strong sources for Wataru before this AFD was even created? Uh, no. So yeah - do understand that an AFD could also be used to shorten an article's life until you disputers find enough sources to back your claim of the subject's notability. I honestly don't see how notable Wataru is until Angus added in the aforementioned citation, but even then, I'd like to see more before I decide on withdrawing. --Sk8erPrince (talk) 23:37, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Again.. you have not addressed if you looked for sources BEFORE nominating the AfD which can lead others to believe it is a bad faith nomination. As for your attitude I have not seen editors last that long here if it is maintained. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 23:47, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If I nominate an AFD, and you wish to dispute, list your sources and give me strong arguments. You could seriously learn a thing or two from Angus. I don't need to state whether or not I've looked for sources, alright? It's irrelevant. Also, I most certainly wouldn't suddenly put AFDs on notable seiyu such as Takahiro Sakurai, Kana Hanazawa, Kotono Mitsuishi, etc. Understand that just LOOKING at Wataru's page, the first impression I got is that he's non-notable. Is that a problem? --Sk8erPrince (talk) 01:56, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sk8erPrince, please see WP:BATTLEGROUND. It isn't your duty to get the articles deleted now that you've nominated them. Instead, the purpose of an AFD is to have a discussion to determine if the article should be kept, and you should be equally happy with the subject being shown to be notable and kept as with the subject being shown to be non-notable and deleted. Calathan (talk) 18:09, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

To Calathan: I'm sorry, what? If I don't intend to erase nominated articles, then why would I nominate them in the first place? Look, I won't have a problem if you guys can somehow assert the subject's notability. Contrary to what you might think, I don't. But if all you can do is lecture me on HOW I should do things, then I really urge you to stop. Focus more on finding stronger references to assert the subject's notability, and when I see enough strong sources, I'll automatically close the AFD. --Sk8erPrince (talk) 23:37, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:15, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:15, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate your identifying stub articles with unsourced filmographies. We really do need more effort on finding which of these are worth keeping around and which ones don't have much potential for anything. I'm trying to retain ones that should meet WP:ENT and could use a decent writeup, and ones where the actors have won a top award for their field would be worth digging into. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 17:01, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Now, if you could put in 2-3 strong sources and references in the article, I'll be really inclined to withdraw this AFD. Thanks again! --Sk8erPrince (talk) 23:37, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Angus, or anyone else for that matter, if you people could list Wataru's roles in this format, I'll withdraw this AFD immediately. --Sk8erPrince (talk) 01:56, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 17:03, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 17:03, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The Seiyu Awards is a good enough indication to me that the subject is notable for their works. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 00:04, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep Won an award, thus passing our notability guidelines. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 03:18, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
All of you have made strong assertions on claiming the subject's notability, so I shall withdraw this AFD. --Sk8erPrince (talk) 03:51, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 05:59, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Tomohisa Asō

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

Article is almost completely unsourced, with ANN as its only reference. No good at all. No news coverage nor has Tomohisa voiced as any main roles. That means no indication of notability. --Sk8erPrince (talk) 05:23, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. Knowledgekid87 (talk) 14:06, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:02, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:02, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete outside of Furukabu and Gengorō Onigawara in Inazuma Eleven, there aren't any roles that stand out in the anime side of things. He's got a ton of guest roles. I don't believe a decent article can be created from that, unless he's got notability for Peppy Hare on the Starfox video game side? AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 18:40, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 18:42, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Theatre-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 18:42, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 18:42, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:ENT, no indication of notability. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 03:28, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 06:00, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hirohiko Kakegawa

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

Of the two references used for this article, one of them is IMDB. That isn't going to cut it. There's also no news coverage, nor has Hirohiko voiced as any main roles. Sk8erPrince (talk) 05:20, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. Knowledgekid87 (talk) 14:06, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:05, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:05, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete He voices Mihawk in One Piece who is a notable but not regularly recurring character until late in the series. None of the other roles stand out on the anime side, mostly supporting, minor recurring and guest characters that have little chance of being listed in the main cast list. However, he voices Taishi Ci and Zhang Fei in Dynasty Warriors franchise, which has at least ten titles, but it's a franchise with typically 30-50 characters per title, so the video game side should be investigated. I see no evidence he stars in Transformers or Turn A Gundam. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 18:49, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 18:49, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 18:49, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No indication of notability, no sources found. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 03:27, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 06:00, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Tomoyuki Shimura

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

Subject is clearly non-notable, given that he does not have any main roles. There's also no strong references nor significant news coverage to boot. --Sk8erPrince (talk) 05:13, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. Knowledgekid87 (talk) 14:06, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:02, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:02, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I don't see any leading roles in anime. The only one I recognize is supporting character Wolfrun in Smile Precure (Glitter Force), Not much promise for writing any sort of useful article. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 18:54, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 18:54, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 18:54, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No suggestion of notability.SephyTheThird (talk) 18:49, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:ENT, I can not find any sources that would indicate notability. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 03:21, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 06:00, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Akiko Kimura

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

Mega Man.exe is Akiko Kimura's only major role. That's it? Nothing else? Aside from that, there's also no news coverage or strong references, which are necessary to display the subject's notability. --Sk8erPrince (talk) 05:03, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. Knowledgekid87 (talk) 14:05, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:04, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:04, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete Besides starring as Megaman.EXE in the Rockman anime series, she stars as Kisaragi Ninomai, one of the teachers/main harem members in Happy Lesson, Fei Rune, a main character in Inazuma Eleven Go. Not sure how notable those two are, although Inazuma Eleven is a notable franchise in general. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 19:07, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 19:07, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 19:07, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete We should be able to have more than one sentance in the body of an article if we are going to have it.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:21, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as all listed characters are trivial, nothing from this listed career suggests anything at all for actual independent notability. SwisterTwister talk 06:25, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I don't see any notable roles so this one wouldn't even pass WP:ENT. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 03:19, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 06:00, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Rie Nakagawa

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

Rie Nakagawa has yet to voice as a main role as far as the eye can see. The article also lacks significant news coverage and strong references to display Rie's notability. --Sk8erPrince (talk) 04:55, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. Knowledgekid87 (talk) 14:05, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:03, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:03, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Voices the title character in Hana Kappa but that series is not notable for EN wikipedia. Taisho in Neko Rahmen is also a title character. But nothing to hang a biography on. JA wikipedia ja:中川里江 has nothing worth copying over. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 19:19, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 19:19, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 19:19, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I just don't see any notable roles so she would fail WP:ENT, this combined with there being nothing over at JA: wiki. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 13:39, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 06:01, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Tadahisa Saizen

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

I don't think Tadahisa Saizen has ever voiced as a main role; aside from that, where's the strong references and news coverage that are necessary to display Tadahisa's notability? --Sk8erPrince (talk) 04:37, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. Knowledgekid87 (talk) 14:04, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:02, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:02, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete His most notable role is as Berserker in Fate/stay night who is supporting at most. He has a ton of utility guest roles in shows like Inuyasha and Super GALS! and Gundam Seed Destiny. I don't see any lead roles. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 19:31, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 19:31, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 19:31, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Nothing notable about this person. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 13:34, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
`Delete Doesn't appear to be notable.SephyTheThird (talk) 18:30, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) Sk8erPrince (talk) 05:22, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Omi Minami

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

Did Omi Minami ever voice as a main role? And if so, how many? Has there ever been a role that Omi is clearly notable for? This article does not show it. Aside from that, no news coverage or strong references mean lack of notability. --Sk8erPrince (talk) 04:31, 27 September 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 September 27. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 04:45, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. Knowledgekid87 (talk) 14:04, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Starring roles as Hyatt in Excel Saga, Ruri Hoshino in Martian Successor Nadesico, Majic in Orphen / Orphen Revenge. Major characters Takuro in Di Gi Charat, Fan Xinglou in The Asterisk War. 208 roles listed in VADB. [38] AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 14:38, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:01, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:01, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

FIX the article, then. It's hard to tolerate articles with weak/limited sources and references. Maybe EXPAND her biography by including news coverage? Yeah, unless you do that, I'm not withdrawing this AFD. --Sk8erPrince (talk) 15:19, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You should read WP:NOTCLEANUP, and WP:BEFORE on this one. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 15:50, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, doubt my AFD nominations. I hope you're prepared for my counterargument. --Sk8erPrince (talk) 16:05, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In short, have you bothered to look for sources before throwing this to AfD? Usually this is a solid argument when editors say that they have put the effort into trying to find things but turned up short. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 16:57, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I have. But they're just limited sources. Understand that in an AFD, you have two sides to choose - object or agree. If you object, you MUST prove to me what makes the subject so notable that I should withdraw the AFD. It is YOUR burden of proof. I don't have any responsibilities in matter; work hard and scrape any strong source you could find if you really intend to keep the article. --Sk8erPrince (talk) 01:46, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Multiple major roles that would pass WP:ENT, I can see that Angus already found things. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 15:51, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Telling me that Omi has done A, B, C or D is absolutely pointless. Unless I see those references listed, I will see to it that this article be deleted. What about news coverage? Does that not matter all of a sudden? You know, if you any one of you bothered to write a brief biography for Omi with reliable references, I might be inclined to withdraw this AFD. Currently, the only external links are IMDB (unreliable) and ANN, and one broken link that is supposedly Omi's homepage? Also, there's only ONE reference that is no different than a cast announcement. Do you honestly think that constitutes as notability? I think not. --Sk8erPrince (talk) 16:05, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hey I'm trying to figure out whether these people should stay too. The way the current articles are, they are useless unsourced stubs that don't tell me anything about why they are important, so an AFD is worth posting so it can be discussed. At least with the above roles, I can see Omi has had significant roles in significant anime titles from the 1990s/2000s to meet WP:ENT. This means throwing a cleanup-biography tag and Expand Japanese and leaving them as stub so they can be developed. But to answer your original question, did she ever have a main role in anything? Yes, Hyatt is a lead character; there are two for the purposes of Excel Saga: Excel and Hyatt, and a bunch of supporting regulars such as Il Palazzo, Menchi, the three guys and one girl in the government company, Nabeshin, and Pedro. In Nadesico, she is a main character on the Nadesico crew, and Ruri is the focus star in the feature film (as opposed to some minor OVA episode). Majic is the sidekick to the title character Orphen and appears in every episode as a main character. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 18:05, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I understand. I'll step back a little bit - if you could list all of Omi's notable credits in this format, I'll withdraw this AFD. --Sk8erPrince (talk) 01:46, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Omi's biography should include her major credits. --Sk8erPrince (talk) 11:53, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep passes WP:Ent. The "spirit of the law" should be that the roles have been validated and assessed and in this case she is sufficiently notable. Hyatt is a main character but it would be unfair to require the coverage Kotono Mitsuishi received for playing Excel (which for the most part is usually linked to the performance of the English actors for that role). Requiring biographies is an unnecessary step. SephyTheThird (talk) 18:29, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 06:01, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hisayo Mochizuki

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

Hisayo Mochizuki has a lack of enough major roles, aside from lacking any news coverage or references to display her notability. What exactly is Hisayo known for, anyway? I can't even tell by reading this stub of an article. --Sk8erPrince (talk) 04:22, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. Knowledgekid87 (talk) 14:03, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:06, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:06, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Voices Yachiru (minor character) in Bleach, Moro (one of the two twin girls in supporting cast) in xxxHolic, Valkyrie (title char) in UFO Ultramaiden Valkyrie, Taruto (title char) in Magical Meow Meow Taruto. I don't see much for a writeup, even in JA wikipedia. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 19:36, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@AngusWOOF: Have you checked on sources regarding Pudding Fong? (Tokyo Mew Mew) - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 13:28, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Pudding is one of the main leads according to ANN (Group 1). --Sk8erPrince (talk) 13:45, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 19:37, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 19:37, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I did a search on both English, and Japanese sources and found nothing to indicate her notability. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 00:31, 30 September 2016 (UTC)][reply]
Delete appears to have a lack of significant roles.SephyTheThird (talk) 18:21, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Article needs a proper cleanup. A Train^talk 08:21, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

MacKeeper

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

Delete - (copied from the talk page): I don't quite understand how this article is notable. It doesn't match the criterion in WP: Notability (software), as it lacks significant independent interest outside of thinkpieces generated in reference to the lawsuit. I can see an argument made that the lawsuit itself constitutes notability, but beyond that I'm doubtful. Further, there is a very specific style-guide for this sort of page discussed in the above link, which this article fails to adhere to. At the very least, the section on 'Features' is entirely spurious, as wikipedia is not the manual for MacKeeper, and dips into territory forbidden in WP: Spam. Articles on paid software need to work hard to not break WP: NPOV, and the "Features" section and the semi-section on the "Security Research Center" (which I have deleted - it's simply free advertising and the section is barely comprehensible in english) are both violations of this. Regardless, until these issues are resolved - that is, the page undergoes heavy rewrites and citations can be found to justify its existence, I'd like to move for it's deletion. William Of Orange (talk) 17:35, 26 September 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by William Of Orange (talk • contribs)
Keep The article may need work (I'm not really a fan of the features element) but the subject is certainly notable.--Labattblueboy (talk) 18:11, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that this discussion is closed. Theroadislong (talk) 19:01, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've moved the discussion to a separate 2nd nomination. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:35, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Dialectric (talk) 22:46, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The article is notable, however I do recommend better editing in the article itself, as the referenced product is mostly identified as malware, but any references to this are quickly reverted. In its current state, it breaks WP:NPOV. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Danixdefcon5 (talk • contribs) 02:26, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There are some Reliable, neutral sources that concern this software. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 17:19, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I second the rationale of BeenAroundAWhile above. Mbridge3000 (talk) 18:35, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article could definitely use some cleanup, especially in regards to the sources. A lot of them are not reliable sources at all, but are merely press releases, links to the product's home page and promotional pages. However, there are quite a number of actual reliable sources, such as PC World and Business Insider. So, Keep, but definitely cleanup the poor sources and promotional material. 64.183.45.226 (talk) 19:12, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 05:55, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Zenarae Antoine

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

Supported by only one reference, which is not independent. Does not appear to meet general notability guidelines. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:20, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Even though the article could use some work and needs to fit the format of similar articles, there is ample precedent for current D1 women's basketball coaches of mid-major teams having articles: Jhn31 (talk) 04:35, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Southland Conference women's basketball coach navbox

Template:Horizon League women's basketball coach navbox

Template:Mid-American Conference women's basketball coach navbox

Template:Ohio Valley Conference women's basketball coach navbox

Keep Per Jhn31. Division I basketball coaches, men's or women's, are notable. Smartyllama (talk) 12:34, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:27, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:27, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, added women project to article talkpage so participants are notified of afd.
Keep Ok, the article is a disaster. Many, many issues. But article quality (or length for that matter) is not a determiner of notability. Women's college basketball is a major sport in the US. Did a sniff test and in very short order found these [39], [40], and [41]. GNG is met, so keep. RonSigPi (talk) 03:45, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Tsuna Sawada. Seems to be enough consensus to redirect, which isn't all that different from deletion. Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 22:06, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yukari Kokubun

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

Tsunayoshi Sawada is Yukari Kokubun's only main role; the rest are just minor supporting characters. Additionally, there is a serious lack of news coverage, citations and references to display her notability. --Sk8erPrince (talk) 03:22, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable voice actress.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:40, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. Knowledgekid87 (talk) 14:03, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Tsuna Sawada, her only notable role. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 14:31, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:55, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:55, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 19:38, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 19:38, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Tsuna Sawada, I don't see any harm in doing so. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 13:36, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per above.SephyTheThird (talk) 18:17, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy deleted G3 by RHaworth. (non-admin closure) shoy (reactions) 13:27, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Bieruminadrie

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

The subject (which seems to be some sort of society) is not notable per WP:NRVE. Searching Bieruminadrie in the Dutch Wikipedia does not return any results, nor does Google (except for this article). The first reference does not mention the subject. The second appears to be some sort of music. My Gussie (talk) 02:35, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) Meatsgains (talk) 01:57, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Chandhara

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

Village lacking notability and coverage in reliable sources Meatsgains (talk) 02:42, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn by nominator - Clearly recognized as a village per WP:GEOLAND. Meatsgains (talk) 01:57, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:41, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:41, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - As per WP:GEOLAND this does look like an actual population center with businesses in the town being listed in "Chand Hara" which demonstrates it's legally recognized. [42] --Oakshade (talk) 16:55, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Passes WP:GEOLAND per above. Smartyllama (talk) 13:57, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Snow Keep: per GEOLAND. Legally recognised populated village ([43], more). @Meatsgains: Withdraw? Anup [Talk] 23:25, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 06:02, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Paromita Mitra

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

Mitra's claim to fame seems to be "the first Bangladeshi to win Miss Mississippi USA". This is close to the most odd first I have ever come across. Bangladeshi's are a very small part of Mississippi's population. Significantly less than 0.1%. It is hard to place, but they are part of the "other Asian" population, that also includes other groups. The Chinese in Mississippi have gotten a lot of coverage, partly because they have been there since about 1870. I was also able to dig up some stuff on-line about the Vietnamese community in Mississippi that dates to the 1970s, but nothing else. Doing an actual source for sources on Mitra was looking promising, I found links to the Chicago Tribune and the LA Times. It turned out these links were just to photos of her. So we have bascially no coverage of her beyond what is in the article, and that is far too little to establish notability. John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:38, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mississippi-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:03, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Beauty pageants-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:03, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom --- PageantUpdater (talk) 04:22, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- does not meet GNG and a WP:PSEUDO bio. K.e.coffman (talk) 20:07, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was deleted as G12 (copyright violation). — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 13:18, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Auditd

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

System lacks notability Meatsgains (talk) 02:16, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:12, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment May pass WP:NSOFTWARE point 2 and 3:

It is the subject of instruction at multiple grade schools, high schools, universities or post-graduate programs. This criterion does not apply to software merely used in instruction.
It is the subject of multiple printed third-party manuals, instruction books, or reliable reviews,[2] written by independent authors and published by independent publishers.

The deamon seems to be an integral tool of several maintream Linux (eg Suse, RedHat and CentOS) distributions. Google reveals he is featured in numerous instructionary tutorials and I would guess he is also probably topic of advanced linux classes/courses. As such he may pass those points and be notable. Dead Mary (talk) 12:27, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as WP:G12 - copyright infringement of [44], I tagged it as such - without prejudice against recreation if notability is demonstrated. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 11:35, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 22:04, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

X-Worx

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

No indications of notability or significance; a WP:PROMO article. Significant RS coverage cannot be found. Notability is not inherited from other entities such as Miles Long. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:25, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:25, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:17, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:19, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:19, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as no evidence of notability fails & GNG. –Davey2010^Talk 01:36, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No coverage at all from independent reliable sources. AVN citations are republished press releases. No RS coverage ~~from~~ found in independent searches. Fails WP:GNG and WP:CORP. • Gene93k (talk) 02:17, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Subject lacks independent coverage in reliable sources. Meatsgains (talk) 02:45, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No independent reliable sourcing, no actual assertion of notability. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by administrators since 2006. (talk) 10:31, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 02:04, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Add additional sources or delete The article lacks clear indication of notability based on current references provided. If editor can add those to article to support case for notability (see: [[45]]), suggest keeping, if not delete. Newtonslaw40 (talk) 16:40, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

[Heilbron2003-1] John L. Heilbron (27 March 2003). The Oxford Companion to the History of Modern Science. Oxford University Press. pp. 443–. ISBN 978-0-19-974376-6.

[2] Lt. Col. Asad Ali (29 October 2001), "Pakistan and war against terrorism (Et cetera column)", Pakistan Economist (Pakistan's leading Business Magazine for the last 25 years)

[1]

[1]