Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2016 March 5

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

Guide to deletion

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

The result was delete. Uncontested. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:46, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Amol goel

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

Fails WP:BIO. References cited do not indicate significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources. [1] is a non-notable blog. [2] mentions 8 instagram profiles, one of which is a community started by the subject. [3] is about people who have been affected by Delhi's vehicular pollution control rules, and names him as one of the several people surveyed by the reporter. [4] is part of a series that covers several notable and non-notable Indian startups -- it's an account of the subject's startup, based on his interview. Besides these, there are around ~4000 Google results, most of them social media accounts or about other people with the same name. utcursch | talk 23:43, 5 March 2016 (UTC) utcursch | talk 23:43, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. utcursch | talk 23:45, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Vipinhari || talk 04:49, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - WP:BLP with no noticeable claim of encyclopedic notability. Fails WP:GNG. Vipinhari || talk 04:55, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - WP:BLP some coverage of the startup and the instagram account, but not notable. Chris vLS (talk) 04:07, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- RoySmith (talk) 00:50, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Olive Miriam Buchholz Parmelee

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

This person appears to fail WP:GNG, as well as WP:ARTIST. I couldn't find any independent reliable sources that cover the person in-depth, or at least not enough to satisfy significant coverage (which is required in order for an article subject to meet WP:GNG). ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 22:59, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 23:21, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 23:21, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 23:22, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as A7. I don't see any claim to significance. She's just a painter. clpo13_(talk) 23:28, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Striking my vote as there's a claim of significance now. Will re-evaluate. clpo13_(talk) 06:39, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
delete unless some non web references are provided. She definitely created during pre Internet period. Arthistorian1977 (talk) 17:11, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: fails WP:GNG and WP:ARTIST. Quis separabit? 02:13, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Nomination withdrawn (non-admin closure) Vipinhari || talk 05:05, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Tina charlie

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

Doesn't seem to meet notability guidelines. A google search for "Tina Chalie weaver" turns up no results WikiWisePowder (talk) 21:57, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This article may help expand the documentation of western Native American tribes. Tina Charlie can be found on JSTOR, as well as sources added to the article.E.caza (talk) 22:19, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Per the article's talk page, this article was created in response to Wikipedia:Meetup/Providence/ArtandFeminism/RISD. — Maile (talk) 22:36, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - WP:DANNO As noted above, this article is part of a Meet Up editing effort. It is also part of a series of articles on [Category:Native American basket weavers]]. Please do not assume there is no notability at this point. It's a work in progress, and has a couple of verifiable sources. — Maile (talk) 23:10, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Withdraw - Yeah I think it may be best to expand it. It does seem to fit notability, it was just unclear. — Preceding unsigned comment added by WikiWisePowder (talk • contribs) date 23:22, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. — Maile (talk) 23:28, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. I discounted the sockpuppetry. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 21:26, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Maliek bennett

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

Non-notable musician: no coverage whatsoever in independent, reliable sources, so fails WP:GNG. GAB^Hello! 20:50, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 21:01, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as searches found nothing better. SwisterTwister talk 21:18, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

dont delete great musician with immense body of work — Preceding unsigned comment added by Corderzender (talk • contribs) 22:52, 5 March 2016 (UTC) — Corderzender (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Do not delete this page as they have provided references and external links which are reputable reliable sources — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wander857 (talk • contribs) 22:54, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Don't delete as there are sources which seem sufficient — Preceding unsigned comment added by W083736 (talk • contribs) 23:06, 5 March 2016 (UTC) — W083736 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
I forgot to put references but now have done so — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wander857 (talk • contribs) 23:07, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I can find nothing outside of a blog; a bar mention and the google link to a search I could do myself that shows facebook and discogs. Absolutely no coverage from reliable sources. The article seems a desperate attempt at name-dropping and we have two user accounts registered just to comment here against deletion. (no other contributions). Please delete. Fylbecatulous talk 13:37, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Fylbecatulous and SwisterTwister: Needless to say, I've opened an SPI on this: [5]. GAB^Hello! 14:47, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Checkuser note:. Corderzender and W083736 are Confirmed sock puppets of Wander857. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Wander857.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:28, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails to meet WP:GNG or WP:BIO. Note to closing admin: if this ends up deleted then Colours (album) by Maliek Bennett should be speedy deleted under the A9 criterion. Pichpich (talk) 17:50, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I remember seeing that; I must have forgotten to include it in this AFD. Sorry about that. GAB^Hello! 17:53, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Per above. WP:TOOSOON at best. Grayfell (talk) 04:40, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails the guidelines for inclusion set out at WP:MUSICBIO and WP:GNG. — sparklism ^hey! 12:24, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Or rather, weak keep, as most participants agree that this is a borderline case, but on the whole most would rather err on the side of inclusion. Sandstein 14:00, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Augustus Sol Invictus

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

Non-notable fringe political candidate without significant coverage in independent sources. Appears to fail WP:NN Dressingforasalad (talk) 20:37, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 20:43, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 20:43, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep/Neutral -- He's as fringe as fringe gets, to be sure, and fails part 1 of WP:NPOL in that he holds/has held no office. Still, he has received a substantial amount of coverage in independent sources, although the coverage is mostly focused on his antics. I am willing to reconsider my !vote upon hearing from others. GAB^Hello! 20:47, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- The bulk of the coverage, and most of the references in the article, seem to be about one event (goat blood drinking), which I think also puts the article into WP:BLP1E territory. Dressingforasalad (talk) 21:05, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - Perhaps. GAB^Hello! 21:11, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Week keep - Just enough RS coverage (e.g. BBC, Financial Post, Associated Press) outside of local media to cross the WP:GNG bar.--JayJasper (talk) 20:55, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete - I'm just not seeing it. Coverage is there, but it seems to fall under WP:BLP1E with the remainder being incidental, or political gossip. Much of the coverage is based on self-aggrandizement, which should be weighed more cautiously. Grayfell (talk) 23:17, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep - over 2000 articles have been mentioned him in the last year, he is presently a public candidate for office. People come to Wikipedia to get information on people just like him. Stealthepiscopalian (talk) Stealthepiscopalian 01:07, 6 March 2016 (UTC)Stealthepiscopalian[reply]

Since this has been nominated for deletion, we can't just take your word for it. Some of these sources will need to be assessed and included in the article. The G-hit count is moderatly high, but that's irrelevant. Many of the sources I see are mentions of newsworthy mid-profile clients he's taken, such as Marcus Faella or David Damus, and the overwhelming majority are from an early October 2015 news blitz about the goat sacrifice thing. Being a defense attorney for semi-notable cases doesn't itself confer notability, per WP:NOTINHERITED, so sources still need to be about Invictus. Almost anyone can run for office, so candidates still need to meet WP:NPOL or similar notability guidelines. Grayfell (talk) 02:47, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep People come to Wikipedia to get reliable information about people in the news. He's not just running for office but has the Libertarian party nomination. I see the point about historical notability, and if a year or two from now he fades from interest I can see renominating this article, but at the moment removing it seems unwarranted. Current events are a critical part of Wikipedia.Choronzonclub (talk)Choronzonclub (talk) 00:15, 7 March 2016 (UTC)Choronzonclub[reply]

See Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not a newspaper and WP:INTHENEWS. Useful or not, it still has to meet notability guidelines and other policies. Grayfell (talk) 08:14, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep - He made another headline today. Even if the article is deleted, I've little doubt it will be re-added soon after. Vael Victus 03:14, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep – I've seen quite a few articles about him at this point, and further research led me to his page and its AfD. There are so many aspects to this story that add up to at least marginal notability. Further, WP is currently a useful (and assumedly neutral) repository of this info, so it would be a shame to lose. I would echo Choronzonclub, above, as to renomination if he fades in a year or so, hence my vote of Weak Keep. — VoxLuna ☾ ^orbit_land 09:52, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral/Weak Delete - The fact that this person is an unelected candidate doesn't fail the article on WP:NPOL because he has had some coverage supported by sources significant enough to provide a degree of notability. My main concern with the article is that it shouldn't be a vehicle for self-aggrandizement, as Greyfell wrote. In view of the fact that he seems to be on a political campaign at present, that's an important and current concern. Parts of the article fail WP:NPOV and either have no sources or have the person himself as the source. With those elements taken out, I don't believe the article has much left. If it is retained, that must be resolved. I agree that it's possible the article might be added again after deletion, but that is not a reason to keep it. At this moment in time, I fall very slightly on the side of deletion but am primarily Neutral. Twistlethrop (talk) 00:40, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I agree with JayJasper. The coverage in reliable sources is sufficient for notability.--William S. Saturn (talk) 06:41, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to PAA. Overall consensus is to Redirect, The 2 listed on the dab can easily be shoved on too the PAA one, (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 21:22, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Paa (disambiguation)

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

This disambiguation page seems redundant to PAA, where two of the three listed items already are listed. I suggest deleting or redirecting this and adding Paa (given name) to the other disambiguation page. Stefan2 (talk) 19:41, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 20:23, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to PAA per nom. I've WP:BOLDLY added the given name to the dab, which makes it completely redundant. -- Tavix ^(talk) 21:00, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to PAA. I fixed the film line to show the year 2009 rather then December 4. Legacypac (talk) 02:10, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to PAA per nom. PamD 11:04, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep valid three-entry dab plus see also. Paas will easily get lost amongst busy dab for PAA and the two things are different. I dont think there's any guidelines on these being merged, but correct me if I'm wrong. I'm not seeing the gains from merging here - certainly harder for the reader to find the right entry. Boleyn (talk) 17:13, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. The addition of other Sam/Samuel Vincent entries means hatnotes are no longer sufficient and the disambiguation page does not fall afoul of WP:TWODABS. (non-admin closure) clpo13_(talk) 16:28, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sam Vincent (disambiguation)

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

This is an unnecessary disambiguation whose use has been superseded by hatnotes. Disambiguation is not needed for Sam Vincent since the voice actor goes by Samuel Vincent, but hatnotes are there for navigation between the two. -- Tavix ^(talk) 18:49, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. -- Tavix ^(talk) 18:49, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. As I previously said to Tavix: it's not because of a WP:TWODABS that a disambiguation page can't exist. It's not bothering anyone, so why remove it? It might come in handy in future.--Midas02 (talk) 19:23, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, WP:TWODABS says otherwise:If there are only two topics to which a given title might refer, and one is the primary topic, then a disambiguation page is not needed—it is sufficient to use a hatnote on the primary topic article, pointing to the other article. And that's exactly what we have here: the basketball player is the primary topic for Sam Vincent, and it could refer to Samuel Vincent, so we use hatnotes. We also have precedent for deleting the disambiguation when that is the case. See, for example, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Oscar Danielson (disambiguation) and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Luc Thériault (disambiguation). Finally, if another Sam Vincent becomes notable in the future, it doesn't take much effort to recreate the dab. Until then, WP:CRYSTALBALL applies here—we don't know when, or if, that may happen. -- Tavix ^(talk) 20:26, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: unnecessary - hatnotes do the work better. PamD 23:30, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Tavix: and @PamD:. Tavix, that's not what Twodabs states, it merely states it is not required. What's the rational for deleting? It seems like a waste of time. --Midas02 (talk) 16:54, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Midas02: The dab page is unnecessary as the existing two articles can be best connected by hatnotes (readers only need one click to get to the other article if they've found the wrong one). More than that, it's slightly dangerous to leave it lying around: if someone created a new "Sam Vincent (xyz)" article, and found the dab page, they might list it there which would mean it's not linked from Samuel Vincent. At that point they should either expand the hatnote there, or create a new dab page. So deleting the dab page is removing something unnecessary which could potentially cause confusion in the future. PamD 17:20, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That's a difference of opinion PamD. Someone would really have to be paying little attention to modify the dab page without noticing there is a primary topic. Again, I don't see the point, but it's not like I care much either. What I can not allow, however, is that people would pretend deleting is policy. Unless I'm mistaken, it is not. --Midas02 (talk) 17:41, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

But deletion is a policy: Wikipedia:Deletion policy. -- Tavix ^(talk) 17:58, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

And the relationship with Twodabs being? --Midas02 (talk) 18:07, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I looked to see if there were missing valid entries and added 3. Boleyn (talk) 17:22, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Boleyn, don't know if you checked the Samuel Vincents as well. There are some of them lingering around. At least the captain seems notable, check Action of August 1702 and List of mayors of Richmond. --Midas02 (talk) 17:41, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Withdraw per Boleyn. I have no idea how you find some of these, but your work is excellent. -- Tavix ^(talk) 17:38, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User:Tavix, try Dispenser's Dabfix. There was another tool to track down red links, but I forgot where to find it. --Midas02 (talk) 17:41, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Tavix. I did use Dabfix which shows up redlinks, but I mainly just typed 'Sam Vincent' into the search box, clicked on 'containing Sam Vincent' and scrolled through articles which mention 'Sam Vincent', looking for ones which were unlikely to be the two already listed. Boleyn (talk) 17:49, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Overall consensus is for article retention. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:40, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Brenna Murphy

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

WP:BLP of an artist, with no credible or properly sourced claim of notability per WP:NARTIST -- as written, this just asserts that she exists, while failing to list any specific accomplishments that could actually be measured against Wikipedia's inclusion criteria for artists, and the sourcing is parked on one "our artists" profile on the website of a directly-affiliated gallery (a primary source which cannot assist notability) and one Q&A-style interview in a magazine (a source which would be acceptable for some supplementary confirmation of facts after an article had already been sourced over WP:GNG, but cannot count toward GNG as it represents the subject talking about herself.) Nothing here is substantive enough, or reliably sourced well enough, to make her suitable for inclusion at this time. Delete, without prejudice against recreation in the future if it can be written more substantively, and sourced better, than this. Bearcat (talk) 18:13, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 18:19, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oregon-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 18:19, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

delete Agree with above comment. ShelbyMarion (talk) 04:07, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Did you do WP:BEFORE? Valfontis (talk) 20:48, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep an interview can show notability because it means that she was newsworthy. It shouldn't be unduly relied upon for the article, though. However, she is written up in Hyperallergenic, and in Oregon Live as well. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 22:04, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Interviews cannot count toward GNG at all, because they represent the topic talking about herself, and are thus subject to the same problems as any primary source — so interviews can be used only for supplementary confirmation of biographical facts after an article has already been sourced over GNG, and cannot bring any GNG in their own right. Bearcat (talk) 03:11, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as the New Museum exhibition, Hyperallergic, and ARTnews are enough to establish notability aside from the AiA interview. That said, having an interview in Art in America is indicative of significant attention on her work. Art in America is one of the top five most important art outlets (Artforum, Frieze, ARTnews, NYTimes). As per @Megalibrarygirl: I would be disinclined to rely on it heavily, but I do think it signifies notability.Theredproject (talk) 04:06, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Also, the article was improved substantially after initial proposal.--Theredproject (talk) 14:43, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per User:Theredproject - well-put. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 18:01, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Note additional sources have been added, including review of group show in the New York Times and mention of her involvement at Eyebeam in the Wall Street Journal and Dazed. Mary Mark Ockerbloom (talk) 21:43, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There is sufficient evidence of significant critical attention (WSJ, NYT) to satisfy WP:NARTIST Mduvekot (talk) 00:02, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Uncontested. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:40, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Urquidi

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

Appears to exist, I found a few listings of his appearances at conventions and such, but no coverage that I could find which rises to WP:MUSICBIO. Additional sources welcomed. joe decker ^talk 18:06, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 18:19, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 18:19, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nevada-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 18:19, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as none of this has solid independent notability. SwisterTwister talk 21:24, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Nothing found that would suggest an article is justified. --Michig (talk) 14:49, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was withdrawn. (non-admin closure) clpo13_(talk) 06:04, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Angelaki

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

Non-notable academic journal. Fails WP:NJOURNALS (not included in selective indexing services) and WP:GNG. An article from this journal had a brief spate of notoriety on Twitter due to an argument between the author and Richard Dawkins ([6], second paragraph), but I don't think that translates into notability of the journal itself. clpo13_(talk) 18:03, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. clpo13_(talk) 18:04, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. clpo13_(talk) 18:05, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Indexed in multiple selective databases (see here). Easily verifiable by using some of the links on my user page (with pre-formatted references. Article can be expanded using the advice at WP:JWG. --Randykitty (talk) 14:47, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, looks like I didn't search hard enough. Withdraw given Randykitty's evidence that WP:NJOURNALS is satisfied. clpo13_(talk) 06:03, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Uncontested. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:39, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Death and Justice

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

Article only references the book itself. Notability is not asserted, and it does not appear to be notable. Bueller 007 (talk) 17:54, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

Delete, a Google search turned up practically nothing useful. GAB^Hello! 22:29, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I turned up no reviews or in-depth news coverage of this book. If anyone dles, flag me and I'll reconsider.E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:27, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Uncontested. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:38, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wernaldo

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

Unable to find reliable, secondary sources evidencing the notability of this musician. joe decker ^talk 17:46, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 18:16, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Austria-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 18:16, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 18:16, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and I would've considered PROD instead because, as for the article, I'm familiar with this subject area and I have never heard of him, none of this suggests any independent notability at all. SwisterTwister talk 21:26, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The only claim of notability here is being a member of a band that had a hit in Austria, for which I could find no source. In the absence of verifiability there is no basis for an article. The whole article is almost identical to the main page of his website, although it is possible that the WP article came first.--Michig (talk) 14:58, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 10:49, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Farman Nawaz Khan

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

Previous AfD is Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Farman Nawaz; I do not have access to the previous version of the article, so I am not sure if G4 applies (if it applies, speedy delete and close). Nonetheless, same reason as before, subject writes many articles for small newspapers, but non-notable (no coverage). Esquivalience ^t 16:38, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I am Snehahurrian. Farman Nawaz has written articles for Pakistani newspapers The Frontier Post, Statesman, DAWN (newspaper), Express Tribune, and Daily Times, Afghani newspaper The Daily Outlook Afghanistan is the only English newspaper published from Kabul. Farman Nawaz is writing for Outlook Afghanistan since 2009. Similarly Global Times China is stateowned newspapers of China. it is the sister publication of peoples daily. Farman Nawaz has written round about 10 articles for the opinion page of Global Times China. Direct links of his articles can be provided if required.

Normally it is difficult to provide information for notability and other aspects of journalists. I have also created other pages about journalists and columnists. like

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

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

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

very little information were provided for these pages. But for the page Farman Nawaz Khan I have provided several links and references. I think its coverage is better than the other pages of journalists I have created. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Snehahurrain (talk • contribs) 16:55, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 18:16, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 18:16, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, the original notability issues have not been addressed. No third-party coverage beyond a few quotes that report his opinions but do not discuss Naawaz at all. Huon (talk) 17:07, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I was asked to review the sources provided in the article. I have done so; my opinion remains unchanged. Huon (talk) 20:26, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, fails GNG —OluwaCurtis »» (talk to me) 16:54, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per WP:GNG, WP:BIO and per nom. Looking at the other pages linked, one is also at AfD for similar reasons. One has only one source and the other has a good chunk of it copied and pasted from his personal blog and also only one source aside from his personal blog. Personally I think all of these need to be either deleted or have reliable sources added and the improperly sourced content removed. Wikipedia is not a webhost for resumes/profiles. Chrisw80 (talk) 20:16, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Farman Nawaz articles are included as reference to various reports like 'Debating the Pakistani National Interest over the Kerry-Lugar Bill','China's Involvement in Afghanistan: Besides Economics lies Security' ,'Debate Afghanistan : Post-US ‘Draw-Down’ and India' , 'Identity Crisis and Political realities of Indian Muslims'

Keep, hopfuly the above links will solve the notability issue. Sneha Hurrain (talk) 08:32, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Farman Nawaz Urdu articles generally get more than 25000 likes on Facebook page of Express News TV network. Even some posts are liked by more than 36000 users and shared more than 3500 times. The following links can be used to verify it.

Farman Nawaz has the distinnction that his ballanced viewpoint is given space on the pages of Shia newspaper of Afghanistan, Communist newspaper of China and Sunni newspapers of Pakistan. Besides that Indian institutions like 'Association of Indian Diplomats', and "South Asian Analysis Group" have also included Farman Nawaz's articles as refernces to thier reports.Sneha Hurrain (talk) 14:20, 8 March 2016 (UTC) Sneha Hurrain (talk) 10:10, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

References

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Florida_Georgia_Line#Tours. Unclear why this was brought to AfD, since no deletion was proposed, but whatever. -- RoySmith (talk) 16:34, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dig Your Roots Tour

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

Article about a concert tour with no substance or sourcing to make it a notable concert tour per WP:NCONCERT. Every tour does not automatically get a standalone article just because it's happening -- rather, NCONCERT specifies that "Concert tours are notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. Such coverage might show notability in terms of artistic approach, financial success, relationship to audience, or other such terms. Sources that merely establish that a tour happened are not sufficient to demonstrate notability. Tours that cannot be sufficiently referenced in secondary sources should be covered in a section on the artist's page rather than creating a dedicated article." But no importance has been demonstrated here, because the only content here is a list of the venues rather than any discussion of its significance. Redirect to Florida Georgia Line, without prejudice against recreation in the future if and when NCONCERT can be met. Bearcat (talk) 16:36, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Florida Georgia Line#Tours It would be one thing if this was a big stadium tour, but outside the ubiquitous large 'any name could draw a crowd' Houston Rodeo and Daytona shows, along with a Columbus stadium show meant to cover Ohio and Indiana in one fell swoop, it's an average arena tour. Nate • (chatter) 01:39, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Discounting the sockpuppetry. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:36, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yemi d. ogunyemi

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

A shambolic article with no evidence of notability. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 16:22, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 16:24, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 16:24, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 16:24, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: No news coverage of him, although there are hits on Highbeam and Google Books. GAB^Hello! 22:31, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The literary community agrees that when a book is published, it is a form of news, both for the publishers and the authors. When a book is reviewed it is news for the publishers and the authors. This, according to the literary community, is news coverage, especially when they are being covered by social media. Ogunyemi's case belongs to all of them. Additionally, his entry is more notable, visible, newsier than many other writers in the Wikipedia. This is the bottom line regarding my comments. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Travis Burges (talk • contribs) 15:51, 6 March 2016 (UTC) — Travis Burges (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Delete The article completely fails WP:BLP. There are no meaningful references. Highbeam and Google Book searches bring up his books but no search brings up WP:RS. Even in wobbly places like Amazon, the only review of the 2009 The Literary/Political Philosophy of Wole Soyinka is by the author himself. The initiating editor is an SPA. FeatherPluma (talk) 20:33, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
CommentThis may not be the best-written article, but it is good, compared with other articles, short or long, retained by the Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sakaraomooba (talk • contribs) 21:40, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Input from yet another new SPA duly noted. FeatherPluma (talk) 21:52, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Notability not achieved. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:57, 12 March 2016 (UTC).[reply]
This is a very good article by all accounts, as there is no violation of any sort. Its writer should be applauded for writing it. Could you allot it its rightful place? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sakaraomooba (talk • contribs) 21:30, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Checkuser note: Travis Burges is a Confirmed sock puppet of Sakaraomooba. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Sakaraomooba.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:13, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 10:47, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mine Seed

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

Delete: Non-notable. Minimal coverage outside very localized area/POV/area of interest. Self-published. No major reviews in widely circulate venues. Anmccaff (talk) 16:34, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No coverage; minimal attention otherwise. Vanity published. Esquivalience ^t 21:45, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Do Not Delete:

Mine Seed is a historical novel recognized as both literature and a contribution to anthracite and labor history. It has been reviewed and archived beyond the claims of local. Nationally known historian Howard Zinn (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/28/us/28zinn.htm) reviewed Mine Seed as “a powerful story…something extraordinary in literature.” Richard Rousseau, editor of the University of Scranton Press called it a “valuable record.”

Mine Seed is referenced in Anthracite! An Anthology of Coal Region Drama. Mosley, Philip, ed. University of Scranton Press, 2006. P. 338. with other notable anthracite fiction writers. http://www.press.uchicago.edu/ucp/books/bookdistributed/A/books/distributed/A/bo3775640

~~This is simply untrue; Mine Seed isn't mentioned there.~~ see below The anthologist and editor of Anthracite! did review it, but in a local on-line publication called the Anthracite History Journal. This publication no longer exists, although the last editor is thinking of bringing it back online. Some parts of it, including this review, are "Waybacked;" see [Mosley review of Mine See]. You'll see that this is a local author being interviewed in a local, specialized online publication. Anmccaff (talk) 03:08, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Better check your facts again, anmccaff. Mine Seed is referenced on p. 338 of Mosley's Anthracite!, to say otherwise is untrue. To give you the benefit of the doubt, you are either mistaken or you haven't looked at p. 338.St o'hara (talk) 17:31, 26 February 2016 (UTC)St. o'hara[reply]

That's your "cite?" A "see also" on a backmost page bibliography? My apologies to the others for missing it, but that's hardly a point in favor of notability.

Mine Seed is also held in the collections of historical archives and university libraries, including but not limited to: the Historical Society of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, (http://discover.hsp.org/Record/marc-283853/D) the Pennsylvania State University, among others and is internationally referenced: in (http://www.worldcat.org/title/mine-seed/oclc/51823897) (https://www.worldcat.org/

Again, a falsehood. There are only two entries on Worldcat. Three books total, of which only one can circulate. Two, one circulation, in Scranton, the author's...and the wikitor who wrote this article's ...hometown. The other 150 miles down Interstate 80 in State College. That's it. World(-cat) wide. Three books. One to circulate. Anmccaff (talk) 03:08, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not false. My entry is simply to show that Mine Seed is archived in state-wide archives and state-wide university libraries. I gave two examples readily found online: The Historical Society of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, and the Pennsylvania State University main library at State College, PA. Copies held as reference material don’t circulate. Some of the other libraries listed on Worldcat show the book circulates. Why you are saying it does not, I don't know. Many historical archives are not online. Not all libraries are listed on Worldcat--so how many libraries (or other sites) actually hold copies of Mine Seed for circulation or for reference is unknown. St o'hara (talk) 17:31, 26 February 2016 (UTC)St. o'hara[reply]

As I wrote, and anyone else can confirm, there simply aren't other citations on WorldCat, and the fact that something is found in WorldCat does not, in itself, make it notable.

Links (see below) to other writings by Dailey published in national and notable publications: Counterpunch, edited by Alexander Cockburn and Jeffrey St. Clair; Voices in The Wilderness edited by multiple Nobel Peace Prize nominee Kathy Kelly, and the Village Voice (which were deleted from article by the editor that proposed the article for deletion) are more proof of the notability beyond local notability of the author and this book. St o'hara (talk)St. o'hara

Dailey wrote two articles for the online part of Counterpunch; which is to say, she wrote two articles that are pretty much "letters to the editor." The online side of Counterpunch is, essentially, a minimally curated open blog. Very different from the newsletter proper, which, whatever you might think of it, has some weight.

Counterpunch is a respected online journal edited by the late Alexander Cockburn, a highly regarded writer and journalist, and Jeffrey St. Clair. It is not a "blog" or "minimally curated" and its contents are not equivalent to "letters to the editor." Many prominent writers, journalists, economists, commentators, and so forth are selected for publication there. St o'hara (talk) 17:31, 26 February 2016 (UTC)St. o'hara[reply]

This was discussed on the Reliable sources board [| here]; the strong consensus was that this was not a reliable source, unlike the paper/pdf version. It's a lot like the difference between the SF Examiner and examiner.com. Anmccaff (talk) 20:24, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Zinn's quotation can only be sourced to the advertising of the self-published book.

That’s from an advance review by Howard Zinn. Not sure if you are trying to discredit the veracity of Howard Zinn, the author, or others, like University of Scranton Press editor Richard Rousseau, who is also credited with vetting Mine Seed. St o'hara (talk)St. o'hara

Yes, as listed by the seller, Amazon, from the writer. Of a self-published book. Advertising.

The Nobel folks only release info about nominees fifty years after the award, so claiming that someone is "Nobel nominated" has its own issues. Again, notice the misleading writing: "two basic ones," instead of a more honest "two only ones". Anmccaff (talk) 03:08, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Again, please check your facts, anmccaff. There’s nothing misleading in what I wrote. The Nobel nominees’ names can be released by the nominators. In fact, Kathy Kelly had been nominated three times for the Nobel Peace Prize as referenced below (from Kathy Kelly):

American Friends Service Committee (1947 laureate) nomination for the 2000 Nobel Peace Prize[40]
Nomination by 1976 Nobel laureate Mairead Maguire for the 2002 Nobel Peace Prize.[41]
Anonymous nomination for the 2003 Nobel Peace Prize[42]

[40]"AFSC Nominates Dennis Halliday and Kathy Kelly for 2000 Nobel Peace Prize". American Friends Service Committee Magazine. May 2000.

[41]Runkel, Phil (Summer 2007). "Marquette University has Acquired the Records of Voices in the Wilderness". Archivists.org.

[42]Mellgren, Doug (January 31, 2003). "Nobel Prize Nominations Stream into Oslo". Associated Press. St o'hara

{talk) 17:31, 26 February 2016 (UTC)St. o'hara[reply]

Mellgren's piece does not contain an "anonymous" nomination of Kelly, but an assertion that the AFSC had nominated "Women in Black". [[7]] Check out page 8A.

The Nobel committee prohibits leaks, and refuses to confirm them. What actions they may take against nominators who flout their rules is unknown to me, but I can't think of a -single- leaked nominee who got the award, ever. Can you?

I can also see no way to actually confirm that the organizations did formally nominate, at least not for another 40 years.

...and, finally, this has nothing to do with the article directly, does it? Anmccaff (talk) 20:24, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Onel5969 ^{TT me} 15:53, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This back and forth between Anmccaff and St. o'hara reads like a battle of wills. I'm coming down on the side of Delete. Despite the opinions of reviewers and this books presence in various academic libraries, if there was convincing evidence of a notable impact within the anthracite mining community or the fields of history or literature (beyond being name checked in references) then maybe it would deserve a wikipedia entry. But the article reads, as the nominator points out, with a POV purpose . Also, it's ridiculous to claim notability with a link (e.g. Amazon) that merely serves to verify the books existence. ShelbyMarion (talk) 22:41, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

References

St o'hara (talk) 23:21, 12 March 2016 (UTC)St. o'hara: To ShelbyMarion, et al. I was responding to the aforementioned Wiki editor’s deletions of facts and their sources which I had posted-- some of which he deleted without reading, as well as his misrepresentations of facts, editorializing, and personal attacks. I replied to this editor’s points in the standard scholarly response when a subject is being debated.[reply]

“Mine Seed” is a book recommended highly by the eminent historian Howard Zinn; it is also a standard in anthracite history references, etc. and written by a woman. It was tagged as both a portal to literature and anthracite history and is noted in anthracite history and literature-- as anyone caring to research will see. Wikipedia has been criticized for under representing women in literature and articles. Is there a gender bias here against this article? Wikipedia has acknowledged its gender bias and is apparently, attempting to address it.

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

Having said all that I am now in favor of deleting this article, however, as I have come to the conclusion that Wikipedia is unreliable as a valid reference and I will no longer recommend people use it—-quite the opposite—-for the following reasons (which I will also add to discussions of the unreliability of Wikipedia) cited below for anyone reading here who may be concerned about the future of Wikipedia:

As research shows, Wikipedia is considered untrustworthy by many, even a joke, and is called unreliable in academic circles because of its lack of fact checking, its biases including-- gender bias, its editors with agendas pedaling their own viewpoints, and an often hostile editing environment. Reliability and scholarship lose to editors with little to no knowledge of content being able to delete information at will and by committee, and bad faith editors destroying content instead of working to build a better encyclopedia.

“Many good intentioned contributors end up resigning Wikipedia due to others who like making it into a battleground for the “most correct” appliance of norms. This can lead to a rigid and slow adapting organization, which would eventually cause the end of it.” –Juliana Brunello “Response to Jaron Lanier’s Digital Maoism.” http://networkcultures.org/cpov/resources/resources_in_english/response-to-jaron-lanier-digital-maoism/

One example, Wikipedia is hamstrung by misapplications of rules like “notability”—where being notable is narrowly defined by “being notable” as defined by ad hoc committees and voted on--even by sock puppets. So being a “celebrity” automatically gives notability even if it is for arcane and idiotic things—of which Wikipedia is full. However, “celebrity” does not equal “authority” or relevance. Incorrect application of Wikipedia rules means that authentic creative and /or scholarly works and contributions and references can be too easily jettisoned by editors, who may be bad faith editors, people with other points of view, or people simply lacking knowledge of content and subjects they delete.

I also have to agree with Aaron Halfaker that Wikipedia is on the decline, sharply losing editors, (especially newcomers) since 2007. http://www.businessinsider.com/chart-shows-wikipedias-huge-participation-problem-2013-11 I have increasingly seen information manipulated by a sort of popularity contest; editors gang up on contributors and delete references without reading them, ad hominem attacks, defamations and libels go unchecked, and so on. This certainly has led to a decline in the quality and reputation of Wikipedia as it drives out good editors, and volunteers and monetary contributions. St o'hara (talk) 23:21, 12 March 2016 (UTC)St. o'hara[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. - He died in 1915 so therefore was born around the 1800s .... so it's obvious you're not gonna find or even anything online, I'd imagine there are sources offline ..., Anyway consensus is to Keep (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 21:26, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Walter Michael Dickson

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

Delete: fails notability threshold for any single category. Quis separabit? 15:46, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Rugby union-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 18:14, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 18:14, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The amount of documentation in that era was minimal. The book (offline source) quoted as a reference is widely recognised. Assuming the citation has been correctly sourced, Dickson made an appearance for a high-performance union, namely the Scotland national rugby union team. He therefore passes WP:NRU. Although notability can be explained, I anticipate that expanding the article is going to be difficult. Drchriswilliams (talk) 18:36, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Capped for Scotland = notable. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:21, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Played rugby union at the highest level as a Scottish international --Bcp67 (talk) 07:11, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 21:19, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sei Muroya

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

Contested PROD. Concern was Article about a footballer who fails WP:GNG and who has not played in a fully pro league. PROD was contested on the grounds that the J1 League is fully pro. While this is accurate, it is also not relevant since he has not actually played in that league. Sir Sputnik (talk) 15:38, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 15:39, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 15:57, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - doesn't pass WP:GNG. --Imozuruboy (talk) 08:46, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails NFOOTY as has not played senior international football nor played in a fully professional league. No indication that subject has garnered significant reliable coverage for any other achievements to satisfy GNG. Could be notable in the future but not now. Fenix down (talk) 10:05, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 21:18, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Vsev Krawczeniuk

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

Non-notable individual lacking non-trivial support. reddogsix (talk) 15:38, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 18:14, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 18:14, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as none of this satisfies WP:ENTERTAINER, analyzing everything found nothing convincing. SwisterTwister talk 21:13, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Of the sources presented, the only one that means anything in terms of WP:N is a very brief mention in a local newsletter. SpinningSpark 20:49, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. TomStar81 (Talk) 20:46, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as he fails WP:GNG, that is, significant independent coverage. JTtheOG (talk) 22:26, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. A7 - no credible assertion of notability Acroterion (talk) 15:47, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Macaulay Callard

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

Apparently unremarkable movie extra. Fails WP:BASIC with no secondary sources. McGeddon (talk) 15:23, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as enlirey non-notable... tagged this before I noticed that this had been prodded & the PROD tag removed (predictably) by the vain little twerp who created this autobiography.TheLongTone (talk) 15:28, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to The Boat Race 2002. (non-admin closure) sst✈ 15:33, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Hackworth

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

Not a noteworthy person. One out of date listing mentioning him in an event does not in any make him noteworthy and thus this page should be removed. A14lbham (talk) 15:05, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 18:13, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 18:13, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to The Boat Race 2002, unless found to be notable for anything else. The-Pope (talk) 02:32, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to The Boat Race 2002 per WP:BLP1E. Hackworth's role in the race was not particularly substantial, and he has received no other coverage outside of this event. — Jkudlick • t • c • s 12:05, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Uncontested. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:52, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Neuroprotexeon

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

I don't see evidence that this company meets the notability guidelines. —Largo Plazo (talk) 14:08, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Vipinhari || talk 14:16, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Vipinhari || talk 14:16, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Vipinhari || talk 14:16, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless notability can be established by the addition of several sources each with substantial in-depth coverage specifically about the company (as opposed to general concept of the use of xenon as an anaesthetic). There are seven sources in the page at the moment. Several of them mention neuroprotection, but not one of them appears to mention "Neuroprotexeon" (unless it is in pay-walled content?). Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 16:11, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:CORP/WP:GNG. Lacks significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. — JJMC89 (T·C) 00:37, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) sst✈ 15:32, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Clones (video game)

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

Article topic lacks significant coverage from reliable, independent sources. (?) Its coverage in a video game reliable sources custom Google search is sparse—there is a review from IGN and potentially one from 4Gamers.de (if that site is reliable). There are a few single-paragraph previews from Destructoid, RPS. All in all, it's just below the threshold of our ability to write a full article on the subject. czar 14:06, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. czar 14:07, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Previewed at Destructoid.[8] Reviewed at IGN.[9] Metacritic also suggest it was reviewed at PC Powerplay.[10] Some foreign language coverage.[11][12][13] It's not that notable, but notable enough. - hahnch e n 19:14, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep, not a lot, but definitely some reliable sources. Seems notable enough. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 09:58, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as being sourced enough to pass WP:GNG. VMS Mosaic (talk) 13:14, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Overall consensus is for article retention. Also note that subjects are presumed notable when meeting WP:NFOOTY. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:37, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Set Phyo Wai

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

No evidence this footballer meets WP:GNG or has played in a fully pro league. No references. No hits on Soccerway. C 679 14:05, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. C 679 14:06, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Vipinhari || talk 15:01, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It does appear he played in the Myanmar National League a WP:FPL as per this .Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 15:14, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - some COMMONSENSE is needed here, and plenty of AFD precedent exists to say that barely passing NFOOTBALL is not enough when you fail GNG, see Oscar Otazu, Vyacheslav Seletskiy, Aleksandr Salimov, Andrei Semenchuk, Artyom Dubovsky, Cosmos Munegabe, Marios Antoniades, Scott Sinclair, Fredrik Hesselberg-Meyer, Matheus Eccard, Roland Szabó (2nd nomination), Metodija Stepanovski, Linas Klimavičius, Takumi Ogawa, Nicky Fish and Andrei Nițu, amongst others. Giant Snowman 15:23, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep passes WP:NFOOTY .The subject is 21 years and is currently playing Myanmar National League a WP:FPL and is currently playing for Magwe F.C. as per this and this.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 10:31, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep plays in a professional league, thus satisfying WP:NFOOTBALL. Inter&anthro (talk) 16:29, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Passes NFOOTY, has played in a fully professional league or in a match in the competition proper (i.e. not qualifying rounds) of a cup competition which involved two teams both from FPLs as indicated in the sources above. @GiantSnowman: comment above is erroneous, those AfD s specifically refer to players who just passed NFOOTY at one point but then wnet on to do nothing of note, failing GNG. This is a player who is currently playing in an acknowledged FPL. Fenix down (talk) 10:07, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as passes WP:NFOOTY as shown in the sources provided by Pharaoh of the Wizards Atlantic306 (talk) 21:05, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 21:13, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Batista and The Undertaker

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

No notable tag team. They just had sporadic tag team matches HHH Pedrigree (talk) 11:43, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In fact, the "tag team" just wrestled together ONCE. All the article talks about their feud. Not even a real tag team. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 12:08, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 13:30, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete borders on hoax.LM2000 (talk) 15:44, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete Per above. Prefall 09:20, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as stated above. oknazevad (talk) 02:02, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per above. Not even a real tag team. Nikki♥311 03:39, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The Undertaker and Batista have a known 50-2 record when teaming together, making Taker Batista's best partner ever. (Triple H was his worst.) But many of those were six-man matches, or untelevised or both. More importantly, secondary sources (or WWE) have never seemed to care about this. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:03, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 21:12, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Four Horsewomen (professional wrestling)

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

No notable nickname for 4 wrestler. Not even close to The Kliq HHH Pedrigree (talk) 11:44, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 13:30, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:GNG.LM2000 (talk) 15:46, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No significant coverage in reliable third-party sources. Most of the search results for "Four Horsewomen" are about the Ronda Rousey posse. リボン・サルミネン (Ribbon Salminen)(ZOOM) 18:51, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG. Nikki♥311 03:39, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Basically exists in a small portion of the Internet's imagination. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:57, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Noting that 2015–16 I-League Youth U15 has already been speedy deleted by Shirt58 per CSD G4: Recreation of a page that was deleted per a deletion discussion. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:24, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I-League Youth U15

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

Same reason as here: None of the players or teams (U15 teams) are notable. Also fails WP:GNG. ArsenalFan700 (talk) 09:58, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Also going to be nominating 2015–16 I-League Youth U15 for deletion based on the same reason. --ArsenalFan700 (talk) 09:59, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 10:42, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete both - non-notable topics, identical to those at last AFD. Giant Snowman 10:42, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I am the author of both the articles. I found out about the previous AfD later and I agree with all the points in previous AfD too. But this tournament is held in conjunction and as a preparation for 2017 FIFA U-17 World Cup (source). So though it may not pass WP:FOOTBALL, this could be important in terms of WP:GNG. Would appreciate comment from editors. Coderzombie (talk) 12:45, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

We talked about this and it doesn't. One reason it exists (the u17 World Cup) is not enough to warrant passing WP:GNG. --ArsenalFan700 (talk) 07:15, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete - per WP:G4. Sir Sputnik (talk) 21:53, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as the other comments have said. Matt294069 is coming 00:21, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect - non-notable youth competition in itself. Could warrant a sentence in the I-League article as an associated tournament. Fenix down (talk) 10:02, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Consensus at WP:FOOTY is that U-15 teams and leagues are not inherently notable. Could warrant a mention in I-League. — Jkudlick • t • c • s 22:18, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy redirect to List_of_All_My_Children_characters#J. Joe Decker has already redirected this to List_of_All_My_Children_characters#J . (non-admin closure) Vipinhari || talk 15:08, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

T. C. Warner

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

Doesn't seem to meet WP:ACTOR, one might think a regular role for a couple years on a soap might head in that direction, but for that role to have never made it into the voluminous list of All My Children characters we maintain is suggestive. Everything else appears to be bit parts even if IMDB is accurate. Additional sources welcome. joe decker ^talk 08:09, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2016 March 5. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 08:24, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedily deleted [most recently] by User:Bbb23 under criterion A7. (Non-admin closure) "Pepper" @ 17:28, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Take 28

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

Unreferenced article about unknown band. I can’t find reliable sources. The author admits on the talk page that the band is undiscovered. —teb728 t c 08:21, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 13:31, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 13:31, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. This band does not appear to meet any criteria for notability under WP:BAND. Also, no sources have been provided. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 20:03, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and I would've considered PROD, none of this has any independent notability. SwisterTwister talk 21:28, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Guniw Tools. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 21:27, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Tomo Furukawa

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

I wasn't able to find sources demonstrating this musician's independent notability. joe decker ^talk 07:22, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Guniw Tools. Fails the Google test: can't find anything but social media (Pinterest, Tumblr etc.) —Tom Morris (talk) 08:49, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 13:31, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 13:31, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect as searches found nothing better, seems best knwon for that group. SwisterTwister talk 21:16, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect The stage name "Full" makes him very difficult to search for. He lacks an article on the Japanese Wikipedia, which in itself is irrelevant to this discussion, but does mean there is not a useful place to start searching for third-party sources. Finally, the Japanese Wikipedia article on the band Guniw Tools has even less sources than the English article. So in the absence of other evidence I think a redirect is best. AtHomeIn神戸 (talk) 02:06, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete--Ymblanter (talk) 21:02, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Xiulu Ruan

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

No real claim of notability. NOTE: Please review article history; previous versions included a claim of a "world record"; redactions made under WP:BLP. Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 05:56, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, also the references included in the article are just mere listings. There is no in-depth coverage from independent reliable sources to establish notability. I also suspect that the article may be promotional as it was created by a single purpose account with posible conflict of interest as shown by the edit pointed out by Ryk72.--Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 08:58, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Vipinhari || talk 15:13, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. Vipinhari || talk 15:13, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable and no evidence to the contrary. Elaenia (talk) 06:43, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. Super Mario Man ( Talk ) 18:07, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Against the Current (Band)

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

Non-notable band. reddogsix (talk) 04:50, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Previous deleted and salted at Against the Current (band) (AfD discussion), and speedied a couple times each at Against The Current, Against The Current (band), and Against The Current (Band). They seem to really want an article here. —Cryptic 11:51, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 13:32, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 13:32, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Michig (talk) 08:20, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Haunted House 2016

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

Contested prod-a short film with questionable notability. Wgolf (talk) 04:07, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Looks like spam (they "had so much fun filming they do plan to come out with a sequel", apparently). Can't find sources to satisfy any applicable notability guideline. —Tom Morris (talk) 08:58, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 13:33, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not a single person is notable, and IMDB is considered a questionable source. In veritas (talk) 17:16, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Absolutely no coverage in reliable sources and does not meet notability guidelines for films. Opencooper (talk) 10:24, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Daniel Ishag. -- RoySmith (talk) 00:07, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Karhoo

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

This article has been nominated 3 times for speedy deletion, so I'm taking this here for discussion. Pinging previous decliners Appable: and Hullaballoo Wolfowitz:, and nominators DGG: and 9LBushfire: (the other nominator was an IP). Adam9007 (talk) 03:16, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 13:33, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 13:33, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or merge to Daniel Ishag: This is an interesting case. Karhoo is a company that hasn't started operations yet, but has secured VC funding. The notability issue is that every news hit I can find out there is either a reprint of press releases (e.g. Karhoo securing a lease in Manhattan), or consists mostly or entirely of an interview with Daniel Ishag, the founder. In other words, the coverage that we might call significant is not independent, and what remaining portions we might call independent are not significant. If (and that's a big if) there's any significant coverage of Karhoo's VC rounds, then it falls within WP:EVENT, which would counsel deletion here. That this article appears to have been created during a PR push by Karhoo/Ishag's marketing people does not help things. In short we have a service that isn't notable right now (even if it probably will be at some point, WP:XBALL controls). —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 15:08, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Of particular note is the absence of any independent significant coverage on Karhoo's media page. While that's not going to be an exhaustive list of coverage, you would expect it to include the best of the best coverage on the company. Even the typical "as seen on" or "as used by" or "as discussed by" section, with a ton of network, publication and business logos—a mainstay of current web design for startups—is not present. That strongly suggests that even Karhoo's own PR people know of no real significant coverage. I'm not saying that should be controlling, but taken with an independent analysis of what's actually out there, we can feel a lot more confident that said analysis is correct. It's just too soon for an article on this subject, like an unreleased movie or a professional sportsperson who hasn't debuted yet. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 17:15, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 17:03, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 17:03, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 17:03, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 17:03, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 17:04, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 17:04, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect The one sentence in the article on the founder is quite sufficient. There's a major difference between raising money and starting operations. This is a classic case of TOOSOON. DGG ( talk ) 21:10, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as questionably notable for its own article. SwisterTwister talk 00:27, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Advance healthcare directive. There is clear consensus here against this being a stand-alone topic, and that it should be merged and/or redirected to either Advance directive or will and testament, it's not clear which.

I'm going to call this a merge to Advance healthcare directive, but whoever ends up doing the merge should use their best judgement which of those two targets makes the most sense, and how much material should be moved. -- RoySmith (talk) 17:50, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Decedent directive

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

The term does not appear to be used (fails WP:RS). How does this differ from an advance directive? (Taken to AFD as opposed to a PROD since the article is from 2007.) BlueStove (talk) 02:44, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. BlueStove (talk) 09:51, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Advance directive. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:46, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not familiar with decedent directives, though it sounds like they are essentially a testamentary instrument (sans relevant will formalities). My understanding is that advance healthcare directives simply provide instructions about healthcare, while "decedent directives" provide post-death instructions about burial wishes and the distribution of a person's assets. Therefore, I think it would make more sense to redirect this to will and testament, which discusses instruments that provide for a person's wishes after their death. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 04:04, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to will and testament, or else merge into advance directive with clarification that decedent directive is similar to advance directive but deals with matters happening after death (and add a see also: will and testament), while advance directive is dealing with matters happening while the person is still alive. It seems like many of the sources discussing "decedent directive" start by saying it is similar to the advance directive and then highlighting the difference, so it makes sense for it to be discussed on the advance directive page rather than going straight to will and testament. Also, there are opinions and legal sources where the phrase "decedent's Directive" is used to refer to an advance directive for something to be done prior to death, in the midst of a litigation after the person has died and is being called the "decedent", which to me is another reason for taking people to the "advance directive" page so they can identify the type of directive. TheBlinkster (talk) 17:13, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Esquivalience ^t 18:01, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

4294967295

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

No sources to indicate notability per WP:NUMBER. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 23:36, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:20, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. They're not completely unrelated, but I think that its properties as (1) biggest odd number of sides of a constructible regular polygon, (2) max unsigned int, and (3) reserved special Autonomous System Number [14] are distinct enough and interesting enough to satisfy a combination of criteria 1 (three interesting properties) and 2 (cultural significance) of WP:NUMBER. All are easily sourced so the fact that the article currently doesn't list those sources is irrelevant. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:47, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. I see only two unrelated interesting properties, as David Eppsteins's (2) and (3) are consequences of it being equal to 2^32-1. (If I am to trust the article, (1) is a consequence of the factorization in Fermat primes). The cultural claim is somewhat weak, as it relies on it being max unsigned int. That being said, the properties are major, and for a number that high (above a billion), I would argue that it is still a good concentration of interesting properties. Tigraan (talk) 09:44, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:06, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I am not a mathematician but was "good at math" as a student. Over the years, I have developed a respect for David Eppstein's expertise in this field. I find his analysis here persuasive, and Tigraan's comments strengthen my opinion. I encourage those editors to improve and add a few sources to the article, Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:09, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I've put in some references. It has quite a few geekish cultural significances. Also, is its presence in A222598 independent and sufficiently interesting? It is a "perfect totient number" (sequence A082897 in the OEIS) https://cs.uwaterloo.ca/journals/JIS/VOL6/Cohen2/cohen50.pdf but this doesn't mean what I first thought it did! Thincat (talk) 12:07, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Sandstein 10:46, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Anticancer Fund

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

Article about an organisation which does not seem to meet WP:GNG or WP:ORGDEPTH, The current references are primary or connected to the organisation. Searches bring up several mentions or statements by fund members but I couldn't find anything which significantly discusses the organisation. McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 15:24, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 15:25, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Belgium-related deletion discussions. McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 15:25, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete - There are numerous reliable sources on the subject upon a quick google search however, most only mention Anticancer Fund in passing. Meatsgains (talk) 22:55, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:04, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I've found some reasonable references.Rathfelder (talk) 17:04, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. User Rathfelder has added some references to the article and I think WP:GNG and WP:ORGDEPTH are met. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 14:03, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:20, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Michig (talk) 08:03, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Imitation of Christ (painting)

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

Article about a painting hung in a pub that caused a brief controversy in 2006 - a local politician complaining about it, as part of a the wider cultural theme of blasphemy in art. The artist and the owner of the work are both of questionable notability; only one source (that doesn't use the artwork's name - meaning that there's no reliable source for this article title); 'orphan' and 'needs more citation' tags have been in place for six years. An [admittedly brief] search didn't find any mention of this painting other than mirrors of Wikipedia. Witty lama 14:47, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ping Big Brother 1984 (original author). Witty lama 14:52, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Witty lama 14:52, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Witty lama 14:56, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, The pub's town is Hobart, Tasmania and if the pub attracts people (customers or not), then it should just be included on the town's page, which it's not and there is no picture of the pub on Commons either. I agree it doesn't deserve an article. So editing this comment to reflect delete rather than merge Jane (talk) 16:16, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:04, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is an unreferenced article about a non-notable painting that was briefly the subject of a media tempest in a teapot in Tasmania. As far as I can tell, it has never been shown in a museum or notable gallery and has never been the subject of analysis by professional art critics. If paintings were people, which they aren't, then this would be a BLP1E. The general principle applies, I think. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:47, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable painting. Missvain (talk) 07:00, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Uncontested. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:18, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Arif Nezami

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

Does not pass GNG. Ibrahim Husain Meraj (talk) 13:16, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. Ibrahim Husain Meraj (talk) 13:45, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Ibrahim Husain Meraj (talk) 13:45, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 20:39, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as none of this even satisfies the general notability, none of the current coverage is convincing enough. SwisterTwister talk 06:39, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:03, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The Dhaka Tribune is usually a reliable source, but in this case they've republished a list put out by SD ASIA, a company that creates "marketing access for entrepreneurs" and specializes in "PR & branding". Being on their "Inspiring individuals to follow in 2015 in Bangladesh" list is meaningless notability-wise. Searches of the usual Google types, HighBeam, and EBSCO found no significant coverage in independent reliable sources, so fails WP:BASIC. Worldbruce (talk) 06:12, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. -- RoySmith (talk) 00:03, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jay Foreman (comedian)

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

Not really anything notable. Created and contributed over time by SPA/COI often IP editors. Rayman60 (talk) 12:25, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. clpo13_(talk) 18:54, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. clpo13_(talk) 18:54, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as none of this satisfies the WP:ENTERTAINER notability, searches found nothing better. SwisterTwister talk 07:24, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:03, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep While I agree the SPA edits raise some flags, my searches find the subject has received notable coverage beyond what has been referenced in the article. The Londonist (01/10/13) , The Jewish Chronicle (1/27/11) and the Huffington Post UK (04/27/15) all have merit. ShelbyMarion (talk) 04:46, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete per WP:ENTERTAINER/WP:GNG. Lacks significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. — JJMC89 (T·C) 03:53, 13 March 2016 (UTC)~~ 06:49, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per the below sources found by Cunard to satisfy WP:GNG. — JJMC89 (T·C) 06:49, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in reliable sources.
1. Bray, Elisa (2011-01-27). "Young, gifted and making their mark". The Jewish Chronicle. Archived from the original on 2016-03-14. Retrieved 2016-03-14.
  The article notes:
2. Bennett, Steve (2013-08-20). "Jay Foreman: No More Colours". Chortle. Archived from the original on 2016-03-14. Retrieved 2016-03-14.
  The review notes:
3. "Comedian Jay Foreman swearing CD sold at kids show". BBC. 2013-02-19. Archived from the original on 2016-03-14. Retrieved 2016-03-14.
4. Patrick, Seb (July 2014). "WATCH: 'Unfinished London' is a Lighter Look at City Transport". BBC America. Archived from the original on 2016-03-14. Retrieved 2016-03-14.
  The article notes:
5. Vonledebur, Catherine (2015-07-01). "Godiva Festival 2015: Our guide for families and kids". Coventry Telegraph. Archived from the original on 2016-03-14. Retrieved 2016-03-14.
  The article notes:
6. Nsubuga, Jimmy (2013-10-02). "From Acton Town to Woodside Park: Learn the names of all 270 Tube stations with this handy song". Metro. Archived from the original on 2016-03-14. Retrieved 2016-03-14.
  The article notes:
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Jay Foreman to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 06:25, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Uncontested. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 23:28, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Shark Tank Việt Nam

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

Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Show has not started to air yet. —teb728 t c 12:08, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Indeed. No need for placeholder articles. There's no info here, the article is virtually blank. Plus Việt Nam is endonymic, we'd use Vietnam as and when this warranted an article.Rayman60 (talk) 12:29, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Vipinhari || talk 20:03, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Vietnam-related deletion discussions. Vipinhari || talk 20:03, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:03, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as it is too early now, WP:TOOSOON, and the name is incorrect, but no objection to recreation when the show airs. Atlantic306 (talk) 21:13, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Renaming or other editing changes should be considered through normal channels and procedures. postdlf (talk) 16:22, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

List of Apple drives

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

Drive#Technology lists several entries, but those thing have nothing in common, thus the article lists several unrelated types of hardware. There is also little detail. - Champion (talk) (contribs) (Formerly TheChampionMan1234) 06:23, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. - Champion (talk) (contribs) (Formerly TheChampionMan1234) 06:23, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That isn't a reason for deletion, but it could be a reason to rename the article to "List of Apple data storage devices" (as defined by Data storage device) or "List of Apple computer data storage devices" (Computer data storage). Peter James (talk) 10:17, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep Merge or just Redirect~~ Delete Different rules apply to article lists like this. It probably should just be renamed like suggested above. --Mr. Magoo (talk) 19:20, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I found this List of products discontinued by Apple Inc. where many of the products are already listed at "peripherals". --Mr. Magoo (talk) 16:28, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Many are, but a list of discontinued products could not include everything here (AirPort Time Capsule and the USB SuperDrive are current) so they couldn't be merged. Redirecting would imply that all devices are discontinued. Peter James (talk) 21:56, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, right, good point. --Mr. Magoo (talk) 22:21, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:26, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:02, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Move and modify - Move to "List of Apple storage drives" or similar (as recommended by @Peter James:) and either remove the statement that the list is in chronological order, or make it actually be in chronological order (I would also remove that it lists all apple drives). WikiWisePowder (talk) 03:52, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Michig (talk) 07:58, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Elite Techno Groups

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

Fails WP:CORP and WP:PROMO, Google searches turn up nothing reliable/independent, Indian English Newspapers Search turns up nothing reliable/independent Chrisw80 (talk) 04:11, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The creator, BISHNU PRATAP SINGH, is now blocked for socking; another account came out of nowhere to revert some changes I made. Drmies (talk) 13:08, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:01, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I found two brief mentions of the subject's involvement in student go-kart workshops ([15], [16]) but neither these nor the given references are sufficient in terms of either WP:CORPDEPTH or WP:GNG. AllyD (talk) 07:48, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 13:36, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 13:36, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete' as searches found nothing better. SwisterTwister talk 06:41, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Couldn't find any reliable coverage of the subject. Elaenia (talk) 05:49, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Been up for 3 weeks and IMHO it's only gonna gain more !Keeps (I personally would've !voted keep but seems kinda pointless after the continued relists so closing as such instead) (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 21:36, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Well to Hell hoax

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

It's not that this "well" is a hoax in the Wikipedia sense, but that the references that have been used to make a claim about its notability aren't adequate: podcasts, blogs, etc. are not considered reliable sources of information, and the fact that it was discussed on Snopes isn't evidence of notability (Snopes does its best to debunk every urban legend that has ever existed). The article includes no evidence of this hoax being discussed non-trivially in reliable, independent, published sources with broad readership, and my own search for such sources only turned up more unreliable ones (strangerdimensions.com, disclose.tv, mysteriousuniverse.org, etc.). KDS4444^Talk 08:54, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This is a fairly popular urban legend. Proving its notability is a little harder than I thought, but I still found multiple sources: [17] from The Mythology of Supernatural (published by Penguin Group), [18] from Satanism Today (published by ABC-CLIO), [19] in the Encyclopedia of Urban Legends (published by ABC-CLIO), [20] from Pacific Standard, and, finally, [21] from the Deseret News, which is kind of a repeat of the Encyclopedia of Urban Legends because it's written by Jan Harold Brunvand, who also wrote that book. Still, it shows that there's significant interest in this urban legend. There are also additional offline sources listed at bottom of the Snopes entry, such as an article in the Austin American-Statesman. I think a pretty decent rule of thumb is if Brunvand has written about it, it's notable. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 02:22, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 10:10, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 10:10, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 10:10, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, per ~~Shawn in Montreal~~NinjaRobotPirate, and per this article in the Argentine daily newspaper Página/12: Diez años desde que el infierno se posó en LAPA; and a mention at the bottom of this article in the Chilean daily La Tercera: Así es el sonido de uno de los agujeros más profundos de la Tierra. Peter Chastain ^[¡habla!] 08:51, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You mean per NinjaRobotPirate. I haven't recorded a !vote. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 12:25, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You are right; apologies for my mistake. Peter Chastain ^[¡habla!] 12:24, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:11, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:00, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 10:44, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Saori Nishihata

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

Two singles that were anime theme songs. Is there something in Oricon that indicates charting and notability beyond that? AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 04:53, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 04:54, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 04:54, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 04:54, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 04:54, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging Michitaro and Prosperosity on whether she charted in Oricon or other major ones in Japan.AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 04:57, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Her highest position was number 58, and according to the paid database she had two charting singles (Try to Wish at #58 and Hearts also at #58), though her other single and album didn't chart. --Prosperosity (talk) 05:56, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - She was known more as a variety show regular than a singer. She was under Horipro and graduated from their attached high school. Did the obligatory idol rotation (bikini covers, anime songs, variety shows) and was a regular on さまぁ〜ずげりらっパ for a few years [22] but quit everything back in 2005. Jun Kayama 06:11, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:10, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Lacks sufficient in-depth coverage or third-party sourcing to demonstrate basic notability. --DAJF (talk) 07:38, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:00, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - not enough in-depth coverage to show it passes WP:GNG, and doesn't meet WP:NMUSIC. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:24, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep. Michig (talk) 07:55, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Chaseholm Farm Creamery

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

Non notable firm, and the article reads like a press release (tho I think it was a class project). The only non-local RS is the coverage as one of the companies mentioned in the Modern Farmer article. DGG ( talk ) 01:49, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:04, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:04, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:04, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:07, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep coverage exists ([23][24][25]) and the article is not perfect but not bad enough to be a reason for deletion. Peter James (talk) 09:19, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:59, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Web search shows a significant number of sources, not all of which are local and not all of which are currently in the article. The farm is mentioned in several articles about modern farming or artisanal cheese production. Their farm also appears notable as its product is being marketed throughout the New York City area, including by Whole Foods. Quality of existing article is not a reason for deletion if reliable source support exists and the article could be improved. TheBlinkster (talk) 20:39, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as having enough sourcing to pass WP:GNG. VMS Mosaic (talk) 08:56, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. (non-admin closure) sst✈ 15:30, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Samuel Harjanne

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

Non-notable actor for English Wikipedia. Works point mostly to dub adaptations of other films with but a single reference to non-reliable source (voicechasers.com). AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 00:30, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 00:30, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 00:30, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 00:31, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Finland-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 00:31, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep per this search of coverage in Finnish sources. edtiorEهեইдအ😎 09:29, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:59, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as seems notable as a theatre director as shown in the RS identified above, I think he passes WP:BASIC Atlantic306 (talk) 22:38, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:58, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the references provided aren't enough to establish notability. A quick search did little to alleviate this. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 00:57, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - voice actor, but more importantly, a voice director for the Finnish dubs of major films and television shows. Scanlan (talk) 03:21, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of Pinoy Big Brother: 737 housemates. (non-admin closure) sst✈ 15:30, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Kenzo Gutierrez

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

Yet another unremarkable Pinoy Big Brother housemate. Although I can vaguely remember his name as I watched PBB last year, I couldn't find enough independent coverage about him; the closest I could find was some affiliated sources which discussed a past relationship with Julia Barretto, but that isn't really enough to establish notability. As for his acting career, outside of PBB he's so far had only two minor roles in two different series, so at best I guess he's a case of WP:TOOSOON. Not against a redirect to Pinoy Big Brother: 737, though. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 02:30, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 02:34, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 02:34, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as none of this satisfies WP:ENTERTAINER and apparently also the athlete notability. SwisterTwister talk 04:03, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:58, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of Pinoy Big Brother: 737 housemates. Contestants on reality shows like Big Brother have generally been redirected to the appropriate section of the list page unless they have a fairly overwhelming level of notability on their own. Other than some "gossip" articles, I can't really find anything notable about this person, so this seems like the best solution. —Tom Morris (talk) 08:55, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Konami#Video games. The "keep" opinions don't make policy-based arguments. Sandstein 10:44, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The End (video game)

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

Article topic lacks significant coverage from reliable, independent sources. (?) It had no meaningful hits in a video game reliable sources custom Google search. No hits in MobyGames database either. A redirect to a Konami list as a search term would be fine. czar 02:11, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. czar 02:12, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This is a game from a significant company (Konami) representing one of their earliest games distributed in the United States, so there is historical value. A redirect removes all of the information currently on the page except the name. Dgpop (talk) 04:18, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome to expand the list at the redirect target to contain some basic information about the game (from reliable sources), but we don't have nearly enough information for a full article about this arcade game as it stands. czar 07:44, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I don't know if it's notable or not (had a bit of difficulty finding sources about it), but I noticed it's a copy of the Space Invaders type of a game. There were many mentions of copycats in the Space Invaders article. However, I looked into the sources of The End if the sources had mentions of the copycattism as well. As it happens, they do, but of Galaxian and Rip-Off (which copied Space Invaders but further refined the style). The former had a very large section for just its copycats: Galaxian#Games featuring elements of Galaxian. I think even a two-sentence paragraph could be added about The End there. --Mr. Magoo (talk) 14:13, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I added a mention of The End there in any case. --Mr. Magoo (talk) 14:24, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete at best for now because none of this satisfies the applicable video games notability, nothing else convincing. SwisterTwister talk 07:05, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:57, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Video game with historical value. Sander.v.Ginkel ^(Talk) 17:17, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Konami#Video games. Not enough coverage to warrant standalone article. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:28, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Onel5969, ~~or maybe even week keep, based on the references in the article, which are marginal, but perhaps enough~~. -- RoySmith (talk) 00:02, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

On second thought, just go with the redirect. -- RoySmith (talk) 00:03, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Consensus that adequate sourcing is not to be found. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:14, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Front End Friday

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

No indication of notability. Reddit and Instagram are not reliable sources. The article was deprodded by its creator Elandres. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 00:50, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relocating the Article

As I said <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Front_End_Friday>: I understand issues with the articles notability and references. However, before it is removed I would like to add its redeemable content to an appropriate article. I would appreciate recommendations of that and any other advice on how to amend said article. Anecdotally, I actually stumbled upon the expression "Front End Friday" when posting #fef on Twitter referring to the Ecuador's national football team (Federación Ecuatoriana de Fútbol). However, after checking its use among others, I was surprised to see that the entirety of its users were auto enthusiasts with my now new understanding of its use. I'm probably not the first to realize this, but the first to want to document this in a space that people trust, so as to prevent any confusion. Having a top-listed article for "#fef" searches, is preferable to me than the more inquisitive, brute force method I had to employ. Arguably, a better space for this would be Urban Dictionary, and I understand if its not wanted here.Elandres (talk) 01:12, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In addition to the above, when I first considered how to format the content of the article, I referred to the Throw Back Thursday article. Looking back it now, it is a very simple page (similar to the one I wrote) with very succinct set of facts. The only major difference is that the #tbt page does have a reference (a Sports Illustrated article). This difference is a consequence of #tbt usage being more widespread than #fef, and thus garnered enough recognition to have a journalist cover the phenomenon (for lack of a better term). But that does not detract from widespread use of #fef and its most popular meaning. So I did a little extra research to see if its being written about, but its not. The best I could come up with is the original Reddit thread I found. I understand that is not reliable enough, and still support the idea of relocating the content.Elandres (talk) 01:36, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:09, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:09, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:09, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:56, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I can't find any sources to demonstrate notability. The article itself cites Instagram and Reddit. About the most reliable thing I can find on Google is an Urban Dictionary entry. —Tom Morris (talk) 08:52, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Sure there are mentions on social media, but there aren't any actual articles from reliable sources to show this is a thing. Elaenia (talk) 06:53, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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