The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Malcolmxl5 ( talk) 00:07, 15 February 2016 (UTC) reply

United States presidential election in District of Columbia, 2016

United States presidential election in District of Columbia, 2016 (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)

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

It feels like an unneccicary expansion to the 2016 election page, rather than it's own page. OrangeYoshi99 ( talk) 22:59, 7 February 2016 (UTC) reply

I'm putting it back because the article is part of a series of articles on the election results of the all the primaries in the 50 states, six territories and the District of Columbia. See below:

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 02:32, 8 February 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington, D.C.-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 02:32, 8 February 2016 (UTC) reply

• Keep perhaps as I've noticed several articles with states-focused pages and this seems acceptable, no serious needs for deletion. Notifying DGG for analysis. SwisterTwister talk 05:11, 13 February 2016 (UTC) reply
• Keep. On the same basis as the others. If there aren;t much in the way or sources now, there very soon will be. Tje missing ones should be started as soon as possible. DGG ( talk ) 09:39, 13 February 2016 (UTC) reply
• Keep per comments of SwisterTwister and DGG. May need some cleanup, but no need for deletion. There is clearly a precedent and justification for this type of article.-- Ddcm8991 ( talk) 20:19, 13 February 2016 (UTC) reply

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Speedy deleted by Anthony Appleyard, CSD G11: Unambiguous advertising or promotion. Malcolmxl5 ( talk) 16:24, 13 February 2016 (UTC) reply

Alraid

Alraid (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)

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

Despite the removal of the prod there are still no independent sources, and is overly promotional with little to indicate notability Jac16888 ^Talk 22:53, 7 February 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 02:31, 8 February 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 02:31, 8 February 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 02:31, 8 February 2016 (UTC) reply

Delete No independent RSs in the Russian and Ukrainian versions, either. There's some coverage of a recent dust-up with Crimean authorities in Russian and Ukrainian press, but I don't see enough to establish notability. Eperoton ( talk) 20:04, 8 February 2016 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. Uncontested. Malcolmxl5 ( talk) 00:09, 15 February 2016 (UTC) reply

Andrew Tweddle

Andrew Tweddle (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)

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

Minor government official. If find many mentions in connection with cases he has investigated but nothing that indicates real notability. — teb728 t c 21:26, 7 February 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 02:35, 12 February 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 02:35, 12 February 2016 (UTC) reply

• Delete cant see anything that indicates notability. MilborneOne ( talk) 17:21, 12 February 2016 (UTC) reply
• Delete and I may've simply PRODed as this is obvious. SwisterTwister talk 05:14, 13 February 2016 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 ( talk) 00:11, 15 February 2016 (UTC) reply

Turki Al-Jalvan

Turki Al-Jalvan (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)

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

Contested PROD. Concern was Article about a footballer who fails WP:GNG and who has not played in a fully pro league. PROD was contested by the article's creator without providing a reason. Sir Sputnik ( talk) 21:17, 7 February 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik ( talk) 21:18, 7 February 2016 (UTC) reply

• Delete Yet to make an appearance in a WP:FPL nor has he made an international appearance. Nothing to suggest he passes GNG any other way. Seasider91 ( talk) 23:56, 7 February 2016 (UTC) reply
• Delete - Fails NFOOTY as has not played senior international football nor played in a fully professional league. No indication that subject has garnered significant reliable coverage for any other achievements to satisfy GNG. Fenix down ( talk) 10:47, 8 February 2016 (UTC) reply
• Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 18:48, 8 February 2016 (UTC) reply

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. It has been shown that Sean Maye meets WP:NTRACK. Malcolmxl5 ( talk) 00:24, 15 February 2016 (UTC) reply

Sean Maye

Sean Maye (  | 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 assert significance. Rollingcontributor ( talk) 20:56, 7 February 2016 (UTC) reply

• Keep. A search reveals that Maye won a gold medal at the 1997 IAAF World Indoor Championships on the American 4x400 relay team, and thus meets WP:NTRACK. /wiae /tlk 02:27, 8 February 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 02:27, 8 February 2016 (UTC) reply

• Keep as that seems convincing enough. SwisterTwister talk 05:12, 13 February 2016 (UTC) reply

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 is urged to read, mark and learn from WP:BEFORE, WP:NPP and WP:CSD. JohnCD ( talk) 11:44, 8 February 2016 (UTC) reply

Cornwall Park, Auckland

Cornwall Park, Auckland (  | 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 does not assert significance. Rollingcontributor ( talk) 19:29, 7 February 2016 (UTC) reply
• Keep. Appears to be a substantial park, and I see no benefit from deletion here. -- Michig ( talk) 20:43, 7 February 2016 (UTC) reply
• Keep Article subjects aren't required to be "significant", so they certainly aren't required to assert it. They are required to be able to show notability, which they do with coverage in other sources. This does so: sources from 1901, sources from today. Andy Dingley ( talk) 20:53, 7 February 2016 (UTC) reply

Emphasise this as a 'snow keep to a very dubious nomination (see below). Andy Dingley ( talk) 22:32, 7 February 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. North America ¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:14, 7 February 2016 (UTC) reply

• Speedy keep Article clearly passes GNG. IMO an Afd within hours of creation is not constructive editing. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{( Talk Contribs)} 22:02, 7 February 2016 (UTC) reply

Thanks for spotting that, I'd also note that the nominator had earlier speedied it as WP:CSD#G1 " patent nonsense, consisting purely of incoherent text or gibberish with no meaningful content or history". Even for an editor with only a few hundred edits, this is far from the level of WP:COMPETENCE we require. This repeated deletion attempt was either less than competent, WP:POINTY or something deeper. Andy Dingley ( talk) 22:32, 7 February 2016 (UTC) reply

• This request for help from administrators has been answered. If you need more help or have additional questions, please reapply the {{admin help}} template, or contact the responding user(s) directly on their own user talk page.

  Could an uninvolved admin please close this AfD? The creation of this park is one of the most significant events in Auckland's history. I can't call myself uninvolved, as I have extensively edited related pages; otherwise, I would have closed the AfD myself. Schwede 66 07:54, 8 February 2016 (UTC) reply
• Andy, I have marked it under G1, and immediately undid the action, as I felt it was not suitable. And perhaps I wasn't constructive by marking it for Afd very soon, but the G1 tag was removed immediately, in the next minute, as you can see in the edit log. Rollingcontributor ( talk) 10:55, 8 February 2016 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 ( talk) 21:25, 14 February 2016 (UTC) reply

Joshua Perez

Joshua Perez (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)

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

Concern was that the article fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. PROD contested by IP user without providing a reason. – Michael ( talk) 19:17, 7 February 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. – Michael ( talk) 19:18, 7 February 2016 (UTC) reply

• Keep. With 25 caps and participation in a continental tournament, even at the U-17 level, it looks like he does meet WP:NFOOTBALL. — C.Fred ( talk) 19:23, 7 February 2016 (UTC) (edited 20:06, 7 February 2016 (UTC)) reply

Capping at the youth level does not meet WP:NFOOTBALL. – Michael ( talk) 19:35, 7 February 2016 (UTC) reply

• Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log ( step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2016 February 7. — ^{cyberbot I} _{Talk to my owner:Online} 19:28, 7 February 2016 (UTC) reply
• Weak delete. If he's signed to Fiorentina, it stands to reason that there's coverage of him—but that hasn't been shown in the article. Obviously, the situation would change if he goes into the game for Fiorentina's A squad (i.e., not the reserves), but at this point, that's looking into a crystal ball. After rereading WP:NFOOTBALL, I've reconsidered my position. — C.Fred ( talk) 20:06, 7 February 2016 (UTC) reply
• Delete - He has not played in a fully pro league or received significant coverage, meaning the article fails WP:NSPORT and WP:GNG. Youth football is explicitly excluded as a source of notability by WP:NSPORT. Sir Sputnik ( talk) 20:07, 7 February 2016 (UTC) reply
• Delete No senior club or international appearances, no other indication of notability. Seasider91 ( talk) 01:15, 8 February 2016 (UTC) reply
• Delete - Fails NFOOTY as has not played senior international football nor played in a fully professional league. No indication that subject has garnered significant reliable coverage for any other achievements to satisfy GNG. Fenix down ( talk) 10:47, 8 February 2016 (UTC) reply
• Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 18:48, 8 February 2016 (UTC) reply
• Weak delete not notable yet. Inter&anthro ( talk) 05:04, 9 February 2016 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 ( talk) 21:20, 14 February 2016 (UTC) reply

Alessandro Hirata

Alessandro Hirata (  | 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 non notable Brazilian professor (It does not seem to meet WP:PROF). The article was also deleted from Wikipedia in Portuguese, Wikipedia in Japanese and Wikipedia in Italian. The sources are either self published (Lattes is a self published currriculum) or have conflict with the professor (and some of them are offline). Nothing indicates notability. Bilhauano ( talk) 19:14, 7 February 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. Bilhauano ( talk) 19:14, 7 February 2016 (UTC) Bilhauano ( talk) 19:14, 7 February 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 19:27, 7 February 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 19:27, 7 February 2016 (UTC) reply

• Delete. His specialty (ancient law) appears to be a low-citation subject, but even so I can't find any of his publications that has more than low single-digit citations in Google scholar. That's not enough for WP:PROF#C1 and I don't see anything else. — David Eppstein ( talk) 19:53, 7 February 2016 (UTC) reply
• Delete at best as this seems questionable for the applicable notability. SwisterTwister talk 06:21, 13 February 2016 (UTC) reply
• Delete per reasons above. Most online sources are self-published or very brief. giso6150 ( talk) 21:45, 13 February 2016 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 ( talk) 21:17, 14 February 2016 (UTC) reply

Bert Wollersheim

Bert Wollersheim (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)

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

Per our WP:BLP policies, I'm not convinced that the sourcing is adequate for such a negative article. Ϣere SpielChequers 19:07, 7 February 2016 (UTC) reply

• Delete The current BLP has some extraordinarily iffy sourcing including sources which rank somewhat lower than the Daily Mail in veracity, and some sources which do not make the claims they are supposed to support. The person has no notability in any English language sourcing, and not a lot in the German tabloids either. http://www.bild.de/regional/ruhrgebiet/sophia-wollersheim/berti-schaute-finale-im-tabledance-laden-44378242.bild.html is the latest "BILD" article - if this is a "notable person" per Wikipedia standards, then please tell us <g>. Collect ( talk) 19:19, 7 February 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 01:02, 12 February 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 01:02, 12 February 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 01:02, 12 February 2016 (UTC) reply

• Delete as the article is questionable at best. SwisterTwister talk 05:21, 12 February 2016 (UTC) reply
• Delete insufficiently sourced to pass GNG. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 14:44, 13 February 2016 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 ( talk) 00:26, 15 February 2016 (UTC) reply

Absolute Whores

Absolute Whores (  | 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 WP:NMUSIC or WP:GNG. Unsourced since 2009. Article reads like a fansite. Mr. Guye ( talk) 18:14, 7 February 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Mr. Guye ( talk) 18:15, 7 February 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Mr. Guye ( talk) 18:15, 7 February 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. Mr. Guye ( talk) 18:17, 7 February 2016 (UTC) reply

• Full disclosure: I'm the original creator here. Our rules about the notability of bands and the citing of sources were very different in 2004, when I created this, than they are now — at the time, any band that had at least one independently notable member was an eligible topic on that basis alone, and we were nowhere near as strict about requiring the sources to be in the article as long as they were locatable. And the promotional tinge here wasn't written by me, but was added later on by a user named Jptrash ( WP:COI, if you look carefully at the names of the band's members). But both WP:NMUSIC and WP:GNG have been tightened up considerably in the past twelve years, and my own sense of what belongs here and what doesn't has evolved right alongside them — under the standards that apply today nothing here passes NMUSIC, and while I checked ProQuest just now and got a handful of hits, none of them were substantive enough to satisfy GNG. So it was a legitimate article at the time I created it — but today, it's a delete. Bearcat ( talk) 18:43, 7 February 2016 (UTC) reply
• Delete as none of this suggests better applicable notability. SwisterTwister talk 21:37, 7 February 2016 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was Delete. Michig ( talk) 08:28, 14 February 2016 (UTC) reply

Zakaria Polash

Zakaria Polash (  | 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 cited sources are written by the subject or contain only a brief quote from him. Searches of the usual types found only more of the same: [1] and [2] (for non-subscribers: "JU student also JUDO members Zakaria Polash, Shakayat Jamil Saikat and Jafor Sadik were adjudged the competition."). These do not add up to in-depth coverage that is independent of the subject, so fails WP:BASIC. Worldbruce ( talk) 20:11, 31 January 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. Worldbruce ( talk) 20:12, 31 January 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Worldbruce ( talk) 20:14, 31 January 2016 (UTC) reply

• Delete as currently questionably solidly notable for the applicable notability, delete and restart at best. SwisterTwister talk 02:58, 7 February 2016 (UTC) reply

• Delete Unless someone can locate secondary sources that discuss this scholar/journalist - as opposed to material he has authored. I could not source it. E.M.Gregory ( talk) 22:18, 10 February 2016 (UTC) reply
• Delete per nom. Parsley Man ( talk) 02:09, 11 February 2016 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 ( talk) 00:32, 15 February 2016 (UTC) reply

Tarl Knight

Tarl Knight (  | 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 was previously deleted but promptly recreated by a single-purpose account that, judging by the username, is connected to the subject of the article. Subject is a singer who does not meet the notability criteria at Wikipedia:Notability (music). Article does not demonstrate in-depth coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources. Citobun ( talk) 16:52, 31 January 2016 (UTC) reply

• Delete at best as none of this currently convinces better applicable notability. SwisterTwister talk 03:06, 7 February 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 03:06, 7 February 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wisconsin-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 03:06, 7 February 2016 (UTC) reply

• Delete per the lack of significant coverage in Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources. The article contains two reliable sources, but both are passing mentions: http://www.greenbaypressgazette.com/story/news/local/door-co/entertainment/2015/06/09/steel-bridge-songfest-celebrates-th-anniversary/28774573/ ^WebCite and https://doorcountypulse.com/steel-bridge-songfest-kicks-off-with-appreciation-night/ ^WebCite.

  There is insufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Tarl Knight to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".

  Cunard ( talk) 22:12, 14 February 2016 (UTC) reply

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 and redirect to Topmodel (cycle 1).  Sandstein  10:46, 15 February 2016 (UTC) reply

Hanne Baekelandt

Hanne Baekelandt (  | 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 about a person who may not meet notability guidelines Linguist111 ( talk) 13:17, 31 January 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Musa ^Talk ☻ 15:48, 31 January 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Belgium-related deletion discussions. Musa ^Talk ☻ 15:48, 31 January 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. Musa ^Talk ☻ 15:49, 31 January 2016 (UTC) reply

Hardly any news coverage. Linguist111 ( talk) 19:17, 1 February 2016 (UTC) reply

• Delete as questionably better for WP:CREATIVE. SwisterTwister talk 03:16, 7 February 2016 (UTC) reply

• Redirect to Topmodel (cycle 1): No particularly significant coverage apparent after her Topmodel win. ^~~ Hydronium^~Hydroxide^{~ (Talk)~~} 09:08, 9 February 2016 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was no consensus. (non-admin closure) sst✈ ^(conjugate) 13:55, 14 February 2016 (UTC) reply

Red Caps (TV series)

Red Caps (TV series) (  | 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 has had only one source since its creation.. Electric Burst^{( Electron firings)}_{( Zaps)} 21:05, 31 January 2016 (UTC) reply

• Delete per the lack of third party sources. -- Rubbish computer ( HALP!: I dropped the bass?) 23:10, 31 January 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. clpo13_{( talk)} 23:26, 31 January 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. clpo13_{( talk)} 23:26, 31 January 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Finland-related deletion discussions. clpo13_{( talk)} 23:26, 31 January 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. clpo13_{( talk)} 23:26, 31 January 2016 (UTC) reply

• Move to Santa's Magic Crystal. I can't find any articles specifically focused on Red Caps, but the Variety article, already incorporated as a reference here, mentions the series in relation to the feature film Santa's Magic Crystal. A Google News search for that film title, paired with the name of film's director, yields an actual review of the film, published by The National [3], as well as this short piece by Animation Magazine, [4] which lists the film (under the truncated title The Magic Crystal) as an entry in a European film festival. -- Jpcase ( talk) 13:38, 1 February 2016 (UTC) reply
• Keep, possibly move to Santa's Magic Crystal. While the film seems more notable than the series, both have received some reliable coverage. While I think that one article covering both the topics is enough, I am not sure under which title it should be (the title of the film, which seems to be more sourcable, or the title of the series which originated it). Cavarrone 07:08, 2 February 2016 (UTC) reply
• Delete for now at best and draft & userfy to start any future article, as it seems clear there is currently nothing. SwisterTwister talk 02:43, 7 February 2016 (UTC) reply
• Keep sourcing appears to be a matter of language. There are third party sources although they are not easy to find. It is a Finnish program so the sources are mostly in Finnish. It also appears to have been popular in Hungary under the title "Télapó pirossapkás koboldjai", a search for which yields more results (in Hungarian, of course). So, keep if it can be expanded using the foreign language sources.-- William Thweatt ^{Talk Contribs} 06:55, 7 February 2016 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete.  Sandstein  10:42, 15 February 2016 (UTC) reply

Dasharath giri

Dasharath giri (  | 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 subject isn't even mentioned in any of the given "references". Emotionalllama ( talk) 16:19, 7 February 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 17:00, 7 February 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nepal-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 17:00, 7 February 2016 (UTC) reply

• Delete as questionable for WP:CREATIVE. SwisterTwister talk 19:35, 7 February 2016 (UTC) reply
• Keep as the sources are now provided. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bikashgiri016 ( talk • contribs) 15:23, 8 February 2016 (UTC) reply
• Delete: I am unable to find significant coverage in reliable sources to demonstrate that the subject is notable. —  JJMC89 ( T· C) 19:54, 8 February 2016 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was Keep as it is clear that such schools are notable and there's not further need for AfD thus unlikely further time is needed for this considering there's a clear consensus (NAC). SwisterTwister talk 06:18, 13 February 2016 (UTC) reply

Akbarpur Inter College

Akbarpur Inter College (  | 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 school: nothing but promotional material, cited sources are mostly promotional. Deserves nothing more than a merge to wherever it is located at. Kingoflettuce ( talk) 16:07, 7 February 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 16:59, 7 February 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 16:59, 7 February 2016 (UTC) reply

• Keep. It is accepted practice that all high schools are considered notable -- this is part of a longstanding compromise to avoid thousands of these AfDs (the other half of the compromise is that all primary schools are not considered notable, unless there are special factors). DGG ( talk ) 19:19, 8 February 2016 (UTC) reply
• Keep - Long standing consensus is that high schools and institutions awarding degree are generally kept. — UY Scuti ^Talk 12:19, 9 February 2016 (UTC) reply
• Keep as a secondary school per longstanding consensus and precedent. -- Necrothesp ( talk) 14:57, 10 February 2016 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was keep. All high/secondary schools are kept per WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES. (non-admin closure) – Davey2010 ^Talk 22:14, 13 February 2016 (UTC) reply

C.D.Girls Inter College

C.D.Girls Inter College (  | 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 school: nothing but promotional material, cited sources are mostly promotional. Deserves nothing more than a merge to wherever it is located at. Kingoflettuce ( talk) 16:07, 7 February 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 16:59, 7 February 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 16:59, 7 February 2016 (UTC) reply

• Keep. It is accepted practice that all high schools are considered notable -- this is part of a longstanding compromise to avoid thousands of these AfDs (the other half of the compromise is that all primary schools are not considered notable, unless there are special factors). DGG ( talk ) 19:19, 8 February 2016 (UTC) reply

• Keep for the same reasons. Ireneshih ( talk) 06:04, 9 February 2016 (UTC) reply
• Keep - Long standing consensus is that high schools and institutions awarding degree are generally kept.— UY Scuti ^Talk 12:20, 9 February 2016 (UTC) reply
• Keep as a secondary school per longstanding consensus and precedent. -- Necrothesp ( talk) 14:57, 10 February 2016 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was keep. All high/secondary schools are kept per WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES. (non-admin closure) – Davey2010 ^Talk 22:14, 13 February 2016 (UTC) reply

Galuapur Inter College

Galuapur Inter College (  | 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 school: nothing but promotional material, cited sources are mostly promotional. Deserves nothing more than a merge to wherever it is located at. Kingoflettuce ( talk) 16:07, 7 February 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 16:57, 7 February 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 16:57, 7 February 2016 (UTC) reply

• Keep. It is accepted practice that all high schools are considered notable -- this is part of a longstanding compromise to avoid thousands of these AfDs (the other half of the compromise is that all primary schools are not considered notable, unless there are special factors). DGG ( talk ) 19:19, 8 February 2016 (UTC) reply
• Keep - Long standing consensus is that high schools and institutions awarding degree are generally kept.— UY Scuti ^Talk 12:20, 9 February 2016 (UTC) reply
• Keep as a secondary school per longstanding consensus and precedent. -- Necrothesp ( talk) 14:57, 10 February 2016 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was keep. All high/secondary schools are kept per WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES. (non-admin closure) – Davey2010 ^Talk 22:15, 13 February 2016 (UTC) reply

Jawahar Navodaya Vidyalaya Kanpur Dehat

Jawahar Navodaya Vidyalaya Kanpur Dehat (  | 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 school: nothing but promotional material, cited sources are mostly promotional. Deserves nothing more than a merge to wherever it is located at. Kingoflettuce ( talk) 16:07, 7 February 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 16:57, 7 February 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 16:57, 7 February 2016 (UTC) reply

• Keep. It is accepted practice that all high schools are considered notable -- this is part of a longstanding compromise to avoid thousands of these AfDs (the other half of the compromise is that all primary schools are not considered notable, unless there are special factors). We do delete advertising, but this articles is not all that highly promotional . DGG ( talk ) 19:27, 8 February 2016 (UTC) reply
• Keep - Long standing consensus is that high schools and institutions awarding degree are generally kept. I've fixed the promo bit.— UY Scuti ^Talk 12:24, 9 February 2016 (UTC) reply
• Keep as a secondary school per longstanding consensus and precedent. -- Necrothesp ( talk) 14:56, 10 February 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 01:17, 12 February 2016 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was keep. All high/secondary schools are kept per WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES. (non-admin closure) – Davey2010 ^Talk 22:15, 13 February 2016 (UTC) reply

Kendriya Vidyalaya, Dahi Chowki Unnao

Kendriya Vidyalaya, Dahi Chowki Unnao (  | 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 school: nothing but promotional material, cited sources are mostly promotional. Deserves nothing more than a merge to wherever it is located at. Kingoflettuce ( talk) 16:06, 7 February 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 16:53, 7 February 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 16:53, 7 February 2016 (UTC) reply

• Keep. It is accepted practice that all high schools are considered notable -- this is part of a longstanding compromise to avoid thousands of these AfDs (the other half of the compromise is that all primary schools are not considered notable, unless there are special factors). We do delete advertising, but this articles is not all that highly promotional . DGG ( talk ) 19:23, 8 February 2016 (UTC) reply
• Keep - Long standing consensus is that high schools and institutions awarding degree are generally kept. I've fixed the promo bit— UY Scuti ^Talk 12:35, 9 February 2016 (UTC) reply
• Keep as a secondary school per longstanding consensus and precedent. -- Necrothesp ( talk) 14:56, 10 February 2016 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was keep. All high/secondary schools are kept per WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES. (non-admin closure) – Davey2010 ^Talk 22:15, 13 February 2016 (UTC) reply

Kendriya Vidyalaya Guna, Madhya Pradesh

Kendriya Vidyalaya Guna, Madhya Pradesh (  | 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 school: nothing but promotional material, cited sources are mostly promotional. Deserves nothing more than a merge to wherever it is located at. Kingoflettuce ( talk) 16:06, 7 February 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 16:49, 7 February 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 16:49, 7 February 2016 (UTC) reply

• Keep. It is accepted practice that all high schools are considered notable -- this is part of a longstanding compromise to avoid thousands of these AfDs (the other half of the compromise is that all primary schools are not considered notable, unless there are special factors). We do delete advertising, but this articles is not all that highly promotional . DGG ( talk ) 19:24, 8 February 2016 (UTC) reply
• Keep - Long standing consensus is that high schools and institutions awarding degree are generally kept. I've cleaned up the article — UY Scuti ^Talk 12:44, 9 February 2016 (UTC) reply
• Keep as a secondary school per longstanding consensus and precedent. -- Necrothesp ( talk) 14:56, 10 February 2016 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was keep. All high/secondary schools are kept per WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES. (non-admin closure) – Davey2010 ^Talk 22:15, 13 February 2016 (UTC) reply

Kendriya Vidyalaya, NTPC Dibiyapur

Kendriya Vidyalaya, NTPC Dibiyapur (  | 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 school: nothing but promotional material, cited sources are mostly promotional. Deserves nothing more than a merge to wherever it is located at. Kingoflettuce ( talk) 16:06, 7 February 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 16:46, 7 February 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 16:46, 7 February 2016 (UTC) reply

• Keep. It is accepted practice that all high schools are considered notable -- this is part of a longstanding compromise to avoid thousands of these AfDs (the other half of the compromise is that all primary schools are not considered notable, unless there are special factors). We do delete advertising, but this articles is not all that highly promotional . DGG ( talk ) 19:24, 8 February 2016 (UTC) reply

• Keep. It is one of the school operated by the Government of India. The question we are left at the moment is to have multiple individual pages for every branch (more than 1000 branches exists), or to create redirect pages for the school. Ireneshih ( talk) 06:02, 9 February 2016 (UTC) reply
• Keep - Long standing consensus is that high schools and institutions awarding degree are generally kept. I've fixed the promo bit — UY Scuti ^Talk 13:05, 9 February 2016 (UTC) reply
• Keep as a secondary school per longstanding consensus and precedent. -- Necrothesp ( talk) 14:54, 10 February 2016 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was keep. All high/secondary schools are kept per WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES. (non-admin closure) – Davey2010 ^Talk 22:15, 13 February 2016 (UTC) reply

Kendriya Vidyalaya, Mati

Kendriya Vidyalaya, Mati (  | 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 school: nothing but promotional material, cited sources are mostly promotional. Deserves nothing more than a merge to wherever it is located at. Kingoflettuce ( talk) 16:06, 7 February 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 16:47, 7 February 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 16:47, 7 February 2016 (UTC) reply

• Keep. It is accepted practice that all high schools are considered notable -- this is part of a longstanding compromise to avoid thousands of these AfDs (the other half of the compromise is that all primary schools are not considered notable, unless there are special factors). We do delete advertising, but this articles is not all that highly promotional . DGG ( talk ) 19:24, 8 February 2016 (UTC) reply
• Keep - Long standing consensus is that high schools and institutions awarding degree are generally kept. I've fixed the promo bit — UY Scuti ^Talk 13:00, 9 February 2016 (UTC) reply
• Keep as a secondary school per longstanding consensus and precedent. -- Necrothesp ( talk) 14:54, 10 February 2016 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was keep. All high/secondary schools are kept per WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES. (non-admin closure) – Davey2010 ^Talk 22:15, 13 February 2016 (UTC) reply

Puranchandra Vidyaniketan

Puranchandra Vidyaniketan (  | 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 school: nothing but promotional material, cited sources are mostly promotional. Deserves nothing more than a merge to wherever it is located at. Kingoflettuce ( talk) 16:06, 7 February 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 16:45, 7 February 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 16:45, 7 February 2016 (UTC) reply

• Keep. It is accepted practice that all high schools are considered notable -- this is part of a longstanding compromise to avoid thousands of these AfDs (the other half of the compromise is that all primary schools are not considered notable, unless there are special factors). We do delete advertising, but this articles is not all that highly promotional . DGG ( talk ) 19:22, 8 February 2016 (UTC) reply
• Keep - Long standing consensus is that high schools and institutions awarding degree are generally kept, albeit a fix on the promo bit of the article is needed— UY Scuti ^Talk 13:10, 9 February 2016 (UTC) reply
• Keep as a secondary school per longstanding consensus and precedent. -- Necrothesp ( talk) 14:53, 10 February 2016 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was keep. All high/secondary schools are kept per WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES. (non-admin closure) – Davey2010 ^Talk 22:17, 13 February 2016 (UTC) reply

R P S Inter College

R P S Inter College (  | 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 school: nothing but promotional material, cited sources are mostly promotional. Deserves nothing more than a merge to wherever it is located at. Kingoflettuce ( talk) 16:06, 7 February 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 16:44, 7 February 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 16:44, 7 February 2016 (UTC) reply

• Keep. It is accepted practice that all high schools are considered notable -- this is part of a longstanding compromise to avoid thousands of these AfDs (the other half of the compromise is that all primary schools are not considered notable, unless there are special factors). We do delete advertising, but this articles is not all that highly promotional . DGG ( talk ) 19:23, 8 February 2016 (UTC) reply
• Keep - Long standing consensus is that high schools and institutions awarding degree are generally kept, albeit a fix on the promo bit of the article is needed — UY Scuti ^Talk 13:18, 9 February 2016 (UTC) reply
• Keep as a secondary school per longstanding consensus and precedent. -- Necrothesp ( talk) 14:52, 10 February 2016 (UTC) reply
• Keep as a highschool/secondary school due to current consensus related to schools. RickinBaltimore ( talk) 14:54, 10 February 2016 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was keep. All high/secondary schools are kept per WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES. (non-admin closure) – Davey2010 ^Talk 22:18, 13 February 2016 (UTC) reply

Kendriya Vidyalaya Shivpuri, Madhya Pradesh

Kendriya Vidyalaya Shivpuri, Madhya Pradesh (  | 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 school: nothing but promotional material, cited sources are mostly promotional. Deserves nothing more than a merge to wherever it is located at. Kingoflettuce ( talk) 16:05, 7 February 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 16:40, 7 February 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 16:40, 7 February 2016 (UTC) reply

• Keep. It is accepted practice that all high schools are considered notable -- this is part of a longstanding compromise to avoid thousands of these AfDs (the other half of the compromise is that all primary schools are not considered notable, unless there are special factors). We do delete advertising, but this articles is not all that highly promotional . DGG ( talk ) 19:26, 8 February 2016 (UTC) reply
• Keep - Long standing consensus is that high schools and institutions awarding degree are generally kept, I've fixed the promo bit — UY Scuti ^Talk 13:20, 9 February 2016 (UTC) reply
• Keep as a secondary school per longstanding consensus and precedent. -- Necrothesp ( talk) 14:52, 10 February 2016 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was keep. All high/secondary schools are kept per WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES. (non-admin closure) – Davey2010 ^Talk 22:18, 13 February 2016 (UTC) reply

JDVM Inter College

JDVM Inter College (  | 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 school. All but promotional material. Kingoflettuce ( talk) 16:03, 7 February 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 16:35, 7 February 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 16:35, 7 February 2016 (UTC) reply

• Keep - Long standing consensus is that high schools and institutions awarding degree are generally kept and the article is not promotional — UY Scuti ^Talk 13:22, 9 February 2016 (UTC) reply
• Keep as a secondary school per longstanding consensus and precedent. -- Necrothesp ( talk) 14:52, 10 February 2016 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was keep. All high/secondary schools are kept per WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES. (non-admin closure) – Davey2010 ^Talk 22:20, 13 February 2016 (UTC) reply

Mahatma Gandhi Inter College

Mahatma Gandhi Inter College (  | 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 school. Nothing but an advert! Kingoflettuce ( talk) 16:02, 7 February 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 16:33, 7 February 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 16:33, 7 February 2016 (UTC) reply

• Keep - Long standing consensus is that high schools and institutions awarding degree are generally kept. I've cleaned up the article — UY Scuti ^Talk 13:28, 9 February 2016 (UTC) reply
• Keep as a secondary school per longstanding consensus and precedent. -- Necrothesp ( talk) 14:52, 10 February 2016 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was keep. All high/secondary schools are kept per WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES. (non-admin closure) – Davey2010 ^Talk 22:20, 13 February 2016 (UTC) reply

S C G M Inter College Madhupur Sonebhadra

S C G M Inter College Madhupur Sonebhadra (  | 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 middle school. Deserves a merge with geographical location at the most. Stand-alone article? Nope. Kingoflettuce ( talk) 16:00, 7 February 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 16:32, 7 February 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 16:32, 7 February 2016 (UTC) reply

• Keep - Inter colleges are high schools. Can you please explain how you determined this to be a middle school? Long standing consensus is that high schools and institutions awarding degree are generally kept. The existence of this school can be verified by a quick Googling — UY Scuti ^Talk 13:56, 9 February 2016 (UTC) reply
• Keep as a secondary school per longstanding consensus and precedent. -- Necrothesp ( talk) 14:51, 10 February 2016 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was keep. All high/secondary schools are kept per WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES. (non-admin closure) – Davey2010 ^Talk 22:20, 13 February 2016 (UTC) reply

Pt. Deen Dayal Upadhyaya Sanatan Dharma Vidyalaya

Pt. Deen Dayal Upadhyaya Sanatan Dharma Vidyalaya (  | 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 mean notability guidelines, and is simply an advert for the school. Nothing substantial about it. Kingoflettuce ( talk) 15:59, 7 February 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 16:32, 7 February 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 16:32, 7 February 2016 (UTC) reply

• Keep - Long standing consensus is that high schools and institutions awarding degree are generally kept and the article is not promotional — UY Scuti ^Talk 14:15, 9 February 2016 (UTC) reply
• Keep as a secondary school per longstanding consensus and precedent. -- Necrothesp ( talk) 14:51, 10 February 2016 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was keep. All high/secondary schools are kept per WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES. (non-admin closure) – Davey2010 ^Talk 22:20, 13 February 2016 (UTC) reply

B N S D Shiksha Niketan

B N S D Shiksha Niketan (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)

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

Inherently non-notable school; promotional material (peacock language: "one of the most famous" etc). Nothing but an advert. Kingoflettuce ( talk) 15:58, 7 February 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 15:59, 7 February 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 15:59, 7 February 2016 (UTC) reply

• Keep - Long standing consensus is that high schools and institutions awarding degree are generally kept. I've cleaned up the article — UY Scuti ^Talk 14:12, 9 February 2016 (UTC) reply
• Keep as a secondary school per longstanding consensus and precedent. -- Necrothesp ( talk) 14:51, 10 February 2016 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was keep. All high/secondary schools are kept per WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES. (non-admin closure) – Davey2010 ^Talk 22:20, 13 February 2016 (UTC) reply

Jawahar Lal Nehru Inter College kalyanpur

Jawahar Lal Nehru Inter College kalyanpur (  | 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 school. Page deserves a title change while we're at it too. Kingoflettuce ( talk) 15:57, 7 February 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 16:48, 7 February 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 16:48, 7 February 2016 (UTC) reply

• Keep, Kingoflettuce, likely with other AFD's this is again a keep. Please review DGG comments on your talk page before nominating any further. Ireneshih ( talk) 06:26, 9 February 2016 (UTC) reply
• Not sure on this one I have not been able to find a source that even shows real existence, besides what can be inferred from likes on Facebook. Nor can I find unambiguous evidence that this is actually a high school. I consider a school website generally sufficient to show real existence, but I cannot find even that. DGG ( talk ) 07:02, 9 February 2016 (UTC) reply
• Keep - The school apparently exists per this and intermediate colleges (inter colleges) are actually high schools in some states of India. Long standing consensus is that high schools and institutions awarding degree are generally kept.— UY Scuti ^Talk 12:55, 9 February 2016 (UTC) reply
• Keep as a secondary school per longstanding consensus and precedent. -- Necrothesp ( talk) 14:55, 10 February 2016 (UTC) reply

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

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

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

GIS and Remote Sensing Lab,Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Forest Department Peshawar,Pakistan

GIS and Remote Sensing Lab,Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Forest Department Peshawar,Pakistan (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)

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

Reads like a press release, not fit for an encyclopaedia JMHamo ( talk) 14:23, 7 February 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 04:14, 10 February 2016 (UTC) reply

• Delete as looks like news article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by GeeAichhBee ( talk • contribs) 15:48, 10 February 2016 (UTC) reply
• Delete as clearly not yet a better notable article. SwisterTwister talk 07:38, 13 February 2016 (UTC) reply

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Already deleted with reference to this discussion ("closed as delete"); I believe the deleting admin just forgot to close. Bishonen | talk 11:43, 18 February 2016 (UTC) reply

Arjun Prabhakaran

Arjun Prabhakaran (  | 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 director of one film. The few reliable sources merely mention him in passing. Fails WP:DIRECTOR. - Mr X 13:27, 7 February 2016 (UTC) reply

I subscribe to the views expressed by MrX. The director may not be notable according to Wikipedia guidelines. Rollingcontributor ( talk) 13:50, 7 February 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 14:18, 7 February 2016 (UTC) reply

Please note that Tony3322 is a CU-confirmed sock of Aparna tutu, who created the article. See here. GAB ^Hello! 17:59, 7 February 2016 (UTC) reply

• Delete as not yet better satisfying WP:CREATIVE. SwisterTwister talk 21:27, 7 February 2016 (UTC) reply
• Delete: I am unable to find significant coverage in reliable sources to demonstrate that the subject is notable. —  JJMC89 ( T· C) 20:04, 8 February 2016 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete.  Sandstein  10:52, 15 February 2016 (UTC) reply

Amit Jha

Amit Jha (  | 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 yet notable per WP:CREATIVE. He did jointly win an Indian Telly Award four years ago, but I can find no coverage of that online apart from the awards' website, and nothing else about him online in WP:Reliable sources. NeemNarduni2 ( talk) 13:08, 7 February 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. NeemNarduni2 ( talk) 13:10, 7 February 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. NeemNarduni2 ( talk) 13:10, 7 February 2016 (UTC) reply

• Delete as not satisfying WP:CREATIVE, I reviewed this and planned to AfD for exactly this. SwisterTwister talk 18:36, 7 February 2016 (UTC) reply
• Delete Fails WP:BLP1E as only known for co-winning an Indian Telly Award. No other coverage, and as a result, fails WP:GNG. Joseph2302 ( talk) 22:46, 8 February 2016 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete.  Sandstein  10:53, 15 February 2016 (UTC) reply

Pirate Park

Pirate Park (  | 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. I could find coverage for other Pirate Parks in the world but nothing in-depth for this one. Let's see if the usual suspect turns up to this AfD LibStar ( talk) 11:17, 7 February 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 14:18, 7 February 2016 (UTC) reply

• Delete for now unfortunately as my searches found nothing immediately better. SwisterTwister talk 07:39, 13 February 2016 (UTC) reply
• Delete per SwisterTwister. Searching with "Pirate Park" alone reveals mostly false positives, while narrowing it to "Pirate Park Malaysia" fails to find enough significant coverage, just travel guides and review sites. I found some coverage from blogs for a Malacca-based attraction called "Pirate Adventure", which may or may not be the same as this, but even if this and that were the same attraction, all I could find were reviews in unreliable blogs. Just an aside, but it seems Pirate Park has received several negative reviews on TripAdvisor and elsewhere. Narutolovehinata5 ^{t c csd new} 14:30, 13 February 2016 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 ( talk) 21:10, 14 February 2016 (UTC) reply

Ambassador of Colombia to Russia

Ambassador of Colombia to Russia (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)

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

all the article says is what any ambassador does and that the ambassador to Russia also is ambassador to other countries. This would be an endless series of articles of ambassador X to country Y. Let's see if the usual suspect pops up here to comment LibStar ( talk) 10:03, 7 February 2016 (UTC) reply

• Delete- An article that says nothing more than "The ambassador of Derpsylvania to Blongoland performs ambassadorial duties between Derpsylvania and Blongoland" is completely pointless. Are we going to have 40,000 articles of the same kind, all the same but with the names of the countries changed? Reyk _YO! 10:26, 7 February 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Kazakhstan-related deletion discussions. Bharatiya 29 11:10, 7 February 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Kyrgyzstan-related deletion discussions. Bharatiya 29 11:10, 7 February 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Tajikistan-related deletion discussions. Bharatiya 29 11:10, 7 February 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Turkmenistan-related deletion discussions. Bharatiya 29 11:10, 7 February 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Uzbekistan-related deletion discussions. Bharatiya 29 11:10, 7 February 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Belarus-related deletion discussions. Bharatiya 29 11:10, 7 February 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. Bharatiya 29 11:10, 7 February 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. Bharatiya 29 11:10, 7 February 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Colombia-related deletion discussions. Bharatiya 29 11:10, 7 February 2016 (UTC) reply

• Strong delete Article content is largely tautological. Not notable in its own right. Would be good for one list all of the country's ambassadors perhaps. This needs to be nipped in the bud. Looks like the tip of a proposed ice berg of ambassadors. (By the way - which of the two people shaking hands is the amabassador?) Aoziwe ( talk) 12:46, 9 February 2016 (UTC) reply
• Delete non-notable article, agree with previous suggestion for one page for the country's ambassadors instead of endless articles on each one. Atlantic306 ( talk) 03:10, 10 February 2016 (UTC) reply
• Delete perhaps then, as still questionable. SwisterTwister talk 07:36, 13 February 2016 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was merge to List of Mini-Cons. (non-admin closure) sst✈ ^(conjugate) 13:55, 14 February 2016 (UTC) reply

Knockdown (Transformers)

Knockdown (Transformers) (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)

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

Minor character from the Transformers universe. No evidence of real-world notability. Josh Milburn ( talk) 09:26, 7 February 2016 (UTC) reply

• Merge to List of Mini-Cons. Mathewignash ( talk) 13:33, 9 February 2016 (UTC) reply
• Merge as suggested with redirect. VMS Mosaic ( talk) 14:47, 9 February 2016 (UTC) reply
• Merge and I would've also closed this myself as such. SwisterTwister talk 07:35, 13 February 2016 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was merge to List of Transformers: Super-God Masterforce characters. (non-admin closure) sst✈ ^(conjugate) 13:43, 14 February 2016 (UTC) reply

Lander (Transformers)

Lander (Transformers) (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)

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

Minor character from the Transformers universe. No evidence of real-world significance. Josh Milburn ( talk) 09:25, 7 February 2016 (UTC) reply

• Very strong delete (and all such similar articles). The request to delete is more notable than the article subject itself . . . Just merge them all in one list/table article. Aoziwe ( talk) 12:55, 9 February 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Nonsense, do not overplay your statements, it defeats their validity. You say strong delete, then your text says merge, make up your mind. Mathewignash ( talk) 13:32, 9 February 2016 (UTC) reply
    • Sorry I thought I was saying the same thing. I think these types of articles should not exist at all. This is not to say their minimalistic content should not be somewhere else in Wikipedia, hence my merge them [as one liner entries] into a list. (I have just returned to Wikipedia after a seven year absence so if my terminology is not Wiki-idiomatically current, I am happy to stand corrected.) ( WP:AGF) Aoziwe ( talk) 14:50, 9 February 2016 (UTC) reply
• Merge to List of Transformers: Super-God Masterforce characters. Mathewignash ( talk) 13:32, 9 February 2016 (UTC) reply
• Merge as suggested with redirect. VMS Mosaic ( talk) 14:49, 9 February 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 19:08, 12 February 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 19:08, 12 February 2016 (UTC) reply

• Merge and I would've closed as such myself. SwisterTwister talk 07:38, 13 February 2016 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was merge to List of Beast Wars II: Super Life-Form Transformers characters. (non-admin closure) sst✈ ^(conjugate) 13:42, 14 February 2016 (UTC) reply

Tripledacus

Tripledacus (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)

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

Apparently a very minor character from the Transformers universe. No evidence of real-world notability. Josh Milburn ( talk) 09:20, 7 February 2016 (UTC) reply

• Merge to List of Beast Wars II: Super Life-Form Transformers characters. Mathewignash ( talk) 13:30, 9 February 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 02:17, 12 February 2016 (UTC) reply

• Merge as this is best and there's no serious needs for deletion. SwisterTwister talk 07:34, 13 February 2016 (UTC) reply

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 09:11, 14 February 2016 (UTC) reply

Flukysnap

Flukysnap (  | 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 our notability guidelines set out at Wikipedia:Notability (web). Whilst the article claims this to be "one of the biggest picture and video platforms in the world" this claim does not seem to be substantiated at all. Alexa puts it at the 4,011,554 most popular website. I can find no significant coverage in any reliable sources. _└ ^UkPaolo/ _talk^┐ 08:24, 7 February 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. —  JJMC89 ( T· C) 10:31, 7 February 2016 (UTC) reply

• Strong (speedy?) delete. An article on another website by the same creator, JustEntertainmnt, was already speedy deleted. This article could probably go the same route. I certainly don't see anything that shows this site is notable enough to keep an article on. — C.Fred ( talk) 20:40, 7 February 2016 (UTC) reply
• Delete. Not notable. -- Fixuture ( talk) 22:21, 11 February 2016 (UTC) reply
• Delete as still questionable for the applicable notability. SwisterTwister talk 07:35, 13 February 2016 (UTC) reply

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Clearly notable per WP:FOOTYN and historic AfD consensus. No need to keep this open for purely administrative reasons. Fenix down ( talk) 10:42, 8 February 2016 (UTC) reply

Eirobaltija Riga

Eirobaltija Riga (  | 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 notable. Edgars2007 ( talk/ contribs) 07:56, 7 February 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Bharatiya 29 11:10, 7 February 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Latvia-related deletion discussions. Bharatiya 29 11:10, 7 February 2016 (UTC) reply

• Speedy keep Club has played in both a national league (second division) and the national cup, meeting WP:FOOTYN. Article needs a lot of improvement, but that isn't a reason to delete. Number 5 7 12:39, 7 February 2016 (UTC) reply
• Speedy keep Article clearly meets WP:FOOTYN - perhaps User:Edgars2007 should withdraw it. Nfitz ( talk) 19:31, 7 February 2016 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) sst✈ ^(conjugate) 13:40, 14 February 2016 (UTC) reply

List of bombs

List of bombs (  | 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 coherent classification; mixing types of bombs, individual bombs, and ingredients. The list of different weights is particularly bizarre and dates to 2009. I made an attempt to clean it up but reverted those changes as I'm not even sure what a "bomb" is anymore. Looking at the talk page comment from over six years ago, it seems like there's little chance of improvement here. Qzd ( talk) 06:50, 7 February 2016 (UTC) reply

• Delete per WP:TNT. A list could be created, but this definitely isn't it. Yikes! Herbicide, atomic and logic bombs all lumped together? Why not throw in Howard the Duck too? Clarityfiend ( talk) 09:54, 7 February 2016 (UTC) reply
• Keep It is our policy that pages may be imperfect and WP:TNT is not policy. For a demonstration that the topic passes WP:LISTN, see British standard bombs in the Encyclopedia of Weapons of World War II. Andrew D. ( talk) 12:29, 7 February 2016 (UTC) reply

That list has a much narrower scope than just "bombs". This article suffers inherently from WP:OVERCAT. Rather deletion, perhaps it should redirect to Lists of weapons (which incidentally does not include this list). For example, List of cars redirects to a more reasonable list of automobile articles. Qzd ( talk) 00:01, 8 February 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 14:14, 7 February 2016 (UTC) reply

• Reluctant keep: I can envision a list of "bombs", defined as "exploding weapon", as being notable, sourced and generally within the scope of WP:SAL. It would actually be a list of the types of bombs rather than the bombs themselves, though (unlike List of nuclear weapons which can aim at exhaustivity).

It would be a nightmare to maintain, and it is quite far from the current article, but that means standard editorial process and talk page discussion, not deletion. WP:TNT is only an essay, and I would apply it only to case where the article to be created is on a different subject despite sharing the same title (say, if the current articles was a list of occurences of a football move). Tigraan ( talk) 16:39, 8 February 2016 (UTC) reply

• Weak keep It needs a lot of work, but if done properly could be quite encyclopedic and useful reference article, but poor quality as it stands. Aoziwe ( talk) 13:00, 9 February 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 03:37, 12 February 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 03:37, 12 February 2016 (UTC) reply

• Comment. Pretty useless as it is. Best approach might be to move to List of explosive devices and limit to entries that fit that description. At present it's just a list of bombs, explosive materials, and things with 'bomb' in the name, which is not coherent enough for a list. -- Michig ( talk) 08:17, 14 February 2016 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete.  Sandstein  10:48, 15 February 2016 (UTC) reply

Sophy Robson

Sophy Robson (  | 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 only has a borderline claim to notability. Nathan2055 ^{talk - contribs} 06:36, 7 February 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 07:33, 13 February 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 07:33, 13 February 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 07:33, 13 February 2016 (UTC) reply

• Delete as still questionable for WP:CREATIVE. SwisterTwister talk 07:33, 13 February 2016 (UTC) reply
• Delete Per nom. Arthistorian1977 ( talk) 14:51, 14 February 2016 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was Speedy Deleted as G11 after I tagged it as such (NAC). SwisterTwister talk 19:27, 8 February 2016 (UTC) reply

Business service visualization

Business service visualization (  | 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. Neither of the cited sources (second link is dead, but can be accessed by the wayback machine) mentions the phrase "Business service visualization". Very little coverage not just in reliable sources, but in any sources other than WP mirrors. There is one exception I could find: a brief from 2011 put out by CA Technologies, which uses the phrase twice in total. I don't think this coverage is sufficient to meet WP:WORDISSUBJECT (although this is a phrase the above guideline still seems to apply). Given that there is little evidence of this phrase meeting any other notability guidelines, like GNG, I think this page should be deleted. Everymorning (talk) 06:34, 7 February 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 06:34, 7 February 2016 (UTC) reply

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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/redirect per WP:SNOW. I'm closing this early, given that the actress and her mother have both requested that the page be removed and there's a consensus that at this point in time she does not pass WP:NBIO outside of her appearance in Peter Pan. Since she is known for portraying Tiger Lily I'm going to delete the article and turn it into a redirect to Peter Pan (2003 film), which Gray has stated she is fine with. Because of the harassment, I'm going to protect the redirect against any future edits - if any one does want to re-create the article, they will have to request permission through an admin in this situation. Ms Gray is also in the process of sending an e-mail through the official channels to confirm her identity, which should also hopefully add an extra level of protection to the page. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 18:11, 7 February 2016 (UTC) reply

Carsen Gray

Carsen Gray (  | 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, which calls for multiple notable rolls. In addiition, we are facing a claim that the subject is being harmed by the bio, which should be given some weight in a case of borderline notability. -- Nat Gertler ( talk) 06:27, 7 February 2016 (UTC) Nat Gertler ( talk) 06:27, 7 February 2016 (UTC) reply

• Delete, clearly fails NACTOR and GNG. Security concerns only puts additional weight to the decision. ·maunus · snunɐɯ· 06:36, 7 February 2016 (UTC) reply
• Comment: At the very least I'm going to give Carmalita1010 a WP:NOTHERE block as adding info like this and this shows some seriously bad faith on her part. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 08:39, 7 February 2016 (UTC) reply

• Gave them a BLP block. If we can confirm that the performer herself wants the information removed, this could speed up the process. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 08:41, 7 February 2016 (UTC) reply
• I've reached out to the performer via her Facebook page with a brief explanation of the situation and gave her the contact information listed here. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 08:50, 7 February 2016 (UTC) reply
• She's confirmed that this was her mother and that she wants the page down, so she's going to submit a request through the official channels. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 10:45, 7 February 2016 (UTC) reply

• Speedy and SNOW Delete: Was never even remotely notable enough anyway, and wants the article deleted. Softlavender ( talk) 15:18, 7 February 2016 (UTC) reply
• SNOW delete, as per above commenters. -- GRuban ( talk) 16:02, 7 February 2016 (UTC) reply
• Delete as above. Jonathan A Jones ( talk) 16:03, 7 February 2016 (UTC) reply

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Active Directory#Active Directory Services. (non-admin closure) sst✈ ^(conjugate) 13:39, 14 February 2016 (UTC) reply

Active Directory Services

Active Directory Services (  | 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 article's subject is not notable on its own. The content is better suited at Active Directory#Active Directory Services. GeoffreyT2000 ( talk) 05:51, 7 February 2016 (UTC) reply

Merge as proposed by GeoffreyT2000. Clearly even the author did not find much to say about the subject that would be of value to be written up in Wikipedia. AppliedStatistics ( talk) 06:14, 7 February 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 23:23, 11 February 2016 (UTC) reply

• Merge also at best. SwisterTwister talk 07:32, 13 February 2016 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete.  Sandstein  10:38, 15 February 2016 (UTC) reply

Transit of Venus from Uranus

Transit of Venus from Uranus (  | 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 am batch-nominating 21 pages that all fall under "Transit of X from Y". These pages are nearly carbon-copies of one another, varying only with details such as the actual transit times/dates and minor trivia. The wording and the tone of these implies some very heavy OR and borders on a lack of a NPOV. The fact that none of these transits have been observed, coupled with the fact that they may never be observed, leads to an unnecessary set of pages with little more than crufty information.

I should mention that there are some pages that are actually decent (the full list is here, and those will be left alone. Primefac ( talk) 05:15, 7 February 2016 (UTC) reply

Transit of Venus from Saturn (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Transit of Venus from Neptune (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Transit of Venus from Mars (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Transit of Venus from Jupiter (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Transit of Uranus from Neptune (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Transit of Saturn from outer planets (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Transit of Earth from Jupiter (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Transit of Earth from Neptune (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Transit of Earth from Saturn (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Transit of Earth from Uranus (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Transit of Jupiter from outer planets (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Transit of Mars from Jupiter (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Transit of Mars from Neptune (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Transit of Mars from Saturn (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Transit of Mars from Uranus (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Transit of Mercury from Jupiter (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Transit of Mercury from Neptune (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Transit of Mercury from Saturn (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Transit of Mercury from Uranus (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Transit of Mercury from Venus (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

• Delete all as gross failures of WP:N and WP:OR/ WP:SYNTH. Headbomb { talk / contribs / physics / books} 05:24, 7 February 2016 (UTC) reply