Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2016 April 22

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< 21 April 23 April >

Purge server cache

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

The result was keep. Notability has been established during the course of this discussion. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 11:14, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jacky Lafon[edit]

Jacky Lafon (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NACTOR and WP:GNG JMHamo (talk) 23:50, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as I basically still question this article's notability and there's simply nothing else actually suggesting better. SwisterTwister talk 00:19, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • See WP:NEXIST. Simply perusing articles provided in the Google News link atop this page provides coverage in reliable sources about the subject, as the headline topic no less. There's plenty "suggesting better". North America1000 13:09, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 00:19, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Belgium-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 00:19, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep-I was going to say delete, but checking out the Netherlands wiki and she seems to have quite a bit of info, I think her page just needs expanding. Wgolf (talk) 03:00, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep – Meets WP:NACTOR and WP:BASIC. Source examples include: [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8]. Some, but not all of these are short articles, but WP:BASIC states that multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability when the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial. North America1000 17:03, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This article just needs some work. Thanks. Picomtn (talk) 20:32, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note I've started to expand this article and hope others can bear with me as there are too many sources for this articles subject to accomplish this effort in just a day. Thanks. Picomtn (talk) 21:22, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question Hi @JMHamo: and @SwisterTwister:(cc @Doug Weller:@Checkingfax:) Would you be so kind as to state your objections to this article and explain your own researh so that I won't duplicate your efforts. I may be missing something as everything I've found shows this articles subject to be very notable. Thanks. Picomtn (talk) 21:29, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment @Picomtn: YouTube is not a Reliable Source and you can't use Wikipedia as a reference either, see WP:CIRCULAR.. I've removed them. JMHamo (talk) 21:35, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @JMHamo: Thank you for letting me know about Youtube, and I've replaced that link with one from VTM that WP policies say I should have done in the first place, sorry about that. As for WP:NL not being reliable? That's a confusing issue for me, but not really critical for this issue as I just put it in as a sort of quick reference until I'm able to sort through the over 85 sources I've found to fill out this article. And again, can you please tell me your exact objections to this articles subject? Thanks. Picomtn (talk) 21:50, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question Hi @JMHamo: I fail to see the logic of your removing the link I replaced the YouTube link with as that is exactly what Wikipedia:Videos as references says to do. Can you explain please? Thanks. Picomtn (talk) 21:56, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep There seems to be sufficient coverage in Het Laatste Nieuws and Het Nieuwsblad. There wasn't when the article was nominated, but on the other hand a news search on her name turned up enough so I@m not clear why this was nominated. Doug Weller talk 13:07, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy delete as WP:A7 and WP:G11. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 03:39, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Essay-giant.com[edit]

Essay-giant.com (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

A promotional dump-and-run article for an online essay mill using freelance writers. Despite the impressive-looking list of sources, the article has no reliable sources that actually mention the company. There are three citations to the company's own (less than impressive and not fully functional) website, and everything else is an offline citation to various papers on freelancing, all published before the creation of Essay-giant, and which I doubt very much mention this company. I have been unable to find any reliable sources that confirm this company's existence. Fails WP:GNG, WP:CORP and WP:WEBSITE (since I'm not sure this really qualifies as a company). No objection if anyone thinks this could be speedied A7, but it's been here for 5 weeks. Meters (talk) 23:47, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • I'm going to speedy it as A7 and G11. None of the non-primary sources deal with this website and the article is so incredibly spammy that it'd easily be considered unambiguously promotional. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 03:37, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete--Anthony Bradbury"talk" 16:08, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Pintoblin[edit]

Pintoblin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG. The IP user 83.137.253.20 reverted the redirect to Goblin to a non-redirect. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 23:35, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per WP:MADEUP. I can find no indication that this term is used in anything resembling a reliable source, nor even anything available on the internet other than a few like the Free Dictionary reference apparently copied from Wikipedia [9]. So even the previous redirect seems unnecessary. --Arxiloxos (talk) 23:57, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Not a single reliable source could be found. Sam Sailor Talk! 11:19, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:10, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:10, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete--Anthony Bradbury"talk" 16:10, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ChemSep[edit]

ChemSep (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Been deleted twice as WP:CSD#G11, and recreated again and again. Still just here as an advert. No references of any substance. Ronhjones  (Talk) 23:23, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Someone somewhere is telling people that peristence works in Wikipedia, which is generally not true-- it's just a waste of editor time.HappyValleyEditor (talk) 06:24, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:51, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:51, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:51, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Using the search tool, I only found either ChemSep's own website or download sites. I also don't believe that this meets WP:GNG. JumpiMaus (talk) 16:14, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as nothing suggesting better of the notability improvements. SwisterTwister talk 04:52, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete.  Sandstein  08:31, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yuwei Shi[edit]

Yuwei Shi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

cannot identify any of the factors that would meet WP:PROF. his web page at his university lists 3 books--which I can not verify, not even in Amazon, and 30 papers--I can verify them, but the citation are only 76,29,19 etc, which is too low in this field. DGG ( talk ) 23:00, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as I myself found this article the last hour and I knew it was questionable the exact second I saw it since none of this actually suggests the applicable solid independent notability. Delete of course for now. SwisterTwister talk 23:22, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 23:22, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 23:22, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 23:22, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 23:22, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010Talk 23:24, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jose Figueroa deportation case[edit]

Jose Figueroa deportation case (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:SINGLEEVENT and WP:GNG. Seems to be written by an editor with a clear COI JMHamo (talk) 21:38, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as clearly nothing suggesting a solidly notable and thus acceptable article. Nothing else convincing here, SwisterTwister talk 22:57, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 22:58, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 22:58, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 22:58, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of El Salvador-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 22:58, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep – As an event, the topic has received ongoing significant coverage in reliable sources. As such, it meets WP:GNG and does not fail WP:SINGLEEVENT, because in part per WP:SINGLEEVENT, "The general rule in many cases is to cover the event, not the person". Source examples include those listed below. See also: WP:NEXIST. North America1000 17:33, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep articles in The Star and The Globe and Mail show that this case has significance across Canada. For significance abroad, you just need to search for "José Figueroa" "deportación" and you will find articles in the USA and El Salvador. Passes WP:GNG hands down. Thanks and regards, Biwom (talk) 06:12, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Event covered by articles in national newspapers indicates notability to me. I am unclear as to the relevance of WP:SINGLEEVENT: I think a biographical article on Jose Figueroa himself would fall foul of it, but I don't see how an article on the event for which he is notable can do. The fact that the article is substantially written by an editor with a COI is not to me a reason to delete it, though it might be a reason that it needs cleaning up. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 15:22, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete--Anthony Bradbury"talk" 16:17, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew Romanelli[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Andrew Romanelli (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Put this up for a AFD a year and a half ago with no response from anybody. Anyway a writer with questionable notability, I am having problems finding anything about him as well. Wgolf (talk) 20:29, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 21:41, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and I avidly believe A7 is best for this as regardless of the first AfD, this is not the first time at all an article has been speedied despite an AfD. Clearly nothing at all for at least minimally better notability. SwisterTwister talk 23:08, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 23:08, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete being a poet in and of itself does not make him notable. What are his works that have recived review, been included in anthologies, or even been published by others them himself? This article has nothing to establish notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:50, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Please also look at this version of the article, before it was eviscerated in 2013 by an SPA. Though it probably only shows why an A7 would have been inappropriate rather than giving any reason to keep the article. PWilkinson (talk)
  • Delete. Nothing here (or in the pre-blanking version from 2013 either) constitutes a substantive WP:AUTHOR pass, and no reliable source coverage at all has been cited in either version. And the blanking was actually semi-justified, as well, since the pre-blanking version contained both an advertorial slant and some unsourced WP:BLP issues. A writer is not automatically entitled to a Wikipedia article just because he exists — reliable source coverage which verifies a proper claim of notability (rather than mere existence) must be present to support one, but nothing remotely like that has ever been shown in any version of this article all the way back to its original creation. Bearcat (talk) 16:56, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.


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

The result was redirect to Prince (musician)#Illness and death. Clear consensus to delete or redirect, but some editors voted delete per WP:TOOSOON, and expressed the opinion that the topic may gain notability in the future. This article is reasonably well-developed, so closing this as redirect would allow its page history to be accessible by everyone. "Death of Prince" is a plausible search term for this topic, so keeping this as a redirect is appropriate. (non-admin closure) SSTflyer 12:02, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Death of Prince[edit]

Death of Prince (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Reactions to the death of Prince (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

There's nothing even remotely notable about his death to warrant a separate article. He died, end of story. The Prince article is sufficient. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 18:39, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Wikipedia is not a news site, and currently it seems that there is nothing non-newsy to write about. Try Wikinews for this type of content. —Kusma (t·c) 18:49, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The quality of the writing of this article is crap but only because 1 or 2 editors have worked on it for about 15 minutes. The amount of material is staggering and the outline suggests much more can be written. When we look at other famous contemporaries to Prince, like Michael Jackson and Jimi Hendricks, both have "Death of __-" articles. Add to that there are public relations lies, such as the flu, and the vast outpouring of grief, there is much to write. If we look at the reliable sources, there are many about the death of Prince, not just about Prince. BIG NOTE: Death of Jimi Hendricks is a Featured Article, showing that certain big deaths are really Wikipedia materials. (Personal attack removed) Nomination of this as an AFD and the nominator making the budding article worse by removing stuff is [wrong].(Personal attack removed) No one in their right mind is going to help improve the article if there is an AFD cloud over its head so we should close this as a keep and revisit it in about 1 month....that is the fair way, (Personal attack removed).Purple Showers (talk) 20:16, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note. The above editor was blocked indefinitely by a checkuser. Note also that the comment has been refactored to avoid comments that enter the realm of personal attacks. —C.Fred (talk) 03:19, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Struck !vote of block-evading sockpuppet. Softlavender (talk) 03:46, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The death of this notable person does not need it's own article, a this point the person's main article is all that is needed; when the results of what killed him come out and it's significant enough then maybe but until then this article is not needed.KDTW Flyer (talk) 00:29, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
1) It's "its" not "it's". 2) Duplicate !vote Kingoflettuce (talk) 08:10, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The Prince Wikipedia article is already over 125KB, per WP:SIZE this is a valid content fork. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 00:50, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
All this IP has ever done is to comment on this. Kingoflettuce (talk) 08:10, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. If anyone feels strongly that this article has potential, that user should work on it in their sandbox for now. Her Pegship (talk) 22:30, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Such suggestion violates Wikipedia rules. If this suggestion is followed for all articles, Wikipedia could not exist because it takes several editors to collaborate. We have to evaluate if the Death of Prince is a big thing (which it is) compared to the Death of Patty Duke, a famous actress. There are lots of coverage on the Death of Prince, but not much on the Death of Patty Duke. Therefore KEEP. Purple Showers (talk) 23:15, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
As noted above, this user has been indefinitely blocked. —C.Fred (talk) 03:57, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please link to the relevant Wikipedia rules, and note that no one suggested that all articles be created in this way. No one is contesting that the death of Prince is an important milestone, only that a separate article on the event may not be necessary in this venue. Her Pegship (talk) 23:28, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and I would've suggested exploring to Prince but that may still be vague as the name "Death of Prince" could be to anyone else. Delete at this is unlikely better for its own article. SwisterTwister talk 23:01, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 23:01, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 23:01, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Everything I've read so far says that there's nothing particularly out of the ordinary about his death. It wasn't a homicide, suicide, no foul play suspected etc. Once the autopsy is out, his death will probably just be summed up in a sentence or two. It's better to be presented as a subsection in the main Prince article. Sergecross73 msg me 23:50, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete People die all the time. Notable people don't need an article documenting how they died. Especially since we don't know how Prince died! This cruft is almost as bad as the "reactions to the death of Prince" article. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:31, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I am seeing notable tributes in the form of cover songs dedicated to Prince by Chris Cornell [10], to having his music goto #1 on the Billboard top #200. [11]. There are also questions on who will inherit his fortune. [12] per WP:LASTING this should be kept, and improved upon. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 00:35, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
His Ex-wife is also building a school in his honor. [13] - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 00:40, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
A death article may be warranted, but right now it's too soon. We don't even know the cause of death yet. Notable content, such as his music going to #1, can go in his regular article. Content solely about Cornell covering him is not notable at all, but if there are a substantial number of prominent artists covering him, then that can also be added. Dirroli (talk) 03:24, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete. This was already discussed on the talk page of the main article. There's absolutely no reason to have a trumped-up hour-by-hour NEWS reporting of Prince's death. A well-known entertainer died. Happens all the time. Softlavender (talk) 00:50, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Softlavender: Really, how many do you know of that have other famous people do cover songs about them, or have buildings built in their honor? These are notable lasting reactions. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 00:52, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
To repeat, a famous entertainer died. Happens all the time. We have a newbie editor with less than 160 edits to his name creating an ill-advised completely non-notable article. It needs to go before anyone wastes any more time on it. Softlavender (talk) 01:09, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You aren't thinking outside the box though, and looking at the current state of the article. I have provided some sources to expand upon. We don't know the cause of his death yet no, but there have been as I said lasting reactions. Keep in mind that per WP:SIZE the main article is over 125KB as it is. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 01:17, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Softlavender: Which speedy delete criteria do you think this meets?  Rebbing  01:33, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
A10. Softlavender (talk) 01:37, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note the bolded text in the policy: A10 is for articles that duplicate existing topics without "expand[ing] upon, detail[ing] or improv[ing] information." This clearly adds material that isn't already in the primary article; this is not A10 territory. Note that I'm not saying this shouldn't be deleted early as a snowball close; I'm just saying it's not a candidate for speedy deletion.  Rebbing  02:47, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I never said it was "a candidate for speedy deletion"; I merely !voted that it should be speedily deleted. This is AfD, not CSD. Softlavender (talk) 03:37, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I am the creator of the reactions article and recommend merge. That AFD is mostly delete. Therefore, the above post is canvasssing and illegal. Therefore, the deciding administrator should be aware of voter misconduct and decide on a keep. Whiskeymouth (talk) 03:55, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Whiskeymouth: Softlavender's notification was appropriate. Did you even read WP:CANVASS before making this accusation? There's nothing "illegal" per se about notifying editors of ongoing discussions; Softlavender pinged a limited group of editors—everyone who participated in a particular AfD—without bias. That's clearly permissible under the policy. Add to that the fact that someone copied without attribution (diff) pretty much all of Reactions to the death of Prince into this article after that article had been nominated for deletion, which was both a violation of our copyright, see WP:ATTREQ, and a blatant circumvention of the deletion discussion, cf. WP:EDITATAFD (essay) ("Participants in deletion discussions should not circumvent consensus by merging or copying material to another article unilaterally before the debate closes.").  Rebbing  04:25, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete far too soon when we don't even know how he died yet, and all meaningful content can easily be covered in main article. Snuggums (talk / edits) 01:35, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No need for this as of now. It can always be recreated if more information is discovered later. --Ser Amantio di NicolaoChe dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 01:43, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete It's WP:Coatrack, and vis-à-vis Death of David Bowie there simply isn't an array of homages from notables outside of pop culture, President Obama's statement aside. kencf0618 (talk) 02:09, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Prince#Illness and death per section below Delete Not independently notable of Prince. Unlikely to be independently notable given the nature of his death (per sergecross73). A lot of news coverage at the time of his death ≠ notability. Even if it may be independently notable in the future (which I find unlikely), Wikipedia is not a crystal ball so we should wait until it is independently notable which is not now. Wugapodes (talk) 02:37, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep This is certainly a big subject. The national news on TV have had lengthy segments for 2 nights in a row, which is much different from the usual short mention one evening or even one medium length story for one evening. There is another article on reactions, which I am a major editor, but now think should be merged into this one. This article on the Death of Prince meets Wikipedia guidelines for notability. Therefore, it should be kept. Also note that the quality of the article is far better than when many of the above delete votes were casts. At that time, the article was pure crap. Whiskeymouth (talk) 02:52, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Calm down and be patient. We don't even know the cause of death yet. There's nothing notable at this point to justify the article. If that changes, it can easily be recreated. Dirroli (talk) 03:08, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
not true, once destroyed and deleted, nobody will create it for fear of being banned using the excuse "disruption" or "vandalism". Whiskeymouth (talk) 03:20, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Respectfully, that's nonsense. Or comedy. Dirroli (talk) 03:27, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This article will no doubt come back to the mainspace once more information comes out. I am unsure of having the article at the moment, though I do see it coming back very soon. --TheDomain (talk) 03:35, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete per nom. No way a separate article is needed.--JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds 03:39, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
additional comment "Needed" is not a Wikipedia criteria. WP:GNG is a criteria for AFD. It passes. Specifically,
  • "Significant coverage" addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material.
  • "Reliable" means sources need editorial integrity to allow verifiable evaluation of notability, per the reliable source guideline. Sources may encompass published works in all forms and media, and in any language. Availability of secondary sources covering the subject is a good test for notability.
  • "Sources"[2] should be secondary sources, as those provide the most objective evidence of notability. There is no fixed number of sources required since sources vary in quality and depth of coverage, but multiple sources are generally expected.[3] Sources do not have to be available online or written in English. Multiple publications from the same author or organization are usually regarded as a single source for the purposes of establishing notability.
  • "Independent of the subject" excludes works produced by the article's subject or someone affiliated with it. For example, advertising, press releases, autobiographies, and the subject's website are not considered independent.[4]
Viola! You can dislike the article, you can not like the Wikipedia criteria, but Death of Prince easily meets the criteria. Since Wikipedia is not a vote, it is a strong keep as it meets the requirements for an article Likewise, the Death of Roger Bradshaw is NOT notable as it only has this minor mention http://wcfcourier.com/lifestyles/announcements/obituaries/death-notices-for-thursday-april/article_a5cea86e-7d3f-5bcd-92c7-11aa8b957b78.html Whiskeymouth (talk) 03:46, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Whiskeymouth, with respect, you are confusing temporary newsworthiness with significant longterm notability. The same sort of uptick in news happened recently the same way when David Bowie, Alan Rickman, Robin Williams, and Phillip Seymour Hoffmann died in recent memory. But that doesn't confer encyclopedic notewrthiness -- it just creates a large temporary media swell dwelling on the person and their career and significance. There was absolutely nothing unusual about Prince's death (except possibly that he was somewhat young, and he had also been out of the general public awareness for quite a long time). Both of those factors create a surpise when the person dies -- but it doesn't last. Softlavender (talk) 04:00, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You forgot the last part of the WP:GNG: ""Presumed" means that significant coverage in reliable sources creates an assumption, not a guarantee, that a subject should be included. A more in-depth discussion might conclude that the topic actually should not have a stand-alone article—perhaps because it violates what Wikipedia is not"(emphasis mine) Commenters here have argued that this article does not merit a stand alone article and many (including myself) have pointed to WP:What Wikipedia is not. Wugapodes (talk) 04:08, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yup. VQuakr (talk) 04:10, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You haven't countered the WP:LASTING argument I provided above, these discussions are measured on weights of comments not by WP:VOTEs. I do not see any difference between this article and Death of David Bowie. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 04:24, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Death of David Bowie wasn't created until 4.5 weeks after he died, when it was evident there was some actual significant content for it beyond merely rehashing and unnecessarily expanding the information in the main article and citing Twitter and Facebook. Softlavender (talk) 04:31, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Did you take a look at the sources I provided above? Yeah there are rehashes of generic quotes but there are things that are sticking out, please at least address it. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 04:33, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
No no no no, this is ridiculous and needs to stop. Death of David Bowie should be deleted too. There needs to be solid ground rules on musicians. They are specifically unimportant, I don't care how special or artistic or 'deep' you think music is. Musicians certainly don't need a separate article describing their death, unless and ONLY IF their death was so elaborate and complicated, that it actually does warrant a separate article. Crystal.seed (talk) 05:06, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I have to personally agree that Death of David Bowie is largely trivial, NEWS-type, dog-bites-man, extremely redundant stuff and should be deleted. There was nothing significant about his death; he died quietly of cancer. Softlavender (talk) 05:20, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Reactions & things like dedications count towards the death of someone important. The article passes WP:LASTING in what has been done, and what is going to be done. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 17:24, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note to Administrator: This cannot be done. I merge it and there was a fight at the main Prince article and it was removed. On the other hand, this sub-article is stable and not subject to edit wars. Therefore, suggesting merging is just drama and will lead to the destruction of information (like book burning). Sorry, this article meets WP:GNG and is stable but will result in contentious debates and edit warring if forced to merge with the main article. Whiskeymouth (talk) 04:59, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Whiskeymouth, you don't know what you are talking about. A WP:REDIRECT is not a WP:MERGE -- it's just a blanking and redirecting. The article's history is kept, but none of its contents are used unless the article merits recreating at some distant time in the future. Softlavender (talk) 05:06, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Whiskeymouth: content inclusion is subject to editorial discretion; get consensus at the main article talk page. Article creation shouldn't be used as an end-run around consensus. VQuakr (talk) 06:56, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I think everything this article says or might say can fit inside the article on Prince in a sub-section named appropriately. Ralphw (talk) 03:48, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Abstain Carry on deleting. InedibleHulk (talk) 04:20, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This article is an overreaction. I've been listening to his music over the past few days in mourning, just like many people. Regardless, a separate article is not warranted. KyuuA4 (Talk:キュウ) 06:34, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep I am opposed to deleting this article. It does indeed contain substantial additional information. I believe they tried to merge it already which resulted in an deleat of the merged material with-out proper process. Now I remember when Wikipedia first came out, it was suppose to be the place where everyone could come up with any article they wanted. Now, it appears only a small elite can create articles, even editing by the public at large is discouraged unofficially, IMHO. Magnum Serpentine (talk) 06:52, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It's never been the case that anyone could create any article they wanted. WP:N has always applied, to every editor and every article. —BillC talk 10:27, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not enough to have its own article. Sander.v.Ginkel (Talk) 08:05, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Non-encylopaedic POVFORK. Delete per wikipedia is not news, obituary, memorial etc., etc...One of the main arguments for keep has been wp:otherstuffexists, however, as others have pointed out these are of markedly different situations. Thus far it does not meet GNG and is a prime example of wp:recentism. It may in the future meet GNG, but at this point in time it does not. The existence of coverage is not a sufficient reason for inclusion. Hollth (talk) 08:44, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and write something similar within the Prince article. We have a section on his death there, no need for a sub-article. --Ches (talk) (contribs) 09:00, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. There is nothing of singular notoriety about the death or its circumstances. Moreover, the rapid flurry to edit around this is substantially recentist, and it will be many weeks before we have the information and answers required to present an encyclopedic account of his passing. Finally, allowing the precedent that celebrities demand additional articles at their passing is an unhelpful one, given the longterm challenge of maintaining at high quality even one article per subject. Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 09:13, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect for time being, the content might get large enough to be spun out into this article but right now it's WP:TOOSOON. Lasting effects have been mentioned but until such time those effects are known then we keep it as part of the main article until they are known (and there's enough notable events to justify such a spinout). tutterMouse (talk) 10:22, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete/redirect. There is nothing that makes his death, while sad, in any way different and more notable to any other famous person's. —BillC talk 10:27, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Thanks SoftLavender for the heads up. Article is sort of a mirror to Reactions to the death of Prince. This article in particular reads off like a Newspaper - WP:NOTNEWS and a death about a famous person doesn't need its own article unless it has some significance. For example Robin Williams has a whole section for his death on his article and reaction, but Michael Jackson has another article for his death because it was part of a drug overdose which resulted in a trail for manslaughter. Unless Prince was killed by another person, which most likely he wasn't because of falling health being reported, he doesn't need two separate articles about death. Adog104 Talk to me 13:17, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete While it is incredibly sad that he has passed away there isn't anything specifically notable about it. This isn't like with Michael Jackson where there was so much controversy surrounding it and him.*Treker (talk) 14:28, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - The article for Prince Nelson is over 130 kB, so splitting articles from it will reduce its size. Merge Reactions to the death of Prince into Death of Prince per WP:CHEAP, as the former is too small for its own article, so long as Death of Prince exists. There is no reason to delete the information in Death of Prince without retaining its history. Additionally, assuming that title "Death of Prince" is ambiguous, we can change the title to something like "Death of Prince Rogers Nelson". If this article cannot be kept, its history should be kept via a merge into Prince Nelson. --Jax 0677 (talk) 14:38, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:41, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Two editor support keeping the article for WP:SIZE reasons, saying "Prince (musician) is already over 125KB, per WP:SIZE this is a valid content fork". Prince (musician) is however only 53 kB (9116 words) "readable prose size" in its current revision. Sam Sailor Talk! 16:05, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Unnecessary CFORK with an unreasonable amount of POV. Cut away the trivial details and there's nothing there currently that can't be covered in subject's main article. Sam Sailor Talk! 16:26, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Satisfies Wikipedia criteria for notability. Enough information to support an article and too much information for the large Prince (biography article) to accommodate. TeacherA (talk) 18:12, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to relevant section in Prince (musician) — JFG talk 21:43, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect: User:JayJay summed it nicely. -- 2ReinreB2 (talk) 00:03, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect: Seems like the best option to me for now. –Qpalzmmzlapq T C 02:05, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and merge with main Prince article, similar to how there's no separate "Death of Elvis Presley" article, both being significant musical icons. Arbor to SJ (talk) 03:08, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • There is, however, an article on the death of SRV, though I tried hard to stop that. Maybe y'all can look at that next, haha. Drmies (talk) 03:40, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Post-haste Deletion Torch building on fire. Celebrity worship is pretentious, it's definitely not encyclopedic. Crystal.seed (talk) 04:06, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Not encyclopedic" is an empty argument. It means "not worthy of being included in an encyclopedia", which is synonymous with "should not be included" or "I want it deleted". So when you use it as a justification for deleting something, it's a circular argument: "Delete, because it should be deleted". This is just repeating yourself. What we want to know are your reasons why the article shouldn't be included in Wikipedia. Simply answer the question, What guidelines does it violate, and how? The Transhumanist 08:44, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
And you seem to be arguing just for the sake of argument. It is of my personal opinion that you have nothing better to do. I am having trouble believing that you are genuine, that you honestly believe anyone, no matter how popular they are, deserves a separate article related to their death. I ever so personally believe you are being disruptive, and are purposely avoiding the use of common sense. The only valid exception in creating a separate article related to anyones death would be if the situation was so elaborate, that it would actually require a separate article to reduce a significant amount of clutter. Crystal.seed (talk) 17:50, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
See WP:NOTNEWS, WP:NOTMEMORIAL, WP:NOTEVERYTHING, and WP:NOTINDISCRIMINATE. They should answer your questions. -- Softlavender (talk) 08:49, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I think if you look in most encyclopedias you won't find "Death of" articles, the death will be documented in the article on the person who died. In that way it is not encyclopedic. HighInBC 08:53, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
No other encyclopedia has all these articles about high schools, porn stars, and even TV episodes. This AFD should be a keep because it exceeds all of those as far as notability and reliable sources. A big problem is that the Wikipedia criteria were not well written but that is not an AFD issue but a Wikipedia wide issue that should be discussed elsewhere and this article kept. Whiskeymouth (talk) 05:26, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
HighInBC, The Transhumanist has wholesale pasted this article into Prince (musician) twice just now. I've left him a final warning on his talk page. Can you (or other admins) put Prince (musician) on your watch lists for now to ensure he doesn't repeat that and to block him if he does? Softlavender (talk) 09:30, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It will have to be someone else. I am involved in this content dispute and thus cannot act in an admin in this matter. HighInBC 09:52, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note A common theme seems to be displeasure with having these death articles. However, this should not result in attacking this article as an AFD but rather a Wikipedia-wide discussion on how if we want to modify our GNG and N criteria for article inclusion. Wikipedia is not a vote as has been written many, many times in other AFDs. Wikipedia is not an "I don't like it so delete". Already, we have seen that this article is too detailed and big for the main Prince article but sufficiently detailed and appropriate for a Death of Prince article. Whiskeymouth (talk) 05:23, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: One of the worst things about having this redundant WP:CONTENTFORK article is that it is accumulating misinformation and is not being corrected the same way Prince (musician) is. Therefore we have two or three articles that contradict each other. Editors shouldn't have to check or fix three different articles when they are making a correction or update re: Prince (musician). That is why I believe it/they should be speedily deleted. Softlavender (talk) 05:26, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Facepalm Facepalm: The article creator has created Category:Notable deaths of musicians. -- Softlavender (talk) 05:39, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Every person dies, and nothing about this death is particularly notable other than the fact that the person who died was notable. Well that is why we have an article about them. No objection to leaving a redirect, while someone typing it is unlikely there may already be external links to it. HighInBC 05:41, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The continuing coverage about his death and related aspects is very notable. Whiskeymouth (talk) 05:26, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
That makes him notable, not the death. The news is because of who died, not because the death itself was notable. The day the music died is a notable event about peoples death, The death of Elvis was a notable event but only because of who died, and that is why we cover it in Elvis. HighInBC 15:23, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep Prince's death has triggered a significant outpouring of grief. As it stands now, there is plenty of noteworthy coverage with respect to the death. It is notable as an event on its own -- and in this case I would argue that notability is inherited, Prince being a notable figure would mean his death, especially how sudden and shocking it was, has an acceptable degree of notability. Info would get swamped if merger to main were to happen. Kingoflettuce (talk) 08:08, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • If years later this is still true then I would agree with you. But there is a significant reaction because it is happening now. We should not edit based on recentism. Even the Elvis does not have a Death of Elvis page, and there was certainly a greater reaction to his death at the time. HighInBC 08:21, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's a separate article; each case merits its own arguments -- but ever consider that the converse could be argued? We could make a case for the Elvis death article? Not existing doesn't mean existence shouldn't be. Kingoflettuce (talk) 09:02, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am talking about this article. My point is that a lot of important people have died and there was a great amount of fuss about it. I am providing an argument against the idea that a lot of reaction immediately after a death makes the death itself a notable event. It was an eventuality. Right now we don't even know how the death occurred. It is not encyclopedic to have an article on a death unless the death itself had importance beyond the person who died, otherwise it belongs in the article about the person. If it turns out to be an assassination or something unusual I will revisit my opinion. HighInBC 09:09, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete (at least for now) - this is hero worship in an ugly, ugly way. I know there are articles similar to this, and they are just as ugly, but let's stay with this one for the moment. The cause of death isn't even known yet. People are acting frantic and maudlin and far too fraught with emotion to be done well. WE ARE NOT IN A HURRY. He will still be dead next week and the week after. Let's all cool our jets and wait for the sound to noise ratio of shock, grief, tribute covers, commemorative mugs, etc. to abate so we can approach this with clearer head. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 08:25, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Such criteria is not a Wikipedia policy or even a guideline. You can wait a week or two before editing the article and adding stuff. Whiskeymouth (talk) 05:16, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep His unexpected death and the worldwide response to it are similar to Michael Jackson's, so I don't see why Wikipedia should delete this when we do retain Death of Michael Jackson. MackyBeth (talk) 10:33, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete --ThurnerRupert (talk) 11:54, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please Keeeep! --SlimShady1017 People need to know the truth and cold-hard facts regarding his death.Please maintain the article. —Preceding undated comment added 13:26, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Keep This way all the frantic editing due to more news emerging every day stay in one separate article instead of spilling over into the main article. After a while, when things are settled, it can be decided if it should be kept or merged with the main article. - Takeaway (talk) 13:34, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete any meaningful content is already in the main article. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 14:33, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Disclaimer: I am not a lawyer and do not know all the legal technicalities to argue a Wikipedia case so do not attack me or my comments. I read the Prince article then this Death of Prince article. While I wouldn't expect to see such article in the print version of World Book Encyclopedia or Encyclopedia Brittanica, this Wikipedia article adds a large amount of useful and desired information that would be stylistically inappropriate for the main Prince article. I urge the governing powers at Wikipedia to keep and maintain this article. I do not think it is workable to merge this fine, but new, article to the main article, nor do I think it should be deleted. Thank you. April 24, 2016. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thank you very much wiki (talk • contribs) 14:53, 24 April 2016 (UTC) — Thank you very much wiki (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • I'm not seeing the volume of content or substance necessary to make this justifiable as a separate topic in its own right from his existing biography. Separate "death of notable person" articles should, in reality, be a lot rarer than they are — they're certainly warranted in extraordinary circumstances on the order of JFK at Dealey Plaza, but every famous person who dies (as all famous people eventually will, by virtue of the fact that famous people are people) does not automatically need one of these just because there was reaction to the death (which all famous people's deaths will always generate, by virtue of the fact that famous people are famous): the justification for an article like this is extended cultural impact, over much longer than the first two or three days. If things get so JFK-fishy that Barack Obama appoints an entire commission to investigate it, or if a Cobain-style conspiracy theory emerges that one of his ex-wives actually had him murdered which lasts for so long that the Minneapolis police are still releasing statements about it twenty years from now, that would be a good basis for a separate article — but "Rihanna and Oprah Winfrey tweeted that they were sad" is not. Delete, without prejudice against recreation in the future if and when a much more lasting significance and impact, going far beyond "thing that happened", can be shown. Bearcat (talk) 15:04, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
If it were JFK-fishy, the investigation would be overseen by the guy sucked into the power vacuum. Lady Gaga, perhaps. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:17, 24 April 2016 (UTC) [reply]
  • Redirect to main Prince article. If more information that comes to light warrants a separate article, the content deletion can easily be undone rather than having to request an article restoration. Liz Read! Talk! 15:17, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to the section in Prince (musician), because I suppose it is a legitimate search term, and it's just possible it will become notable at some point in the future (I would argue that Death of Elvis Presley has; it's continued to be discussed). Right now, as others have pointed out, it's notable only in the context of Prince's notability and falls squarely in NOTTHENEWS territory. Somewhere there is or was an essay with a title something like "100 newspapers", which pointed out that events often receive a flurry of news coverage, but that this doesn't make them notable. I'm sorry I failed to find it, because I think that's exactly what's at issue here: there's a lot of coverage but no indication it will be anything but transient. Yngvadottir (talk) 16:13, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I mentioned on the talk it needs to be cleaned up/and if deleted the more relevant things need to be moved to the main article. His death is still a moving story--there isn't obvious foul play, but more to the story may happen and the additional details so as long as they are correct are better. Just because a person has an article does not mean there cannot be an article about a significant moment in their life. The day the music died is an example of this--the story about how they died is culturally relevant beyond doubt. This story is still unfolding. I'm not sure how relevant stuff like Justin Bieber's comments are on his death but it is relevant technically to the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.114.1.204 (talk) 16:57, 24 April 2016 (UTC) <— 75.114.1.204 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Delete For Now While not a single one of the references at the bottom of the article mention TMZ.com, if you click on the links many (most?) of the sources are reprinting that single site's claims. Let's wait for actual coroner's report, and go from there. RevelationDirect (talk) 19:44, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This is not a debate whether the death of Prince is notable, this a discussion whether the death of Prince should be in a separate article. Or in other words, just another meaningless debate on article namespace. The details regarding his death should be in the main article, if later, there is an argument based on WP:SIZE, then a separate article might be appropriate. 3 days after his death is not enough, at least give it 40 days. --Richhoncho (talk) 21:15, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Interesting details, which need not to be mentioned in the Prince main article. Erdenstern (talk) 21:56, 24 April 2016 (UTC) — Erdenstern (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
This editor also has not edited a bunch of crap just to build up edit counts. Whiskeymouth (talk) 05:16, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: It's way too soon to create one of these articles. We hardly know any details about his death. If there turns out to be reasonable suspicion of foul play or a substantial investigation (like with Michael Jackson or Kurt Cobain), then I think it would make sense to have an article dedicated to his death. Gottagotospace (talk) 22:07, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Eh, even if there was foul play, it would probably be something which can be summarized in a few sentences or short paragraph. I understand you're trying to be helpful, but lets also be realistic here. Crystal.seed (talk) 23:14, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Realism in a high-profile music industry death? That's preposterous. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:06, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Unless the autopsy triggers a criminal investigation there is no reason for this to be on a separate page to the main article. Zerbey (talk) 13:10, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nah, that would only add maybe 4 additional sentences, at most. Crystal.seed (talk) 16:36, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete There's nothing in this coverage that calls for a separate article. A biography of a dead person includes information about that person's death. A separate article about their death should be created when there's significant coverage in independent reliable sources of details that are not biographical. There are lots of sources here, but they're all about biography. Maybe, in the future, there'll be sources with which to differentiate this death from the deaths that all of us eventually face, but there's nothing like that yet. Until there is, WP:NOTNEWS applies. It's not even a close call folks. David in DC (talk) 17:04, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
There certainly are many news articles about his death that is not biographical. There's even one article about that he did not have a will and that will cause a huge problem. Whiskeymouth (talk) 05:16, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Under WP:NOTNEWS it says "Wikipedia considers the enduring notability of persons and events." The fact that his songs are making #1 hits (the direct result of his death) stands out, as not everyone has this happen to them. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 17:45, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
If he died a week ago, how can anything attest to the "enduring notability" of his death? David in DC (talk) 21:00, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
That logic would disqualify most of Wikipedia, except 9-11 and the President. Whiskeymouth (talk) 05:16, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Pteranodon, Daugava and Vameq II Dadiani aren't from last week, either. Might be a few more. InedibleHulk (talk) 18:49, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment More sources showing that Price's death had an impact. [14] "Prince Takes Top Two Slots in Billboard 200" [15] "Prince's death sharply impacts sales of his music" There is also his unreleased music. [16] - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 17:41, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
That's a perfectly valid basis for adding two sentences about recharting after his death to his existing biography. It doesn't constitute a reason why a standalone article about his death, as a separate topic from his life, is needed or warranted. Bearcat (talk) 19:53, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The content on this page should be on Prince (musician)#Illness and death. It doesn't need it's own page. —  dainomite   18:09, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment There seems to be a lot of WP:IDONTLIKEIT, which should cause reflection but Wikipedia rules need to be followed, which would be a keep. This is because the article far exceeds the requirements of notability. There are many, many reliable sources about the death of Prince. These sources are not about Prince but about his death. They continue to come out even many days after his death and cover different aspects. Some have said that there was no proven murder or conspiracy, but that is not an article requirement. Some have been accused of not having many edits and at least one delete vote comes from someone who gives thanks for being notified. Some have tried to cross out comments and falsely accuse others. This is besides the point. The point is whether the article, much improved since day 1 (when it was, frankly, a terribly written article) passes the criteria. It does. Peace. Whiskeymouth (talk) 05:08, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: In terms of encyclopedic notability, one needs to ask, "Will this be significant 50 years from now?" The answer for this article and the "Reactions" article, and indeed most any "Death of ..." article, is no. Softlavender (talk) 10:09, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the death is very heavily covered, and while not suspicious, is an early death (during active career) for someone with no reported serious health problems. the media coverage is not completely overplayed. and, i think it fits better in its own article, as its rather lengthy, than in the article on him, as this is not about his career so much. Mercurywoodrose (talk) 17:57, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's debatable on weather celebrity coverage can still be considered valid news. I certainly believe you are putting too much importance on this subject. Perhaps Wikipedia is not the best place to promote big Hollywood multi billion dollar profit-based industries. These are not totally legitimate subjects with scholarly material and sources. I would definitely classify this as pretentious celebrity worship. Crystal.seed (talk) 19:28, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Still more prestigious than celebrity weather coverage. Joking aside, I'll add that there were reported serious health problems. They're in the lead of this article. Second sentence. Rationale like these sugggest the article is prominently lying or ineffective at teaching, or someone voted Keep without reading it. Not a good look, any way. InedibleHulk (talk) 19:44, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Bro, the chick on Fox 11 News Los Angeles is smoking hot. I worship her as my local information queen. She is on TV so that obviously makes her important Crystal.seed (talk) 19:54, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Smoking and single. Shall we have an article about her dead husband? It's good enough for Fox. Joking aside again, glioblastoma multiforme could use some awareness. InedibleHulk (talk) 20:00, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Celebrity news may not be your cup of tea, but that's not what this discussion is about. Like I've said plenty of times before to editors with differing (and closed minded) views, what you deem "important" or "newsworthy" does not reflect the same to the person sitting besides you. We all come from different places with differing taste, so let's tone down some of the comments as some are indirectly attacks to editors here who spend their time on popular culture articles. I agree that this article should be deleted and merge as it's WP:TOOEARLY. – jona ✉ 21:16, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
This is not about what I perceive to be my cup of tea. Were you not able to comprehend anything else I wrote? Again, to me you seem to be arguing for no apparent reason, just for the sake of argument. Entertainment is a big industry, with literally billions of dollars involved. This generally weighs against the credibility of any body or institution, because, with a little common sense, you can see how easy it would be to manipulate sources of information, release your own false information, or generally be biased for the purpose of profiteering. The mainstream music scene is definitely not exempt from this. Once again I will remind you how these are not scholarly or wholesome matters of subject. This is exactly what I mean by "unencyclopedic" in one of my earlier comments, which either you, or someone similar seems to blindly argue about. Crystal.seed (talk) 01:02, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep His death is unusual for someone this young and for his status, it will be too much to summarize in the main article. -- GreenC 20:50, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It already isn't. When we find out what killed the famous 57-year-old, that'll be another sentence. If there's a notable dispute, that'll be two more. Still fits. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:16, April 26, 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete I do not see why this person's death in and of itself is notable enough for its own article. This wasn't a Lennon assassination or a Skynyrd plane crash, and so far the authorities have stated they do not think it's foul play. If dramatic details come out later, then that's the time for a separate article. TheBlinkster (talk) 02:34, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You seem to be under the impression that John Lennon was important. Yes, I imagine this was a big deal back in the day, but really, it's just all just a manufactured game. A song and a dance. This importance cannot be proven outside media sources which are proven to be biased. But I still don't see how even his death would deserve its own article. Crystal.seed (talk) 05:35, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
"You seem to be under the impression that John Lennon was important." You're actually trying to argue that the front man, lead singer, and principle songwriter of the single most influential music act of the 20th century - a band which fundamentally altered the trajectory of popular music forever, whose success empowered a whole generation into creating a countercultural movement that still resonates through virtually all aspects of life today - was somehow not important? I could never have imagined someone making such an assertion if I hadn't seen it with my own eyes. Kurtis (talk) 09:35, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Whether or not Prince was more important than Lennon or vice versa, that is not my point. From a basic common sense standpoint, a psychotic gunman shooting a major celebrity dead on his doorstep in NYC with the ensuing worldwide mass coverage including a US network television football game being interrupted to have Howard Cosell announce it certainly meets Wiki standards for a notable crime. The article would include discussion of the perp and any court procedures, all of which are outside the scope of the article on the celebrity's life and career. In the case of Prince, there has so far been no crime alleged much less committed and if he simply died of a health problem or even an OD when he ws alone at home, it could be handled in a couple of paragraphs of his main article with an additional section for public reactions. TheBlinkster (talk) 11:49, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Tentative keep pending additional media coverage, but without any prejudice towards deleting the article for the time being per WP:TOOEARLY. Prince is a pop culture icon and has had a huge influence on a great many subsequent musicians. His sudden death at such a young age is a significant event, and I foresee it meriting its own article in the near future. Kurtis (talk) 09:56, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, or specifically, merge into Prince (musician) and Reactions to the death of Prince, as it's already largely duplicative of them. Recreate if his death becomes suspicious (i.e. homicide or neglect as with Michael Jackson). – voidxor 19:13, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep – as articles grow, they are subject to WP:SPLIT. If this material were in the Prince article, it would naturally be split off to this title. This is how we accommodate expansion of subjects:

If an article becomes too large, or a section of an article has a length that is out of proportion to the rest of the article, it is often appropriate for some or all of the article to be split into new articles. In some cases, refactoring an article into child or sister articles can allow subtopics to be discussed more fully elsewhere without dominating a general overview article to which they are non-central (but only if the new articles are themselves sufficiently notable to be included in the encyclopedia).

And since Prince's death has gotten coverage worldwide, with articles in major newspapers dedicated specifically to it, rather than merely an obituary listing, it is a notable event. The Transhumanist 01:36, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Collapsing redundant section; closing admin assesses consensus, no need for a subsection about consensus. Softlavender (talk) 02:15, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or redirect?[edit]

Despite all of the votes to delete the article, I started this subsection, as I feel that whether the article should be deleted or redirected (assuming that it cannot remain) is another question that should be addressed. Since redirects are cheap, and articles can contain valuable history, I feel that this search term as well as Reactions to the death of Prince should not be deleted. --Jax 0677 (talk) 18:26, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Striking duplicate !vote. Softlavender (talk) 02:19, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You already said you wanted to delete or merge article above, please either amend that opinion or strike this one. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 20:42, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Duplicate !vote removed. Do you want to be murdered by a bullet or by torture? Neither. I suppose bullets are better than torture, just as redirect is better than delete. Sorry for being so blunt but my vote has been subject to vandalism many times.Thank you very much wiki (talk) 20:18, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Duplicate !vote removed. Softlavender (talk) 01:55, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Close this section You cant double vote in an AfD, the people who want the article kept have valid reasoning as well. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 20:38, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Softlavender (talk) 02:15, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • merge and redirect Jackson's death was controversial, public and well sourced. Prince's (and Bowie's) was quite the opposite. He's a major figure and warrants extensive coverage across a number of articles, articles on lists of albums or lists of collaborators would be justified - but his death is not. Not because he's not notable, but because the manner of his death wasn't. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:13, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually his death is still in the news on probable cause, if it had been a routine non notable event then why are the most recent sources talking about pain killers? [17] - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 14:18, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • What substantive content is being discussed about Prince's death? We know nothing, we are hearing nothing. Bowie's death was barely discussed, the coverage was far more about people's massive reactions to it. His death though was uncontroversial: it was sudden, unexpected and unquestioned (Bowie isn't claimed to still be working in a chipshop with Elvis). Similarly for Prince: unexpected, yet the rapid funeral suggests that the post mortem suggested no controversial aspect to it. Most of all though, there is no larger story to it: he was suddenly ill and died. This isn't the Michael Jackson story of drawn-out medical misdeed. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:25, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
More potential content is also out there though regarding his lack of a will (who will inherit), as well as a sealed vault of unreleased music. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 14:34, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with Prince's main article. White Arabian Filly Neigh 16:32, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Death of Prince and then merge Reactions to the death of Prince to that article. The delete rationale comes off rather cold; at any rate, although he has been dead for less than a week, enough reliable sources do appear to be present in the article. And since this and the "reactions" article were created by the same editor, I just bundled the latter AfD with this one. Erpert blah, blah, blah... 21:36, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep briefly (a week or two). Prince was a celebrity and information about the cause of death is still to come. After the hubbub dies down, merge with the regular Prince article. Squad51 (talk) 01:45, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • THIS AFD IS CLOSED OR SHOULD BE CLOSED. THE RESULT IS KEEP OR SHOULD BE KEEP. SEE https://wiki.alquds.edu/?query=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Reactions_to_the_death_of_Prince BOTH THE REACTIONS TO THE DEATH OF PRINCE AND THE DEATH OF PRINCE AFDS WERE AT THE SAME TIME. THE REACTIONS TO THE DEATH OF PRINCE WAS DECIDED AS A REDIRECT TO THE DEATH OF PRINCE. THEREFORE, THE DEATH OF PRINCE IS A KEEP. IT IS NOT PROPER TO HAVE A REDIRECT TO A DELETED ARTICLE WHEN BOTH AFDS ARE SIMULTANEOUS. Also note that User:Bentogoa re-opened this AFD, which was closed already...ok, I do not agree with reopening it but so be it. Whiskeymouth (talk) 06:45, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • First of all, please don't shout (which is basically what ALL CAPS BOLD is.) Secondly, as far as I can see, that AFD was procedurally closed as being superseded by this one, not as being a redirect. Furthermore, if there are two AFDs at the same time, I'm not aware of any rule which requires their results to be "consistent" in the way you suggest. If we have an article on A and an article on B, and an AFD is launched for A and then shortly thereafter for B, and then even if A is closed as a redirect to B, that doesn't automatically end the discussion at B, or force any particular outcome of the discussion at B. SJK (talk) 07:05, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The amount which we actually know at the moment about how Prince died is very little. While there was a great reaction to his death, we don't need to exhaustively document that, just highlight the more significant aspects of it (probably at least Obama and Spike Lee, maybe a few more quotes, but it doesn't need to go on for paragraphs.) Now, in the future, if e.g. his death resulted in legal proceedings, or something like that, there might be enough information to actually need a separate article to cover his death or its consequences. But I don't see that need right now. SJK (talk) 07:01, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Whenever a major celebrity or public figure dies, there is inevitably a major public reaction. That does not make the death itself notable apart from the celebrity.—indopug (talk) 09:30, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Consensus is for the article to be retained. North America1000 06:11, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Watch Me Do[edit]

Watch Me Do (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Delete or redirect to Meghan Trainor per WP:NSONGS. Song has never charted, has no sales stats, no certifications, no awards, no covers. Few sources and little to no media coverage available. Fails GNG, is WP:TOOSOON. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 20:13, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - I've been scolded and threatened for redirecting the article earlier on, in what later resulted in a condoning of WP:OWN, despite me just following the guidelines as I do with any other article. I guess that is why an official discussion has been opened. I support the reasoning given above (the guidelines are black and white), but I'm abstaining from voting officially.  — Calvin999 21:20, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Meghan Trainor. Agree with the logic, songs, unless they are unusually notable, normally merge or redirect. ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 21:31, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 00:00, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep for notability from having a promotional single release. I don't mean to offend anyone, but "Few sources and little to no media coverage available" just sounds like a kind-of bullcrap statement in my eyes, given that the song has been reviewed in a fair amount of independent sources following its promo single release. A little bit short, but not so much that its stub length. Its possible the article will expand as more opinions of the song in album reviews and chart positions of the track from digital downloads of the album will occur, but I'll only keep my vote a weak keep just so this statement isn't too WP:CRYSTALBALL-Y. editorEهեইдအ😎 00:37, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • But promo singles are generally ineligible to chart, because they aren't usually purchasable. That aside, it doesn't meet any of the other criteria, still.  — Calvin999 10:29, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep - Based on the independent coverage of the song outside of album reviews by several reliable sources.--MaranoFan (talk) 05:51, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • As per WP:NSONGS - which you clearly have not read - album reviews do not establish notability.  — Calvin999 10:08, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • He's saying the opposite, though, there are no album reviews in the article, it hasn't been released yet. Pedro u | t 11:17, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        • So it isn't notable. We can't crystal ball.  — Calvin999 11:18, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
          • The song (the subject of the article) has been released, it isn't WP:CRYSTALBALL, and has been covered by independent sources which reviewed it upon its release as a promotional single. The only reason why I think I think it should redirect to Thank You (Meghan Trainor album) is because it is quite small and this information could easily be contained in the album article. Why not create a composition section in Thank You and describe the song there? Just a suggestion. Pedro u | t 11:23, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
              • It is crystal to imply that there will be reviews when the album is out. But still, song commentary in an album review does not establish notability, so it's a moot point. I was all in favour for redirecting. I did so originally.  — Calvin999 11:26, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 16:56, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep – this does meet WP:NSONGS since it has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial published works whose sources are independent of the artist and label. The sources cited in the article are generally considered reliable for music articles, and they are neither reprints of press releases nor advertisements. Note that NSONGS states that songs meeting this guideline are only "probably" notable; most of the sources in the article are published over a short time frame. That said, I don't think WP:NOTNEWS applies here, since this article is not about an event, and I think the coverage this has received amount to a pass of WP:GNG, albeit weakly. Note that if this is determined to be non-notable, it should be merged and/or redirected to Thank You (Meghan Trainor album) instead of Meghan Trainor. I also don't think that Calvin999's edit-warring on this article is appropriate. WP:BLAR is appropriate if no one opposes, but when someone has reverted the redirecting, and concerns about notability still exist, AfD is the correct venue. SSTflyer 14:18, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep – I have to agree with the above comments as the single has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial published works whose sources are independent of the artist and label. The sources cited in the article are reliable for music articles and establish its notability. However, I do understand the side saying that this should be deleted (primarily as this has not been ranked on national or significant music or sales charts), but I would say its notability comes from being a promotional single release with at least some independent coverage separate from album reviews. I agree that if this is found to be non-notable that this should be merged and/or redirected to Thank You (Meghan Trainor album) instead of Meghan Trainor as it makes more sense to be linked with the parent album as opposed to the artist. Aoba47 (talk) 20:28, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The single has "been the subject of multiple, non-trivial published works whose sources are independent of the artist and label." Therefore the article subject passes WP:GNG ans should be retained. Fouetté rond de jambe en tournant (talk) 21:26, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete--Anthony Bradbury"talk" 16:30, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Neredesin Firuze (soundtrack)[edit]

Neredesin Firuze (soundtrack) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Lacks independent notability or significant coverage in reliable sources. Disputed prod yet no notability established. Existence does not equate to notability. StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 16:33, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as clearly failing GNG and NALBUM. I would say it should be merged to Where's Firuze?, but, as it's just an unreferenced track listing, I don't see the point.  Rebbing  21:35, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete perhaps at best as this is still questionable for the necessary independent notability improvements. SwisterTwister talk 23:04, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 23:04, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 23:04, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Before coming here, I added a one-sentence section about the soundtrack album to the article about the film. As noted above, there is now nothing worth merging into the film's article. By the way, the article Neredesin Firuze is a redirect to Where's Firuze, so there's no need for a re-direct here. NewYorkActuary (talk) 21:11, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. An international article with no Google hits at all apart from Wikipedia? That alone would label it as a blatant hoax, apart from other reasons, including totally implausible article content. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 12:26, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sybe Airport[edit]

Sybe Airport (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I'm unable to find any reference to this airport. IATA:SYH appears incorrect. Author is removing PROD and tags, may well be a hoax. Happy to be proved wrong! Paste Let’s have a chat. 15:36, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There is an "airport" at Holsworthy, but it is exclusively a military base - see Holsworthy Barracks.--Gronk Oz (talk) 15:54, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete It appears to be a hoax. I tried to find any reference, but the ICAO code appears to match to Holsworthy Barracks, and I couldn't find anything else about the supposed airport. JumpiMaus (talk) 16:24, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, probably a hoax. Kierzek (talk) 16:35, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedily deleted by User:RHaworth under criterion A7. (Non-admin closure) "Pepper" @ 00:49, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Pippa Taylor-Hackett[edit]

Pippa Taylor-Hackett (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article is about the producer of The Chris Moyles Show. The article itself is completely fabricated and appears to read as if it's a series of inside jokes from the show itself. (The child of a nun and priest? Member of the Knights Templar?). It doesn't appear that by herself she is notable, as notability is not inherited from the show.

At best this article is a complete and utter hoax and falls a foul of WP:BLP. RickinBaltimore (talk) 14:55, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - At best, it fails GNG; at worst, it's mostly a hoax. Either way, it has some serious BLP violations. GABHello! 17:59, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 11:13, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Peter A. Georgescu[edit]

Peter A. Georgescu (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The lack of independent sources is glaring. We have the guy's author profile on the Huffington Post. We have this piece of cruft - I'm not quite sure what a blank page is supposed to attest. We have an Amazon sale page for his book - available used for $0.01! We've got the article that gave him his fifteen minutes of fame - well, it's no J'accuse…! We have the follow-up article in which he responds to reader comments. And of course there's the lecture announcement, posted by the venue paying the subject to deliver the lecture.

Needless to say, none of these sources (aside from, I suppose, the cruft one) is independent. And we do need independent sources if we're going to have an article - specifically, "significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject". The article creator claims the subject is notable for two reasons. The first: "he was the chairman of one of the largest advertising firms in the world". Sorry, but being the CEO of Young & Rubicam doesn't automatically make you notable. You do still need some kind of independent coverage. The second: "he has authored two books". Again, authoring two or twenty or two thousand books isn't what counts: it's satisfying the criteria laid down by WP:BASIC, something that plainly has failed to happen. - Biruitorul Talk 14:47, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep - The New York Times is not a credible source? the advertising hall of fame? Two articles in the times one of which caused a big stir in the income inequality debate the chairman of Young and Rubicam his financial interests in other companies and boards I did not put every link up of course this a rush to judgement it is ridiculous the back story just on how he came to the United States is tremendous .. He has delivered important university lectures at many institutions. I guess I should have gotten it all up before I posted it as some people here live to delete and yes to me underlying this rush to delete something smells of political reasons you will see now that you have forced me to stop to in my tracks and do more work immediately that it is reminiscent of the Kordas. You are one in a long series of editors who try to make an anonymous sway for themselves by proposing deletions. Masterknighted (talk) 16:13, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Is Stanford enough for you retract this inappropriate nomination for deletion nowMasterknighted (talk) 16:30, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    • The point is not that The New York Times isn't credible, it's that two articles by Peter Georgescu cannot be used as evidence that Peter Georgescu is notable. You can't get much less independent than that.
    • Please come up with independent sources - i.e., not their own website, or his website - that comment on Georgescu's membership in the advertising hall of fame.
    • Please show secondary sources regarding this "big stir in the income inequality debate".
    • As I said, heading Young & Rubicam, or having financial interests, or delivering lectures, or even having an interesting story about how one emigrated - none of these is sufficient in itself for notability; independent sources are needed.
    • No, a glowing puff piece, essentially a press release for his book (now ranked 458,459 by Amazon), in the Stanford Business School's alumni magazine about a man who earned an MBA from - you guessed it - Stanford Business School is not really independent coverage, either.
    • But of course I have political reasons! When I say I'd like this deleted for lack of independent sources and patently failing WP:BASIC, what I really mean is that, as an unreconstructed Stalinist, I wish this bourgeois enemy of the people had remained in the Gulag and perished there as fast as possible, and since that didn't happen, my second best option is to try to consign him to a damnatio memoriae and make sure as few people as possible learn about this perfidious obstacle in the way of the glorious classless society of which I dream. You got me!
    • And no, I'm not going to withdraw this perfectly appropriate nomination - unless there's unanimous support for keeping it, it's going to run for about a week, I will try my best to ensure the article is deleted, and you will just have to deal with that. - Biruitorul Talk 16:56, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. - All of this already qualifies him as notable second he was part of a famous case involving the trading of spies. This is absolutely ludicrous the response the article in the New York Times solicited and the position he took in the income inequality debate originating from someone inside the Capitalist structure alone qualifies him .. Honestly I can see no other reason you would argue with the skill of a trial attorney that he is not notable when he clearly is and break it down as such is that you do not like him for some political reason and second read the second NYT article is not by Georgescu it is an interview a q&a which the Times felt was a necessary follow up after the huge (in the words of Trump, Sanders and David) response to his opinion piece.Masterknighted (talk) 17:02, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment' - And I suppose the Department of State does not qualify either https://books.google.com/books?id=n4lNAQAAMAAJ&q=peter+georgescu+eisenhower&dq=peter+georgescu+eisenhower&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiI5J-F3qLMAhXFGT4KHStgCoIQ6AEIIzABMasterknighted (talk) 17:12, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    • Doing remarkable things isn't enough; they key is "significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject".
    • Actually, yes, the second Times article is also by him. As it says, "Here, Mr. Georgescu addresses a few [reader] comments".
    • No, a brief press release from the State Department is probably not significant and independent coverage, particularly given how cases such as his were seen by the US government as victories (albeit minor ones) in the Cold War. Even a mention in an independent source - say, a newspaper - would probably best fit in at Romania–United States relations.
    • Anyway, I think we've both made our positions clear; let's see what others have to say. But impugning my motives isn't going to get you very far - I have good policy-based reasons for wanting this deleted, nothing more. - Biruitorul Talk 17:19, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep and rename to Peter Georgescu. Given the vast amount of verifiable, independent coverage in newspapers and books, I do not see how one can claim that this advertising hall of fame executive is NN. Now, surely he wasn't nominated for political reasons, but perhaps the source of the error (hence my speedy!) is that the nominator looked only for Peter A. Georgescu? There is much more coverage under his common name, hence I propose to (speedy) keep and rename. gidonb (talk) 18:09, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - About half the articles are peter and half Peter A. , but I believe all of the internal links are Peter A. Masterknighted (talk) 19:53, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • From my count, the majority of the sources and the more independent source indicate that Peter Georgescu should be the name. After your recent improvements, anyone can now see this in the reflist! gidonb (talk) 20:07, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Here is the story plainly spelled out for you to see in the Father's New York Times obituary and i have not cited his own website, http://www.nytimes.com/1993/11/04/obituaries/valeriu-georgescu-oil-executive-dies-consultant-was-89.htmlMasterknighted (talk) 02:50, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - And this adweek article should validate his time at the helm of Young & Rubicam http://www.adweek.com/news/advertising/young-rubicam-market-makers-how-peter-georgescu-and-his-team-turned-adlands-most-pr. Masterknighted (talk) 16:58, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. North America1000 17:41, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. North America1000 17:41, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America1000 17:41, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions. North America1000 17:41, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and copy edit – The subject passes WP:BASIC. Source examples include, but are not limited to those listed below. Note that the sources provided below are directly about the subject, rather than written by him. See also WP:NEXIST. North America1000 17:51, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The multiple reliable independent secondary sources discussing the subject in detail required by WP:GNG unquestionably exist. The Palm Beach Daily News, Adweek and Salon sources fully establish notability; I had no need to read further. We often accept far less. Msnicki (talk) 18:04, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I have not seen one person who agrees that deleting this article is a good idea. I suggest closing this nomination under snowball keep as is it is absolutely baseless under our policies and guidelines. It is also unfortunately worded as the fact that you can buy this person's book for 1 cent at Amazon is totally irrelevant and can serve no purpose than to denigrate the subject of the article. Why irrelevant? You can get tons of fine and important books for 1 cent at Amazon including, for example, Hamlet by William Shakespeare! Is either that book or author unimportant? gidonb (talk) 22:12, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It's not even the only wrong use of language in the nomination. Just an example. This unpleasant tone managed, in turn, to annoy the creator, which only shows that one needs to think twice about wording. There are always consequences. Let's just close this discussion! I can't do it because I casted a vote and was very much part of the discussion. gidonb (talk) 20:02, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • DeleteWeak keep but article needs to reflect his business notability. I'm lLooking at him as AUTHOR and he does not meet that criterion. He has one book in >800 libraries, and one in ~50. I found no substantial reviews of either, and Publisher's Weekly has a rather unenthusiastic paragraph on his autobiography (which is what the second book is). Like nom, I was unable to find significant third-party articles. He is listed in the American Advertising Hall of Fame here. That's a link that could be added to the article. There are folks who consider CEO of a large company sufficient for notability. I prefer to hold out for a true GNG based on sources. LaMona (talk) 18:02, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • The subject is covered in many reliable sources as a businessperson, and passes WP:GNG and WP:BASIC. For starters, WP:GNG is a stronger guideline compared to WP:NAUTHOR, which is essentially a secondary notability guideline. It's inherently unfair and unbalanced to judge notability upon a very specific notability criteria when the subject passes more basic ones. North America1000 18:53, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • LaMonauh, Peter Georgescu passes WP:GNG and WP:BASIC with flying colors. WP:NAUTHOR would be relevant for essentially an author who has also done some business (e.g., Janwillem van de Wetering), not for essentially an executive who has also written some books. How do we know he is foremost an executive? Because this is the field where has had most coverage and is included in a hall of fame. gidonb (talk) 19:04, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Gidonb, it would be helpful if you could say exactly which sources you consider to meet GNG. I see writings BY him; two pages in the Hunter book (anecdotal); a significant article in AdWeek (RS); responses to something he wrote in NYT (not about him); a summary of a talk he gave in Palm Beach Daily News (not a strong sourceC); one name check in a Dept of State book; a one-page article in the Economist of 1999 (RS) which I can't see. So by my calculations, with these new sources he squeaks by GNG. However, the article needs them added, and his own writings should not be used as references. In fact, his own writings, since you agree that he is not notable as an author, should be be given undue weight in the article.LaMona (talk) 19:20, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I added the Business Hall of Fame link thank you... However as far as coverage of his books go did you overlook this link to NPR and the Leonard Lopate Show ? Then in the meantime there are many links up now and in the body of the content all of the stuff is laid out; business, author, education, notoriety etceteras http://www.wnyc.org/story/265050-peter-georgescu-good-and-evil/ LaMona Masterknighted (talk) 20:34, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • {{u|Masterknighted]], interviews are primary sources as per Wikipedia:Interviews. They don't hurt, but it's not obvious how this one fits into notability. From what I can understand, it is him talking about his autobiography -- thus, in a sense, making a double primary source: him talking about him talking about himself. I do think that more of the primary sources should be removed from the article. I may get around to that. LaMona (talk) 21:42, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Au Contraire- The NPR interview shows that a major independent news source feels that the book is significant enough to give it serious time and coverageMasterknighted (talk) 02:14, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Au contraire, contraire. Unless the interviewer offered his own thoughts or analysis, the interview is primary. Your argument is no different and no more correct than claiming that if the NYT published his opinion piece, they must have thought he was notable else they wouldn't have published it. It simply doesn't work that way. Here at WP, we required that notability be demonstrated by sources not connected to the subject. Interviews simply do not qualify. That said, as I noted above, there are plenty of actual secondary sources demonstrating notability. Msnicki (talk) 02:30, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ok - Thank you and I am going to listen and see if Lopate offered his own thoughts or analysis Masterknighted (talk) 02:58, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 RWBY#Spin-off. If/when this gains notability it may be recreated. (non-admin closure) SSTflyer 15:53, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

RWBY Chibi[edit]

RWBY Chibi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:TOOSOON. If the show is a hit after it premieres, then great, but right now it's just a teaser trailer with no coverage. IagoQnsi (talk) 14:46, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak delete I can't (yet) see any significant independent coverage yet, I think this is a case of WP:TOOSOON. Got a couple of independent sites ([18] [19]), but I think they'd basically count as reporting on a press release, with no analysis about the show itself. —  crh 23  (Talk) 21:44, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm personally looking forward to seeing the series, but for now, weak delete without prejudice against recreation if/when it gets sufficient coverage after the premiere. --Finngall talk 22:22, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete at best as there's currently nothing actually suggesting the necessary notability improvements. SwisterTwister talk 23:06, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 23:06, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
in looking:
type:(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
production:(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
year:(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. The current article gives even less evidence of notability than the one deleted at the previous AfD. It is also odd, to say the least, to remove a speedy deletion tag with the edit summary "speedy declined, makes credible claim of significance" when the speedy deletion nomination was because it was a repost of a deleted article, not because of a lack of credible claim of significance. (I may say that I am also puzzled by "Fouetté rond de jambe en tournant"'s statement "I did not revert the addition of a speedy tag three times". There were three unambiguous reverts of the addition of that tag.) The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 13:29, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Atlantic International University[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Atlantic International University (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NORG - No reliable, independent secondary sources with significant coverage of the subject. Previously deleted in October, and no new coverage of this unaccredited "university". Per their own website: "ATLANTIC INTERNATIONAL UNIVERSITY IS NOT ACCREDITED BY AN ACCREDITING AGENCY RECOGNIZED BY THE UNITED STATES SECRETARY OF EDUCATION." - all caps and emboldened on their website, seen here Wikipedia is not a place to advertise diploma mills. Scr★pIronIV 14:38, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete under criterion G4 - this diploma mill is no more notable than it was the last time it was up for deletion. astro (talk) 14:47, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 15:28, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hawaii-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 15:28, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I'm not so much concerned about whether this institution is accredited, as whether it meets WP:GNG. I've only found brief mentions such as this, so I don't think it does. Cordless Larry (talk) 15:34, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete under criterion G4 - The article was nominated twice for CSD and was declined incorrectly both times by Fouetté rond de jambe en tournant, a fairly new editor. The arguments he/she made for declining the CSD (here, here) were already made as part of the old AFD by a steady stream of canvassed editors or meatpuppets. It's a subversion of the deletion and consensus-building process. There's a reason behind CSD G4--it's called: let's not waste everyone's time. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 15:55, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, not noteworthy and reads like a promotion piece. Kierzek (talk) 16:38, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This article subject has coverage by numerous sources (4) that include Bloomberg and the state of Hawaii. Therefore the article subject crosses the threshold of notability and the article should be retained. The University does have Accreditation from ASIC (Accreditation Service for International Colleges) for those editors who are questioning the accreditation. Fouetté rond de jambe en tournant (talk) 18:43, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I have just read the report provided by the State of Hawaii. This "school" is mentioned specifically as an unaccredited institution, which has been subject to monetary sanction by the Consumer Protection Agency. It does not mention CHEA, and does not support the statement it is attached to in the article. The Bloomberg reference is merely a directory entry. The Guardian article specifically outs this "school" as a diploma mill - their words, not mine. There are no other sources, except the "school" itself. If one were to write this article based on what the sources actually say, it would be an attack piece. And, for the record, ASIC itself has a checkered past, and its capacity to accredit such an institution is questionable, at best. Scr★pIronIV 19:04, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment There is relevant discussion at User_talk:Fouetté_rond_de_jambe_en_tournant#Atlantic_International_University (permalink). As mentioned by myself and Dr. Fleischman, in the old AfD no fewer than 53 incidental mentions comparable in quality to the current four sources were found, yet the consensus was still to delete. Furthermore, accreditation in and of itself is not ipso facto evidence of notability. Bloomberg has such an automatically generated profile about every company. The State of Hawaii source is a passing mention as an example of an unaccredited university which has been sanctioned for posing as an accredited one. It also concerns me that Fouetté reverted the addition of a speedy G4 tag 3 times despite an explicit request to let an admin make the determination of whether G4 applies. astro (talk) 20:21, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Astro, please get your facts straight before posting a false statement in this AFD. I did not revert the addition of a speedy tag three times. That statement by you is misleading. I declined the speedy one time. Someone incorrectly put a second speedy on the article after the speedy was declined. As I am sure you must know, if a speedy is declined the next course of action is usually to do a AFD on the article. I removed the speedy that had been placed incorrectly. My edit was then reverted and a speedy was back on the article for a third time. I reverted that edit. Subsequently another editor placed the article at AFD. Please drop the stick. I am concerned about you, Astro misrepresenting my actions in order to try and make some point. Please just drop it! Fouetté rond de jambe en tournant (talk) 20:44, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Administrators make the final call on speedy deletion candidates. While nonadmins can decline speedy tags under uncontroversial circumstances (and this is something I have done), there is established precedent that if the appropriateness of a tag is disputed, an admin should make the decision. In this case it was clearly an article which has been deleted via AfD and your declining the speedy was incorrect but I accept that it was done in good faith. However, rather than placing a {{hangon}} template on the page and starting a discussion on the talk page, you chose to repeatedly remove the speedy tag after I disputed your decline, which was an inappropriate response given that I had specifically requested the opinion of the patrolling admin on the speedy deletion. astro (talk) 21:01, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Furthermore, I am puzzled that you are accusing me of trying to make a point or flogging a dead horse - I have no connection with this article or you at all, I am merely pointing out that your actions are not in line with policy and accepted practice. astro (talk) 21:05, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Well its no Upper State New York University, which was a fun hoax, but its not notable if it can't be shown to have a prayer of meeting WP:GNG. Any real college would have many articles profiling it, and for this one I can find none. Not notable as a college or diploma mill.--Milowent • hasspoken 19:44, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete by unanimous consensus.--Anthony Bradbury"talk" 16:36, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Bruce (author)[edit]

Robert Bruce (author) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:BIO. Lacks WP:FRIND sources. Activity in an Internet news group and marketing blurbs about a book are not sufficient notability for a stand alone article. LuckyLouie (talk) 13:30, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 15:29, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 15:29, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as the current article is still noticeably questionable overall and I found nothing better. SwisterTwister talk 23:09, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Mjolnir. Adam Cuerden (talk) 13:37, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - his books are held in some libraries, but if you change the search to subject:"Bruce, Robert, 1955-", there aren't any articles about him. --211.30.17.74 (talk) 01:50, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - the relevant notability guideline is not really WP:NAUTHOR but rather WP:FRINGE - he is not a novelist, but rather a psychic (or any similar name he wishes to call himself) who writes books. The guy seems to have some presence in the paranormal circles but outside of the echo chamber, zilch. TigraanClick here to contact me 13:05, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedily deleted by User:Sphilbrick under criterion A7. (Non-admin closure) "Pepper" @ 00:51, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Intraboom[edit]

Intraboom (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Far too soon for this product. Refs are press releases or listings for an event at which it was showcased. No evidence of any third party reputable mentions.  Velella  Velella Talk   11:47, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 15:30, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) SSTflyer 15:48, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nautilus Pompilius (band)[edit]

Nautilus Pompilius (band) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non notable band, article includes no references to reliable, independent, secondary sources. Even the Russian version of the article only has references to mentions in who's who-type listings. KDS4444Talk 09:34, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Have added a reference and a couple of external links, hope it's enough to show that the band is notable. Gweorth (talk) 12:35, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor Talk! 14:11, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor Talk! 14:11, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete the author has expressed a wish to re-write the article; that does not affect decisions made on the present version. --Anthony Bradbury"talk" 20:55, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nathan Lee[edit]

Nathan Lee (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article PRODded with reason "Largely unsourced bio, coverage only in a local newspaper, awards are very minor. Does not meet WP:MUSICIAN, WP:BIO, or WP:GNG." Article dePRODded by anonymous IP without reason given. PROD reason still stands, hence: Delete. Randykitty (talk) 07:59, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 15:31, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as simply nothing convincingly better at all and there's also of course nothing to thus suggest keeping. SwisterTwister talk 22:45, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The article's creator requested deletion of the article at [22]. —Largo Plazo (talk) 13:31, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Doesn't meet WP:MUSICIAN, nor any of the other more generic guidelines. NewYorkActuary (talk) 20:40, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedily deleted under criterion G11. Seraphimblade Talk to me 01:14, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mohammad Bahareth[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Mohammad Bahareth (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Doesn't appear to meet WP:GNG, WP:ANYBIO, or WP:AUTHOR (as the article indicates that he wrote a book). I couldn't locate any reliable sources that meet WP:GNG. I was tempted to speedy delete, but the article makes a credible claim of significance. ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 07:25, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I've been assisting the creator of this page regarding this AFD and the requirements for the notability of people. The diff of this conversation is located here. Particularly, take note of my response here. ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 13:21, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: can't find anything to assert notability, nor anything to pass WP:ANYBIO. Since most of the search hits are about his books, I'll mention that he doesn't appear meet WP:NAUTHOR either. —  crh 23  (Talk) 08:08, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft redirect. Soft redirect to wikt:special snowflake syndrome. (non-admin closure) SSTflyer 00:08, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Special snowflake[edit]

Special snowflake (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No indication of notability, basically a dictionary entry. No reliable third-party sources, likely original research, not the appropriate tone for an encyclopedia article. If this term were notable enough for a Wikipedia article (which I rather doubt), it would be easier to start over from scratch than to try and turn this page into something useful: WP:TNT applies. Huon (talk) 17:30, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. North America1000 22:09, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. Uanfala (talk) 22:19, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It is a major topic in social science and behavioral psychology. With nsrcicism such a common topic in current media too Hawaan12 (talk) 02:10, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'll just have to go and lie down for a moment to regain my composure after the shock of seeing the phrase "more unique" in the opening sentence of a Wikipedia article...................... Now, if this is a major topic in social science and behavioral psychology there must be academic sources. Where are they? Note that we already have various articles on related topics such as narcissism, egocentrism. egotism, spoiled child etc. What distinguishes this topic from any of those? 86.17.222.157 (talk) 15:48, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't think this phrase is used in academics at all --Laber□T 19:28, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nor do I, but maybe Hawaan12 can substantiate the claim that this is a major topic in social science and behavioral psychology and prove us both wrong. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 21:25, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. Uanfala (talk) 08:17, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The phrase has been used commonly in numerous notable and reliable sources to refer to everything from unique, bizarre names like Zaydynnn and SSSST (pronounced "Forest" because, you get it, Four S) to the "everyone gets a trophy" mentality. The article could be expanded, but AFD is not cleanup. Smartyllama (talk) 18:05, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • The fact that this phrase has lots of different meanings is something for a dictionary to describe, not an encyclopedia. Is there a notable concept among those meanings that isn't already covered in other articles with less cutesy titles? 86.17.222.157 (talk) 18:14, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • A dictionary can't go into as much detail as an encyclopedia. That's why it should be in both places. They're clearly not mutually exclusive. Smartyllama (talk) 18:17, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • The difference between a dictionary and an encyclopedia is nothing to do with the level of detail. It is that a dictionary covers words and phrases and an encyclopedia covers things and concepts. Occasionally a word or phrase can be a concept in itself, so should be covered in both, but I don't see any evidence that that is the case here. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 18:36, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Per my comments above I see no evidence that there is any encyclopedic concept here that is not covered in other much better, well sourced, articles. I must add that I disagree completely with the nominator's invocation of WP:TNT, which is an essay that has no support whatsoever in policy or guidelines, and I wish people would stop invoking it in deletion discussions. If something needs rewriting from scratch then that can be done by normal editing without any admin having to press the "delete" button, but in this case the article needs deleting, not rewriting from scratch. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 18:59, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, term that has only been used in certain online communities, no notable use in mainstream politics and no use in any scientific context whatsoever. If kept, this would need a complete rewrite, and I really don't know what one could write in such an article in a neutral and encyclopedic way. Also, the article gives no examples, neither made-up nor real life, what kind of individual actually would be considered such a person, and it doesn't give the reader any criteria that he could use to determine that either. --Laber□T 21:46, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Two editors have expressed views about deletion on the article talk page. I shall take the liberty of copying their comments here so that those views can be taken into account. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 07:27, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I support deletion. I do not see why this page is necessary and seems to only be used to attack people. Name calling is not for Wikipedia. HarryKernow (talk) 19:57, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • As the creator of this page, I support keeping this page. Wikipedia is supposed to be an encyclopedia, not puritan prose. Much worse slurs than this are covered on wikipedia. If things need to be improved on this page, do so or leave a request specifying what to improve. Virtual book burning is not the solution. Wikipedia pages are not created for necessity, but for usefulness. Explaining a phrase used in the press, in the media and on social media is useful. No people are named in the article (bar authors), so no people are attacked. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rational Absurdity (talk • contribs) 20:34, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Self-esteem. The frequency with which a term is used is irrelevant for inclusion here as Wikipedia is not a dictionary. There are countless terms which would return lots of ghits that have no place on Wikipedia because Wikipedia just cares about notable concepts rather than word use (which is a hallmark of lexicography, not encyclopedism). There's an overlap between the two reference works, of course, when the term takes on a life of its own, with separate meanings and a great deal of sourcing talking specifically about the term in its own right rather than simply using the term or talking about it in the same way one would talk about a concept we already cover. So we would need coverage of "special snowflake" that talks about that specific term, not using the term in general, and not talking about it as though it's synonymous with a topic we already cover (like self-esteem). If someone could just as easily say "kids who are told they are special to boost their self-esteem, as part of the self-esteem movement", that means we don't need a separate article (although I will say I'm surprised we don't have an article for self-esteem movement -- but this certainly isn't the material to start it with). As with many terms, there are shades of difference between calling someone a "special snowflake" or a "unique and beautiful snowflake" or "unique snowflake" or when someone says that "everybody is their own snowflake" (or any of the other countless terms that are very frequently used and will return a bunch of ghits, but mean more or less the same thing), per WP:NOPAGE (and WP:DICDEF/WP:NEO), we don't need separate pages for each one. The underlying concept has to do with self-esteem, ego, individuality, etc. so that's where this should go. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 13:19, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein  07:18, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Soft redirect to wikt:special snowflake syndrome or delete. This isn't Urban Dictionary, and we don't track the definitions of popular phrases/memes – unless they pass WP:DICDEF and WP:GNG. I don't see evidence that this does. Sure, people use the phrase, but we need more than just use and/or definitions. I wasn't too keen on keeping manspreading, but it's got real coverage – people talk about it specifically, analyze it, criticize it, have mounted campaigns against it, and have generally made a nuisance of themselves by constantly writing articles about it. When this reaches that point, we can create an article on it. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 09:36, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Soft redirect to wikt:special snowflake syndrome. A vague and generally derogatory slang term. Could in theory redirect to spoiled child, but I don't support that. Compare attention whore, which could in theory redirect to histrionic personality disorder but doesn't; soft redirects to wiktionary entry instead. PS., the "Taki Magazine" reference contains blatantly racist material... IamNotU (talk) 15:49, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • As a "delete" opiner above I'm not averse to making this a soft redirect to Wiktionary, but that should only be done after deletion of the article history, particularly as it is partly based on and links to an article which, predictably for an article in a publication published by Taki Theodoracopulos, is indeed racist. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 17:56, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. Michig (talk) 07:01, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Matthew Hollingsworth[edit]

Matthew Hollingsworth (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

LIkely non-notable film music composer, by a possibly COI editor with a name very similar to the article title. Would have left it at Prod but one editor persists in adding back what looks like a long autobiography. Refs are self-published or IMDB. HappyValleyEditor (talk) 07:12, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak delete, ref is local news, not sufficient to assert notability. I'm finding a good amount of self-published material, but nothing independent apart from the previously mentioned local news article. Probably an autobiography too (judging by author's username), which explains the promotional tone. —  crh 23  (Talk) 08:18, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as nothing at all convincing of the necessary independent notability improvements. SwisterTwister talk 23:13, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 23:13, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I agree this look suspiciously like the subject is the author of his own article. Press coverage (from the provided references) do not extend beyond hometown newspapers. ShelbyMarion (talk) 15:05, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. MBisanz talk 20:37, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

CocoSori[edit]

CocoSori (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This page was speedily deleted before, and was just re-created. I don't believe this group is notable per WP:BAND. They debuted earlier this year and have one song, which was not successful. All news articles look like routine coverage of their debut and music show appearances (e.g. [23], [24], [25], [26]). Random86 (talk) 07:08, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. Random86 (talk) 07:09, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Random86 (talk) 07:09, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as too soon obviously and simply nothing actually suggesting a better improvable article to keep. SwisterTwister talk 22:52, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Band doesn't have enough releases or notability to warrant an article yet. Rockysmile11(talk) 17:46, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy keep. Nominator withdrawal (non-admin closure) —  crh 23  (Talk) 06:54, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Artur Samarin[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Artur Samarin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Clear case of BLP1E - only received coverage for this and nothing else Gbawden (talk) 06:44, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Withdrawn - didn't read previous discussion Gbawden (talk) 06:46, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete per WP:SNOW. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 03:47, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Laura Vuitton[edit]

Laura Vuitton (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No evidence of notability, posted by the author or her publishers, no refs beyond ISBN Jimfbleak - talk to me? 05:58, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Book is self-published on Lulu. Not a shred of notability found. --Finngall talk 06:05, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: A WP:COI WP:SPA article on a self-published book, sourced only to itself. My searches find nothing that could meet WP:NBOOK or WP:GNG. AllyD (talk) 07:23, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Books-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 15:32, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Puff piece for a self-published book. RickinBaltimore (talk) 15:33, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I'm tempted to close this per SNOW, but for now I'll just add this little flake. Drmies (talk) 15:45, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • SNOW Delete as not all yet independently notable. SwisterTwister talk 23:17, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: No coverage, self-published. Esquivalience t 01:37, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was procedural close. Discussion has been bundled here. (non-admin closure) Erpert blah, blah, blah... 21:38, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Reactions to the death of Prince[edit]

Reactions to the death of Prince (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article is WP:TOOSOON. Wikipedia is not a memorial or a place for a collection of quotes (wikiquote is for that) (WP:QUOTEFARM). It is also WP:NOTNEWS, specifically "Wikipedia considers the enduring notability of persons and events. While news coverage can be useful source material for encyclopedic topics, most newsworthy events do not qualify for inclusion."

We have no indication that (1) immediate reactions have lasting notability and (2) any notable actions or comments cannot be included on Prince (musician). General reactions such as lighting buildings purple or turning websites purple can be summarized on the BLP's page. Specific extremely notable quotes that have enduring notability can also be included there. Should there be enough enduring notable reactions (e.g. memorial scholarships, museums, stamps, holidays, events, etc.), this article would be appropriate. Until then, it is not appropriate for an encyclopedia. Leave the quotes and reactions for Wikiquote and Wikinews for now. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 05:23, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong delete Agree with everything Evergreen Fir noted and will add my own comment: the existence of the article is unbelievably ridiculous and silly. Creator should be trouted. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 05:32, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Just a case of hysteria. Don't trout anyone, though. InedibleHulk (talk) 14:05, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:NOTNEWS. It is indeed far too soon for such an article when we don't know how much impact his death will have yet. Snuggums (talk / edits) 14:40, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Definitely delete While the consensus has been to keep such pages; the precedence has always been set over major international issues and the reactions are official responses from heads of state and diplomats. The death of Prince is not especially notable; it warrants no more than a mention on the Prince page; and the quotations here are largely from people with no official standing or noteworthiness in this context. Definitely delete. Mtaylor848 (talk) 16:21, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Per WP:NOTMEMORIAL. Mlpearc (open channel) 17:29, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Unless his autopsy is ruled suspicious it's inappropriate at this time. Zerbey (talk) 17:48, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. I think some of the contatn is worth preserving in a merge to the parent article. Softlavender (talk) 18:15, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This article was copied wholesale to Death of Prince § Reactions from notable persons several hours after this nomination was opened.  Rebbing  18:49, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to the main article. This is routine coverage of an event best described in the biography. These "reactions to" articles are getting out of hand, and my reaction to them is to say they should generally be moved to Wikiquote or Wikinews. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 19:10, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Agree, {{Wikiquote}} Mlpearc (open channel) 19:39, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep Newsworthy, a major cultural icon with reactions from major world leaders and figures. Are you seriously considering deleting it? Wow. --Camilo Sánchez Talk to me 19:30, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, because it says nothing that can't be/isn't already in the article on Prince. Well, and, there are things like Wikipedia is not a memorial but is an encyclopedia. Inconvenient, I know, but... -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 19:33, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Like all others its more of a WP:NOTNEWS topic and is, more or less, an online memorial. Adog104 Talk to me 20:11, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete It's WP:Coatrack, and vis-à-vis Death of David Bowie there simply isn't an array of homages from notables outside of pop culture, President Obama's statement aside. kencf0618 (talk) 21:53, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No need for a list of statements put on Twitter, this can all be summed up as it is in a sentence in the death section, and maybe a snippet from someone who knew him very well, such as his idol Stevie Wonder. In five or ten years, people will look to see how Prince died, they will not look for what Beyonce or Spike Lee wrote on the Internet '''tAD''' (talk) 22:13, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge No need for stand alone article. Sander.v.Ginkel (Talk) 22:25, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • SNOW Delete as I see nothing convincingly better for the article's future as its own article. SwisterTwister talk 23:17, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete. Wikipedia doesn't need a page of Tweets about the death of Prince. 2601:483:101:9BDD:6882:19B3:F900:F6D8 (talk) 22:23, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Too early to tell if this particular event deserves its own article. --Sunshineisles2 (talk) 00:08, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The article should be remade as Death of Prince anyways if it is going to be here on wikipedia. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 00:27, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete These "reactions to" articles are the worst, most unencyclopedic cruft we have. "Someone dies, everyone is sad." This is of no benefit whatsoever. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:29, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Typical newbie mistake. Creator had less than 160 edits to their name, and also created Death of Prince, which is also at AfD. Softlavender (talk) 01:29, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Wikipedia is not a mirror of Twitter. Esquivalience t 01:39, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete My eyes are rolling. There's no need for a reactions article. The place to put notable reactions is his regular article, not a separate article created solely to memorialize him. This is an enyclopedia, not a tribute site. Dirroli (talk) 02:53, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am the creator of the article and I urge MERGE with Death of Prince article There is a lot to write about the Death with reactions being only a small part. There are other death articles, like Death of Michael Jackson and Death of Jimi Hendrixs and Death of Adolf Hitler. Whiskeymouth (talk) 02:57, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I did not write that I am the owner of the article. I am the creator of the article and regret creating it. It should be merged and redirected to the Death of Prince article or the Prince (musician) article, preferably the former. Whiskeymouth (talk) 05:31, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Reactions to X articles are generally a bad idea. When a particularly famous person dies, or a notable event occurs (like a natural disaster), it is common for many politicians /celebrities/etc to make statements/condolences/etc at the topic (whether via Twitter, or because a journalist asks them, or via a press release, or so on). We don't need to exhaustively document these reactions. It is better to just select a handful of the most notable ones and include them on the article at X, but be sparing in doing so, since X itself is generally more significant than these reactions to it. SJK (talk) 03:58, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge – I, as a British Wikipedian, wish to offer the great British compromise and suggest we merge this with the article Death of Prince. There is already an article on this, and it should not prove too hard to give this a new sub-heading. Having looked at the above comments the morning of today(the twenty-third of April 2016) I see that the very creator of this article is now calling for a merge which surely reinforces this request.Vorbee (talk) 05:57, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep – Keeps the clutter off the Prince article. Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 08:32, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with Prince (musician). We can have these quotes from famous people on his article under the section on his death. --Ches (talk) (contribs) 09:01, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete/Selective Merge. There is nothing of singular notoriety about the death or its circumstances. Moreover, the rapid flurry to edit around this is substantially recentist, and it will be many weeks before we have the information and answers required to present an encyclopedic account of his passing. Finally, allowing the precedent that celebrities demand additional articles at their passing is an unhelpful one, given the longterm challenge of maintaining at high quality even one article per subject. In re: Selective Merge, I echo the immediately foregoing comments of Chesnaught555. Cheers. Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 09:18, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Much like Death of Prince (which is an incredibly ambiguous title if you ask me as is this one) it's not been long enough since the event to actually document the effects of the subject's death beyond the immediate reactions. Currently, this article isn't neccesary and if needed could work as a subsection in a larger article with selective quotes but it can't stand alone in any form. tutterMouse (talk) 10:27, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge - Merge into Death of Prince or Prince Nelson per WP:CHEAP, as this is too small for its own article, so long as Death of Prince exists. There is no reason to delete the information in this article without retaining its history. Additionally, assuming that the title is ambiguous, we can change the title to something like Reactions to the death of Prince Rogers Nelson. The article for Prince Nelson is over 130 kB, so splitting articles from it will reduce its size. --Jax 0677 (talk) 14:19, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The same as the death article. While it is incredibly sad that he has passed away there isn't anything specifically notable about it. This isn't like with Michael Jackson where there was so much controversy surrounding it and him.*Treker (talk) 14:30, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Forked from Death of Prince verbatim and not what I would consider being of any encyclopaedic value. Why not try Wikinews for these things? Sam Sailor Talk! 16:31, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Too short, unlikely to grow substantially for now. In the unlikely event that it is found to be necessary it can always be recreated later. --Ser Amantio di NicolaoChe dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 17:17, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - any popular entertainer who dies will draw attention of other celebrities. I don't see how this is notable enough to warrant it's own article. Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talk • contributions) 17:30, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or consider merge and redirect to Death of Prince. Some coverage among reliable sources but duplicates the death article. TeacherA (talk) 18:11, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. WP:NOTNEWS. VQuakr (talk) 18:45, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete; keep a couple quotes as refs in Prince (musician). — JFG talk 21:46, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Possible merge; otherwise delete. A few of these reactions could be useful on the Prince page. Agree with User:EvergreenFir's reason for nomination and User:NinjaRobotPirate's idea about Wikiquote/Wikinews coverage. Just too short to have a long life, no matter how many famous (and non-famous) people may mourn Prince. If his death becomes a "culturally memorable" event, maybe this page should be revisited, but not until then. -- 2ReinreB2 (talk) 23:59, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect: Seems like the best option to me for now is to redirect to Prince (musician)#Illness and death. –Qpalzmmzlapq T C 02:06, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - aww hell no. Delete for every single of the reasons noted above, plus the content forking, and the fawning hero worship peacockery which is bound to fester in an article like this. After everything calms down and people go through a few days without "Purple Rain" being played on the radio 24/7, we can reexamine whether there is any significance to people's reactions to it. Do note that we (and this article, really) are a part of that reaction. There's no way to stay neutral. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 08:33, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete --ThurnerRupert (talk) 11:56, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete any meaningful content is already in the main article. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 14:32, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Wikipedia does not exist to permanently archive things people said on Twitter. Bearcat (talk) 15:21, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Collections of quotations about events are unencyclopedic as stand-alone articles. I would also advocate only extremely limited coverage of this subtopic at the Prince (musician) article. Yngvadottir (talk) 16:07, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Wikipedia is not a condolence board. DrKilleMoff (talk) 19:09, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Per others. This is just silly.--Yankees10 22:32, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Per many others.--DThomsen8 (talk) 13:24, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Per WP:SNOW. —  dainomite   18:00, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and make sure any significant reactions are already in the Death of Prince article, which i obviously believe should be kept. reactions to the death of famous/beloved people are NOT particularly notable, esp. condolences and prayers. if its an evaluation of their greatness, that can be significant, like "prince was the best musician ever" or whatnot.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 17:51, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and merge back into relevant Prince article(s). This needs to be merged back into the article called Death of Prince or if that article gets deleted under AFD, back into the original Prince article. I note that the reactions to the death of David Bowie, who was a celebrity on the same level as Prince (if not bigger as he'd been around longer) are part of the article Death of David Bowie and not broken out separately. Same for Death of Michael Jackson. There is no reason for Prince to be treated differently from these other major musical celebrities. TheBlinkster (talk) 02:39, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I really don't see the point in having a separate "reactions" article when the information could just as easily be covered at the main Death of Prince article. Kurtis (talk) 09:18, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Collapsed unnecessary section -- there's already an overwhelming consensus to delete (collapsed 00:16, 28 April 2016 (UTC) by Softlavender (talk))
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Delete or redirect?[edit]

Despite all of the votes to delete the article, I started this subsection, as I feel that whether the article should be deleted or redirected (assuming that it cannot remain) is another question that should be addressed. Since redirects are cheap, and articles can contain valuable history, I feel that this search term as well as Death of Prince should not be deleted. --Jax 0677 (talk) 18:27, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There's no need for this, and it interrupts the discussion. There's already an overwhelming consensus to delete: 44 delete; 2 redirect; 6 merge; 3 delete or merge. I'm therefore collapsing it. Softlavender (talk) 00:16, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Per WP:NOTMEMORIAL. Mlpearc (open channel) 18:45, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Wikipedia is not an online memorial. Death of Prince still being processed, so no need for redirect as of now. Adog104 Talk to me 18:58, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Who would search "reactions to death of FOOBAR"? I understand redirecting the "death of" pages but not this one. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 20:53, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • I agree. Redirects should be something that a person could conceivably search for, like an alternate name, a common misspelling, etc. Who is actually going to search for "Reactions to the Death of Prince"? And even if someone did, "Death of Prince" would probably come up anyway. Redirecting "Death of X" to "X" (if we aren't going to have a separate article on X's death) makes more sense, because a person specifically interested in their death might include the word death in the search term; but who is going to be specifically interested in the reactions to someone's death, as opposed to just their death? SJK (talk) 21:57, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • I also agree. Delete "Reactions to the death of Prince", merge "death of", my best compromise. Mlpearc (open channel) 00:42, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - per WP:QUOTEFARM. GABHello! 22:11, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete Death of Prince is too many, this is another step beyond. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:26, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Next we'll have Reactions to reactions to the death of Prince. Toddst1 (talk) 16:26, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete If anything this could be added to the page on Prince. As a stand alone article though, it's not needed. RickinBaltimore (talk) 16:27, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. MBisanz talk 20:37, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Melvin Wong[edit]

Melvin Wong (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable autobiography page. HappyValleyEditor (talk) 04:51, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor Talk! 14:06, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor Talk! 14:07, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as not at all yet suggesting the necessary independent notability. SwisterTwister talk 23:19, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 23:19, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. Michig (talk) 06:23, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

List of godchildren of members of the British Royal Family[edit]

List of godchildren of members of the British Royal Family (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unnecessary list. What makes a list of godchildren notable? In fact who gets included or not in this list? WHO exactly ARE the "British Royal Family"? Re5x (talk) 04:06, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Being a godchild is not a significant distinction. Clarityfiend (talk) 08:40, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 15:33, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as not convincing for its own article. SwisterTwister talk 23:23, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete being a godchild of a notable person is insufficient to establish notability. Heck, being the actual child of a notable person is insufficient by itself to establish notability, because notability is not inherited. (Being a child of a royal may be one of the few exceptions to this rule, since it entails a place in the succession to the throne and possibly titles/styles like prince, princess, His/Her Royal Highness, etc; but being a godchild of a royal entails none of these things.) Otherwise, we'd have List of children of celebrities SJK (talk) 04:03, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - interesting to me, but how is this notable? Bearian (talk) 20:00, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. Michig (talk) 06:20, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Chiara Bellati[edit]

Chiara Bellati (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

User:Luckylarry requested deletion (see User_talk:Laberkiste#.28new_section.29) but did not know how to do it right, so I file this nomination for him. Laber□T 16:32, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:50, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:50, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as nothing at all actually suggesting solid independent notability. SwisterTwister talk 04:16, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep director and producer credits on notable shows such as Coast in the U.K and Zoo in New Zealand. Passes WP:CREATIVE. Atlantic306 (talk) 18:59, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 03:42, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question for User:Atlantic306 the article says she received critical acclaim in New Zealand - there is no New Zealand media coverage of her that I can find. You need to cite references to support this. NealeFamily (talk) 22:30, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Not finding much either, will change vote unless someone finds RS. Atlantic306 (talk) 21:35, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unable to find anything that brings the article up to notability standard. NealeFamily (talk) 23:07, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 11:11, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

William Burdett-Coutts (promoter)[edit]

William Burdett-Coutts (promoter) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I see no evidence that this subject meets encyclopedic standards of notability. bd2412 T 18:22, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:37, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:37, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:37, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 00:49, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP It was me that created this article. I am in the middle of an extensive overhaul of articles related to the Edinburgh Fringe, the world's biggest arts festival. There are four big venue chains that have come to dominate the Fringe and have largely shaped what it is today, artistically speaking. He set up one of them, and has run it for over 30 years. He is therefore a fundamental figure in the history of the Fringe. It is for this I believe he is notable, not as a business figure. For comparison, I would argue he is notable in the same way that a manager of a world-famous band or a manager of a cup-winning football team would be. I can and will expand in time. Peaky76 (talk) 09:45, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mz7 (talk) 02:49, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Suppose, then, that we move it to draft space until it is expanded and sourced enough to show encyclopedic notability. bd2412 T 03:40, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as this article clearly has no imaginably better signs of the necessary notability improvements. SwisterTwister talk 23:23, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and possibly merge into Assembly (events promoter). This is not a notable BLP. I can appreciate the heartfelt plea of the article creator, however when I am in that same position, also with a BLP, I gather and add all the sources first, then write the article second, and I don't save the article into article space until it can withstand a possible AfD; I wouldn't unleash it into the world with too few references. The article creator can still do this. But as it stands now, all of this article can be stated in the Assembly (events promoter) article. Prhartcom (talk) 18:25, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    While everyone is free to develop articles in the way they see fit, this is a wiki, and the idea is that one can do as much or little as one wishes (per WP:NOTCOMPULSORY). Therefore people are at liberty to create unreferenced stubs, which is where many of our good articles started. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 11:23, 27 April 2016 (UTC).[reply]
  • Keep there seems to be plenty of material. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 12:00, 27 April 2016 (UTC).[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. North America1000 06:36, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Naser Muheyeldin[edit]

Naser Muheyeldin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Lawyer who doesn't appear to meet WP:GNG. Provided references were from the firms he works for--the best I could find from a reliable source was a reference to his CEO position at Emirates Fortune Group (which I've added to the article), but I found nothing else on him or the company. --Finngall talk 02:44, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as not at all any noticeable signs of the applicable notability. SwisterTwister talk 23:25, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 23:25, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 23:25, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 23:25, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. Michig (talk) 06:15, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Walter L. Schindler[edit]

Walter L. Schindler (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Included sources are either non-independent or do not show that the person meets WP:GNG or WP:NPERSON. Further searches do not show anything additional. Majora (talk) 01:19, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - I can't find any reliable sources that would come close to bringing it to WP:GNG, and none are provided with the article. It reads like an advertisement as well, and even if references were found would need significant work to suggest the notability of the subject beyond being a public CV for them. Ajraddatz (talk) 01:23, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I was the one who originally wanted to tag this for AFD (a big thanks to Majora for doing it for me - I was having browser trouble :-)). It definitely doesn't seem to meet WP:GNG; there aren't additional sources I could find (other than the sources in the article) regarding this person, and this person doesn't appear to have significant in-depth coverage (enough to create an article without the use of original research) - a requirement in meeting WP:GNG. ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 01:27, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I was tempted to CSD this for self-aggrandisement but regrettably there is no such CSD category. Fails to establish any significant notability despite the seven refs which are mostly about the subject talking about himself or routine directory or business reports.  Velella  Velella Talk   08:50, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 15:34, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - not notable and reads like a CV. Kierzek (talk) 16:41, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as nothing at all actually suggesting the necessary independent notability. SwisterTwister talk 22:09, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Joseph2302 (talk) 22:35, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Joseph2302 (talk) 22:35, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Louisiana-related deletion discussions. Joseph2302 (talk) 22:35, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 23:29, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Demon (Dungeons & Dragons). And merge from the history as may be desired.  Sandstein  08:33, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Lissa'aere[edit]

Lissa'aere (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This character fails to establish notability independent of the main work. TTN (talk) 22:06, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Joseph2302 (talk) 22:56, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 00:32, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. North America1000 00:37, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Believing that an unsourced stub fails Wikipedia notability guidelines is a perfectly valid rationale for deletion. Care to provide any sources if you believe they exist? Satellizer el Bridget (Talk) 02:15, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy delete as author-requested. — MusikAnimal talk 15:40, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sheila Crowley[edit]

Sheila Crowley (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This person's claim to fame is being involved in an organization, National Low Income Housing Coalition, that itself is barely notable and its page was started only a few days ago and has issue tags.

All of the substantive information here is from her own organization's (National Low Income Housing Coalition's) website, and the 5 "refs" are just passing mentions and quotes in various publications, not really GNG. JesseRafe (talk) 21:56, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Joseph2302 (talk) 22:57, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Joseph2302 (talk) 22:57, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington, D.C.-related deletion discussions. Joseph2302 (talk) 22:57, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I can find places where she is quoted in her capacity as director, but none of those are about her. There are a few other non-profit organizations that report on her retirement ([27], and I can find her in a directory ([28]), but none say much about her. Also, the article on National Low Income Housing Coalition was done by the same user User:ElbowRite and fails in many ways including style. If any of this is kept I would suggest userfying and sending the user through AfC because they still need to learn the basics of article construction. LaMona (talk) 04:12, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment (Deletion nominator) This should be merged, at least, with her organization. Both of which are probably non-notable enough. But there's so much extraneous information in both these articles that it is undue weight. JesseRafe (talk) 19:55, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 00:32, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. MBisanz talk 20:38, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Howard Graham (entrepreneur)[edit]

Howard Graham (entrepreneur) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Lack of independent sources, most seem to be companies he has worked for or has co-founded. There may be more coverage of some of those companies, possibly enough to meet the relevant guidelines, but not for this article. The subject may have also requested deletion in an edit to the page. Peter James (talk) 21:27, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 22:51, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 22:51, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 00:31, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Couldn't find sufficient independent coverage. Not notable. VanEman (talk) 06:33, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as still nothing convincing for the applicable notability, nothing else better to suggest keeping. SwisterTwister talk 02:56, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete Rlendog (talk) 18:23, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Larry Leon Blackwell Jr[edit]

Larry Leon Blackwell Jr (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Apparent autobiography with no support for notability; tagged as possible recreation. The one "reference" is to Youtube; the "external link" is to another person entirely. —swpbT 15:36, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:52, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:52, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 00:30, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete.  Sandstein  08:29, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Kungumam kathai solgirathu[edit]

Kungumam kathai solgirathu (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unreleased film. Clearly fails WP:NF. —Vensatry (Talk) 12:25, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:25, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:25, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Although the nom incorrectly stated that the film has yet to be released (it has been previously released), this movie has received almost no coverage in English media and very little coverage in Tamil media. Sheepythemouse (talk) 20:42, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
alts:
proper spelling:(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
director:(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
studio:(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
lead:(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
WP:INDAFD: Kumkumam Kadhai Solgiradhu K. Shankar
  • Comment: I am actually a bit disappointed by the nominator making these errors for this film released 38-years-ago, and have begun addressing article issues. An issue is that this Tamil film was pre-internet, never released in English or with English coverage, and will need input from Wikipedians better able to find and offer Tamil-language sources. Schmidt, Michael Q. 21:00, 15 April 2016 (UTC).[reply]
  • My bad. Mixed up this film with another one, which was created by the same user. However, there are no sources (in the article) that confirm the theatrical release of the film. Anyway, I'll try to see if the film is covered in the vernacular media and get back, so that we can withdraw the nomination. —Vensatry (Talk) 07:14, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Vensatry: Are you willing to withdraw the nomination? Mhhossein (talk) 18:08, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Mhhossein: No. I did manage to find a few Tamil sources, but unfortunately none of those qualify WP:RS. —Vensatry (Talk) 18:24, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 00:29, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as still nothing suggesting the necessary notability improvements. SwisterTwister talk 05:13, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge to Northanger Abbey#Allusions to other works. Done pre-close per WP:BOLD. (non-admin closure) ansh666 05:26, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Northanger Horrid Novels[edit]

Northanger Horrid Novels (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Delete - The grouping of these books derives solely from Northanger Abbey and it's all explained in that book's article. The content here is fine, well sourced, etc --- there's just no reason for it to have its own article. twl_corinthian (talk) 11:39, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, that'd do just as well. Northanger Abbey article already has the same stuff anyway.--twl_corinthian (talk) 16:52, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 00:29, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. North America1000 00:40, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect to Northanger_Abbey#Allusions.2Freferences_to_other_works. This is already fairly well covered in the main article and while there are some sources out there like this and this, there's really not much to add here that couldn't be better summed up in the main article. I would recommend re-writing the section to be a little more clear, though, since it's almost entirely just a section full of quotes from the book. That doesn't really do much for clarity's sake and there must be a better way to get the point across in fewer words and quotes. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 07:37, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've cleaned it up. Offhand the page needs a very, very thorough scrubbing. There's outright OR and POV in the article, what with sentences like "The directness with which Austen addresses the reader, especially at the end of the story, gives a unique insight into Austen's thoughts at the time". This likely isn't incorrect, but it needs to sound less like a personal opinion which should be easily done by including sources and attributing these viewpoints to specific people like scholars and the sort. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 07:47, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merged[edit]

Reasonable consensus after a week, so I merged it. How do I close/archive this discussion though? I can barely understand the instructions in the AfD-close guide. :S --twl_corinthian (talk) 11:11, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

oops, sorry - hadn't read that guideline! We can leave the case open then. It'd be easy enough to reverse what I did (It was all the same text anyway apart from one sentence).--twl_corinthian (talk) 14:00, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. —SpacemanSpiff 02:58, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Freelance Talents[edit]

Freelance Talents (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No independent reliable sources. Does not meet WP:CORP or WP:GNG. Randykitty (talk) 08:32, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Musa Talk  09:29, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Musa Talk  09:29, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:56, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. North America1000 09:20, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Can't see any good independent sources. Fails WP:ORG and WP:GNG. Edwardx (talk) 12:45, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Published books and journals by this publisher listed on google. [1] Some of the database references are non-trivial and list of books, works by this organization in detail.[2][3] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tomar99 (talk • contribs) 06:09, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ https://www.google.co.in/search?tbs=bks:1&q=%22Freelance+Talents%22&gws_rd=cr&ei=kHUUV-aYC4Ok0gS63pKYBw
  2. ^ http://www.comicbookdb.com/publisher.php?ID=5599
  3. ^ http://www.writers.net/writers/books/43731
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 00:28, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. MBisanz talk 20:38, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

2007–08 Dynamo Dresden season[edit]

2007–08 Dynamo Dresden season (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

General consensus states that all football club season articles should be about a professional football season to be considered notable. Fully professional leagues are listed at WP:FPL. In this season, Dynamo Dresden were in the Regionalliga, the third tier at the time, which is not listed as a fully professional league, and therefore not notable, per WP:NSEASONS. A similar discussion involving Rot-Weiß Oberhausen can be seen at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2012–13 SC Paderborn 07 season. Secret Agent Julio (talk) 03:40, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 01:53, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 01:53, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 01:53, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - this is the season that the club qualified for the 3. Liga, it is clearly notable in the contet of the club's history and deserves to stand alone as an article. Inter&anthro (talk) 20:47, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • This season (2015–16) has seen my club reach it's highest ever points total (105) and achieve promotion to the highest level it's ever played at, so it's clearly notable in the context of it's history too. However, that's not a valid reason for it to have a season article. Number 57 21:40, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 00:26, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Secret Agent Julio (talk) 21:33, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. A clear consensus following relisting. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 19:22, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Luka Skrlep[edit]

Luka Skrlep (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No proof of playing in a league mentioned in WP:FPL. Sports Devotee (talk) 03:07, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 01:52, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 01:52, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Slovenia-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 01:52, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 00:26, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - can't find any mention of this player. Hoax? If not, clearly doesn't meet WP:GNG. Nfitz (talk) 00:17, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Nfitz (talk) 00:17, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. Michig (talk) 06:09, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

2001–02 Stuttgarter Kickers season[edit]

2001–02 Stuttgarter Kickers season (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

General consensus states that all football club season articles should be about a professional football season to be considered notable. Fully professional leagues are listed at WP:FPL. In this season, Stuttgarter Kickers were in the Regionalliga, the third tier at the time, which is not listed as a fully professional league, and therefore not notable, per WP:NSEASONS. A similar discussion involving Rot-Weiß Oberhausen can be seen at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2012–13 SC Paderborn 07 season. Secret Agent Julio (talk) 03:09, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 01:54, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 01:54, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 01:54, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 00:26, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Secret Agent Julio (talk) 21:33, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. A clear consensus following relisting. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 19:24, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sam Draisey[edit]

Sam Draisey (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article about a musician which does not satisfy WP:BAND or WP:GNG. The musician has not charted and has only been reviewed by a local website. The one reliable source in the article is the only source I have seen which is by a local paper and by itself does not satisfy WP:GNG. McMatter (talk)/(contrib) 02:35, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. McMatter (talk)/(contrib) 02:35, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. McMatter (talk)/(contrib) 02:35, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. McMatter (talk)/(contrib) 02:40, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. McMatter (talk)/(contrib) 02:40, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. What's in the article is about the only coverage of this guy I can find. Show listings do not demonstrate notability, and if the only major coverage was in 2009 it would appear he's not as notable as the article makes it out to be. Primefac (talk) 04:11, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 00:26, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. (WP:NPASR). North America1000 06:47, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Visual Build[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Visual Build (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

A interesting application, but I'm having numerous notability concerns. The .NET Developer's Journal article is reliable, but a subject must be majorly covered in an article by a NOTABLE publication (or at least notable enough to have its own Wikipedia page) for the subject to be considered notable. The only other source listed here is a magazine article only briefly mentioning the application. A google news search was not of much help either, as most of the articles in that search were about horror films that had nothing to do with the program. editorEهեইдအ😎 21:40, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak Keep See if this article can be improved for a couple days before deleting it. It may just be in need of better writing. ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 21:47, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • This is a WP:MERCY argument. The article has been around since approximately 2008 (judging by when the first articles for deletion discussion of this article took place). Barely any significant coverage of the software has appeared in reliable sources since the 2005 .NET Developer's Journal article. editorEهեইдအ😎 22:02, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:50, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 00:54, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I have not edited this page before, why would it be a WP:MERCY argument? ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 19:39, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • OK, maybe WP:MERCY only applies if that argument was by a person who edited the page, but this is still an invalid argument given that you did not comment to keep the article based on any notability standard. Saying that "See if this article can be improved for a couple days before deleting it" is not valid given that the article has been around for a long time and barely any good sources have popped up about the topic. editorEهեইдအ😎 20:46, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 00:25, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep. I found some sources which discuss this, they suggest at least weak notability:
    1. Ramachandran, Muthu (31 August 2009). Handbook of Research on Software Engineering and Productivity Technologies: Implications of Globalization. IGI Global. p. 49. ISBN 978-1-60566-732-4.
    2. Xie, Qing, and Atif M. Memon. "Rapid" crash testing" for continuously evolving GUI-based software applications." Software Maintenance, 2005. ICSM'05. Proceedings of the 21st IEEE International Conference on. IEEE, 2005.
    3. Memon, Atif, Adithya Nagarajan, and Qing Xie. "Automating regression testing for evolving GUI software." Journal of Software Maintenance and Evolution: Research and Practice 17.1 (2005): 27-64.
    4. Sean Kenefick (1 January 2008). Real World Software Configuration Management. Apress. pp. 266–267. ISBN 978-1-4302-0792-4.
The first three mention this tool as one of several examples of a particular class of tool, but do not discuss it in any further detail than that. The last reference contains slightly more than one page discussing its features. SJK (talk) 10:27, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. SOFTDELETE per low participation herein. North America1000 06:49, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jon Everill[edit]

Jon Everill (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:BASIC: both references come from a single source. I could not find any other sources.

Violates WP:NOR and/or WP:Verifiability: neither the net worth, nor the place of residence / family information, nor even the date of birth (the ref says 1968) is confirmed by the references. Rentier (talk) 17:53, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:48, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:33, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 00:49, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 00:24, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to List of Hypericum species. (non-admin closure) SSTflyer 02:08, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

List of Hypericum species in Adenosepalum[edit]

List of Hypericum species in Adenosepalum (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Information already covered at List of Hypericum species. Can be redirected to its section there Fritzmann2002 16:27, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organisms-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:48, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:28, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:28, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 00:48, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 00:23, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. —SpacemanSpiff 03:01, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Kolla avinash[edit]

Kolla avinash (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Notability not adequately established. This is a neophyte art director in Indian cinema--a crew member. He's not a film director. Anyhow, GNG has not been met as the only references we can consider (not Facebook, not LinkedIn) are passing mentions like this where writers ask him a quick question (i.e. an interview, i.e. a primary source that can't establish notability). Nothing significant at Google News or Books, and the more specialized Indian newspaper search engine doesn't turn up much of significance.

Far too soon for an article. Maybe after he wins some notable awards... Cyphoidbomb (talk) 16:14, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:26, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:26, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 00:48, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as simply nothing actually compelling for sufficient signs of notability and improvements. SwisterTwister talk 04:24, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 00:23, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Overall consensus is for deletion. North America1000 06:52, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Clanton 14[edit]

Clanton 14 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:ORG. Not a lot of significant coverage by reliable third party sources. Page was sourced with dead links, unreliable sources and some WP:OR. They are old and they do exist, but don't seem that notable. Niteshift36 (talk) 14:07, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:54, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:54, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:54, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 00:45, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - this article is about a notable subject. WP:ORG isnt inclusive however. More input needed.BabbaQ (talk) 18:15, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • If they're that notable, where is all the significant coverage? They pretty much exist, get arrested once in a while and that's it. Niteshift36 (talk) 18:40, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 00:22, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Not finding substantial coverage by reliable sources. Hits in Google Books yield incidental mentions mainly focused on the formation of the breakaway 18th Street gang. The POLICE magazine reference has the deepest coverage. Not enough to satisfy GNG or WP:ORG by itself. • Gene93k (talk) 01:58, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete at best and Draft if needed, nothing suggesting the needed improvements. SwisterTwister talk 05:36, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and Gene93k. There just doesn't appear to be enough comprehensive coverage to satisfy notability guidelines. Chrisw80 (talk) 06:46, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. Michig (talk) 06:03, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Shoaib Gibran[edit]

Shoaib Gibran (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Does not pass the criteria of WP:BIO. No major contribution in the field, do not have coverage in Internet, no reliable source. Ibrahim Husain Meraj (talk) 12:33, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. Ibrahim Husain Meraj (talk) 12:35, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Ibrahim Husain Meraj (talk) 12:35, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as won notable award, a number of book references are listed in the article which count as reliable sources as well as internet sources which are also listed so that WP:GNG is passed. Have struck keep vote in view of award and book information. Atlantic306 (talk) 19:14, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Those awards are not notable nationally. Ibrahim Husain Meraj (talk) 10:17, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 00:44, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Very Weak Keep Just barely meets the requirements, searches have a couple of sources. ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 21:41, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@ThePlatypusofDoom: Would you elaborate on what you found? The best I came up with in a reliable English source was a passing mention.[29] Searching for "শোয়াইব জিবরান" returned nothing more substantial than a two line quote.[30] Worldbruce (talk) 19:09, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The two awards are not notable ones. The "book references" appear to be collections of poetry in which his poetry is included, in other words not independent, and not demonstrating notability. Worldbruce (talk) 21:55, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 00:21, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as nothing at all for the applicable notability. Article is not able to fulfill WP:BIO criteria. ~ Moheen (talk) 04:31, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Per Nom, can't see this article as anything other than CV. --nafSadh did say 20:54, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as nothing currently suggesting better for the applicable notability. Notifying DGG for his analysis as I'm sure he would be interested to help here.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) SSTflyer 02:07, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Earth Negotiations Bulletin[edit]

Earth Negotiations Bulletin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

notability-tagged and primary sources only tagged for four years, NN Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 01:45, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. Nordic Dragon 07:27, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Nordic Dragon 07:27, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Publications-related deletion discussions. Nordic Dragon 07:27, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:48, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 00:40, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 00:21, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I'd put forward this journal article (which directly discusses the publication in question, as is clear from title and abstract) as evidence of notability of this publication: Chasek, Pamela S. (2001). "NGOs and State Capacity in International Environmental Negotiations: The Experience of the Earth Negotiations Bulletin". Review of European Community and International Environmental Law. 10 (2): 168–176. doi:10.1111/1467-9388.00273. ISSN 0962-8797.. SJK (talk) 02:44, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I've added several sources for further developing the article on the article's talk page. More readly available. At present, a poorly written article, but an important, notable publication, in my opinion. An unconventional publication (it is not a journal, nor really a magazine; staffed by a semi-volunteer squadron of interns/ analysts/ reporters from around the world), it is simply the go to source for day-to-day reportage at all major international environmental convention negotiations -- as evidenced by coverage in The New York Times, Washington Post, and elsewhere. Kind regards, DA Sonnenfeld (talk) 10:20, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep especially if this can be better improved. SwisterTwister talk 05:41, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. A clear consensus following relisting. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 19:28, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ben Starr[edit]

Ben Starr (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Can't find any significant coverage in independent reliable sources to verify his notability. Likely to be a very old self-promotional page (written by a long-gone single purpose editor) with little to no improvement over the past 8 years The-Pope (talk) 00:21, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. The-Pope (talk) 00:21, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. The-Pope (talk) 00:22, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. The-Pope (talk) 00:22, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 00:17, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not sufficient independent complete coverage. not notable. VanEman (talk) 06:26, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Ben Starr the American producer seems a lot more relevant and should instead be given this URL link to search for, in my humble opinion. Conspirasee1 (talk) 15:09, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete non-notable radio personality.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:30, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete.  Sandstein  08:30, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sprite bombs[edit]

Sprite bombs (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Doesn't meet WP:NPRODUCT. DarthVader (talk) 07:08, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Only two short sentences, a link to the official website and nothing else. Oh, and its non-notable. editorEهեইдအ😎 09:24, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 00:16, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. There's nothing in a standard Google News search, but I did find [31] in the Brantford Expositor, [32] in The Toronto Star, and [33] in the Niagara Falls Review, among several other, similar stories. It looks like these toys are illegal in Canada but have still been sold in a few places, causing a bit of a local stir. I'm not sure we have enough here to satisfy the GNG. The news reports seem a bit routine, and most are basically just PSAs. It's probably a bit too soon yet. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 02:43, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as nothing at all suggesting better Wikipedia improvements. SwisterTwister talk 05:42, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete non-notable. --Anthony Bradbury"talk" 11:45, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Lisa K. Fitzpatrick[edit]

Lisa K. Fitzpatrick (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

no real evidence for notability, despite the relatively minor administrative position DGG ( talk ) 08:10, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America1000 22:16, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. North America1000 22:16, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America1000 22:16, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No in-depth coverage in reliable sources. Way too promotional. Even if notability could be established, WP:TNT applies. Edwardx (talk) 12:37, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Margalob (talk) 14:18, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 00:16, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Looks as if there is coverage about her, but the references in the article are so poorly done, it takes a lot of work to see where they're from. Since notability is marginal from given sources, I recommend keeping with a banner asking for help with references. Also, doesn't look promotional to me. VanEman (talk) 06:31, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as I concur with DGG with that this is still questionable for her own independent notability aside from the apparent news sources about her. Draft if needed as I'm not currently confident this can be kept and improved. SwisterTwister talk 05:28, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington, D.C.-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:56, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete She is a local public health administrator for a medicare program. That does not make someone notable. She was an Associate professor, that by default does not make them notable. She has published articles. So does every other health researcher. She has peer reviewed articles. Well, actually, who does the peer reviewing is generally not noted, but it does not establish notability. Nothing suggests she meets the notability requirements for a politician (which she would if she had a high enough ranking public health appointment, such as Surgeon General of the US to go to a level none would dispute), nor is there any evidence she meets the notability criteria for an academic.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:24, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete--Anthony Bradbury"talk" 21:08, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Concordia International School Shanghai Model United Nations[edit]

Concordia International School Shanghai Model United Nations (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The event doesn't seem to satisfy the notability criteria at WP:EVENT. There are no references in any reliable third party sources. The event itself is confined to a local region, its WP:LASTING effects are unclear (if any) and no WP:INDEPTH coverage in major news websites. Lemongirl942 (talk) 10:28, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:08, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:08, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:08, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 00:15, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. MBisanz talk 20:39, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sketch Thinking[edit]

Sketch Thinking (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Made up term introduced in 2015, PROD removed by author without further notice. No sources that would indicate use of the term outside this book; also mixes up promotion of the book with promotion of the term. Laber□T 11:11, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:46, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:46, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 00:15, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This proves that the McKim book Experiences in visual thinking cited in the reference section does not actually have any mention of the article subject at all. A social media LinkedIn.com SlideShare created by the article subject creator is a primary source, not a reliable secondary source. That means that this article is completely unreferenced. Prhartcom (talk) 21:18, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as nothing at all suggesting better notability improvements. SwisterTwister talk 05:52, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Uncontested. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 11:06, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Marshall Gagne[edit]

Marshall Gagne (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non notable martial artist since rank does not show notability on WP. Fails WP:GNG and WP:MANOTE. Nothing shows he's notable as a martial artist and the only significant independent coverage is an interview in the local (Tryon, NC) newspaper.Mdtemp (talk) 15:12, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 15:23, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete My search did not find the sources needed to show WP:GNG is met and there is no supporting evidence that he meets the martial arts notability criteria mentioned at WP:MANOTE. Papaursa (talk) 00:50, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 00:14, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete' As per above.Peter Rehse (talk) 16:51, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as nothing suggesting better notability improvements. SwisterTwister talk 05:55, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The only independent coverage seems to be in "the world's smallest daily newspaper". Nowhere near enough to justify an article. --Michig (talk) 06:46, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to List of diplomatic missions of Ukraine. (non-admin closure) SSTflyer 02:07, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Embassy of Ukraine, Paris[edit]

Embassy of Ukraine, Paris (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

fails WP:GNG. article merely confirms it exists. Also there is no bilateral article to redirect this article to. LibStar (talk) 15:58, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. North America1000 22:10, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. North America1000 22:10, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. North America1000 22:10, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of diplomatic missions of Ukraine, and not just this one; please nominate all similar two-sentence articles appearing as blue links in the "Diplomatic missions of Ukraine" template found at the bottom of the article. Please note that the parallel article France–Ukraine relations now redirects to the main Foreign relations of France article, giving more of a reason to redirect this one. Prhartcom (talk) 18:56, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 00:14, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete--Ymblanter (talk) 06:47, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mario Angel Ruiz[edit]

Mario Angel Ruiz (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I had this as a BLP prod-though Youtube is technically a ref. Anyway non notable artist from what I can tell. Wgolf (talk) 17:36, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:02, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete yes, a pretty weak claim of notability as far as these things go and unsurprisingly, a search for reliable sources yields... nothing at all. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:04, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 00:14, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No evidence of notability, absolutely no independent references to pass WP:GNG —  crh 23  (Talk) 08:32, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as I myself noticed this at NPP, too soon at best if ever an article should occur. SwisterTwister talk 05:56, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No attempt has been made to create even a worthwhile stub, and there is no valid claim of notability. --Michig (talk) 06:41, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. MBisanz talk 20:39, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jeremy Jahn[edit]

Jeremy Jahn (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I see no wins on the ATP tour or the minor league Challenger Tour. No Davis Cup appearance or no Junior top 3 ranking. This is a non-notable tennis player per Tennis Project Guidelines. An appearance in a minor league Challenger event doesn't cut it unless he wins the event. Fyunck(click) (talk) 18:57, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 01:56, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 01:56, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 00:13, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I also can't find results that meet the Tennis notability requirements, same for GNG. Gap9551 (talk) 05:29, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete at best for now as it's still questionable for the applicable notability and there's nothing suggesting applicably better. SwisterTwister talk 05:58, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

Saba Mamulashvili[edit]

Saba Mamulashvili (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Page claims this is a notable swimmer, but I can't find anyone with this name, it seems to be a autobio and just someone with hopes and dreams about there future! Wgolf (talk) 00:13, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. North America1000 00:34, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Georgia (country)-related deletion discussions. North America1000 00:36, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete per criterion A7, as it doesn't make any claim of significance. —  crh 23  (Talk) 08:29, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Keep. Michig (talk) 05:54, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

MHD (rapper)[edit]

MHD (rapper) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not enough evidence to support creation of page. Epic Tracks (talk) 23:50, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Le Monde and Le Parisien are not news sources to scoff at, MHD has a fine stub over in French Wikipedia, and he's playing Central Park Summerstage this summer. Could we perhaps incorporate some of the information from the French page? For example, the fact that he's done tracks with Angelique Kidjo? Or that his YouTube videos have garnered tens of millions of views? I don't think it's worth deleting this. --Gus andrews (talk) 03:13, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 23:55, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 23:55, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 00:08, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose: MHD has huge success in French charts commencing as number 2 on SNEP the official French Albums chart. http://lescharts.com/showitem.asp?interpret=MHD&titel=MHD&cat=a His album has also charted at high positions in Belgium, the Netherlands and Swiss charts. More than a dozen of the tracks appear on the French Singles Chart. I have added the details. Now the article also has many references from independent sources. werldwayd (talk) 05:52, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep perhaps for now as this seems enough, I would've suggested Draft as the next level if not convincing enough but this can be improved if needed. SwisterTwister talk 06:00, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2016_April_22&oldid=1142223652"