text:
Rationale is noted on the talk page. TIA <IP_ADDRESS> (talk) 18:47, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

✅ Kindly completed by. <IP_ADDRESS> (talk) 18:53, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Florent Bezara
I have put a tag on Florent Bezara and noted the justification for deletion on Talk:Florent Bezara. Could someone please complete the process for me? Thanks. <IP_ADDRESS> (talk) 03:27, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
 * ✅ DES (talk) 04:26, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Help in afd process
Could someone please complete the afd of Ali in the Quran and The verse of Mawadda. I have clearly stated my reasons for the nominations on the talk pages of both articles. Thankyou.--<IP_ADDRESS> (talk) 10:23, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
 * ✅ See Articles for deletion/Ali in the Quran and Articles for deletion/The verse of Mawadda. Procedural only, I have no opinion on notability as per usual. shoy (reactions) 15:16, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Thankyou again.--<IP_ADDRESS> (talk) 02:08, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

Am I done?
I followed the steps for deleting a page and people are putting in their two cents. I'm not sure what else I have to do. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Punstress (talk • contribs) 09:30, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

 * You have started a lively debate! There is nothing more you "have to do", only keep track of the debate over its seven-day life if you wish. You are however free to put in a comment on anything that other editors write - I advise to prefix any such comment with Comment, not Delete, as your nomination is already understood as a "delete" !vote. Oh, and please sign your entries to talk pages and discussions (but never articles) by putting the code  at the end Noyster  (talk),  11:42, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

Neutral Comments Needed
An editor recently got a bit upset about an article nomination. I've tried to cool the fires by taking it the talk page. I would appreciate any neutral comments at Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Stephanie Powell Watts in an effort to defuse this. Thank you! -O.R.Comms 00:04, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Barron Trump
Whatever one's opinions of Donald Trump, his nine-year-old son, who has appeared occasionally on The Apprentice but never, to my knowledge, in a featured capacity, doesn't deserve a Wikipedia entry in his own right. I'd nominate for AfD but am not sure just what WP:BLP policy this violates, just that it crosses into "creep factor" territory. ( wouldn't you agree?) Help and insight here would be appreciated. Vesuvius Dogg (talk) 23:30, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

 * The name is a searchable term, but I would agree that just as a son of a wealthy person without any merits on their own, we should not have a separate page. It would likely be best to suggest a merge to Donald Trump. (Perhaps even "Family of Donald Trump" as similar to Family of Barack Obama) --M ASEM (t) 23:41, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

I agree with Vesuvius Dogg and M ASEM -- clearly a candidate for AfD. And, generally speaking, underage children of prominent figures and celebrities should be considered off limits. This, for a number of reasons, including privacy concerns -- which is why, as MASEM points out, there are not separate articles on Malia and Sasha Obama, but they are included in the Family of Barack Obama article. (For my part, I'm not even sure Wikipedia should include the 'Family of' articles, but just should list underage children in the article on the principal person). --- Professor JR (talk) 09:14, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree with AfDing Barron Trump. Although I think the Obama girls may be deserving of an article at this point, considering the high media attention compared to Trumps son. ~EDDY  (talk /contribs ) ~ 13:09, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Media attention does not always mean a topic is notable on its own, particularly considering BLP (even moreso considering Barron's "minor" status) and the concept of inherited notability (which is what is happening for both of the Barack daughters and for Barron here). Part of the media loves to cover the family of anyone famous, just because of the spectacle, but that doesn't equate to encyclopedic coverage. --M ASEM (t) 14:01, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
 * This should be AfD'd, and right quick. Capitalismojo (talk) 20:21, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
 * AFD is the wrong process however - unless there is something grossly wrong in light of BLP with the current page (I'm not seeing anything), the contributions are still reasonable, and as "Barron Trump" is a search term, the right solution is to WP:BOLDly redirect the page to Donald Trump, and if that is reverted by an editor, start a discussion on the talk page to get consensus. --M ASEM (t) 20:26, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

Re the original question ("what policy does this violate"), the relevant guideline is WP:BIOFAMILY (WP:BLP1E is the closest policy I could find). --ais523 18:23, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Nomination of Hayden Black
I have posted my justification on Talk:Hayden Black. Thank you. <IP_ADDRESS> (talk) 02:54, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
 * ✅ by Samtar, see Articles_for_deletion/Hayden_Black. shoy (reactions) 12:10, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Nomination of Malee (elephant)
I have nominated the page Malee (elephant) for deletion and put the nomination here: Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Malee (elephant). Can someone please move the nomination page to regular wikipedia space? --<IP_ADDRESS> (talk) 22:43, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
 * ✅ by User:DN-boards1. --<IP_ADDRESS> (talk) 16:20, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

Nomination of Twilight (CD-ROM)
Can someone move this rationale to the regular Wikipedia (not talk) namespace, remove the tag and add to the log? Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Twilight (CD-ROM) --<IP_ADDRESS> (talk) 19:45, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

 * ✅. The debate is now at Articles for deletion/Twilight (CD-ROM), and the debate logged. UltraExactZZ Said~ Did 19:52, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

AfD nomination of AJ Suede
I have nominated AJ Suede for deletion, and noted the justification for deletion on Talk:AJ Suede. Can someone please complete the process? Thanks. <IP_ADDRESS> (talk) 06:36, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Done.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 12:14, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Evette Borromeo
Can someone please move Draft:Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Evette Borromeo to Articles for deletion/Evette Borromeo without leaving a redirect? Please don't forget to tag the article and list the discussion in today's log. Thanks. <IP_ADDRESS> (talk) 23:17, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
 * ✅ See Articles for deletion/Evette Borromeo. -Ad Orientem (talk) 23:27, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Trans-Radio Broadcasting Corporation
Admin action needed. Please move Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Trans-Radio Broadcasting Corporation to Wikipedia namespace without leaving a redirect and transclude it in today's log. Thanks, <IP_ADDRESS> (talk) 03:09, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
 * ✅ This didn't take an admin to do this.  davidwr/  (talk)/(contribs)  05:39, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Fundable
The article seems a promotion of the company, their controllers and investors(!!). It survived an AFD so it may have relevance. A lot of references, but almost all not related. I think that if is not case for deletion, at least many content may be withdrawn. Caiaffa (talk) 16:54, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Melissa Gira Grant
I have nominated this page for deletion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by <IP_ADDRESS> (talk) 22:26, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Please give a reason for deletion, as stated on the AFD template. shoy (reactions) 12:11, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I've removed the redlinked AFD template - but as Shoy said, feel free to let us know why the article should be deleted and we'll have a look. The article was last reviewed in January 2014, where it was kept. See also Articles for deletion/Melissa Gira Grant. UltraExactZZ Said~ Did 13:14, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

Redirects
Hello all. Frank Jackson (Basketball Player) has been nominated for deletion, though he is probably notable. I was thinking the article should be redirected to Frank Jackson (basketball), but am not sure if this is acceptable while the article is at AfD. ~EDDY  (talk /contribs ) ~ 17:14, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Did you mean moved to vice redirected to? Clearly there is no article to serve as the target for a redirect. Assuming that is the case there is nothing that prevents editing an article while it is being discussed at AfD as long as it is not obviously disruptive. But in this case I might suggest holding off until the AfD is resolved just avoid any potential confusion. -Ad Orientem (talk) 17:25, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Do you mean moved rather than redirected? If so that's probably fine. People might object if you try to move a page to a title that implies a different scope of the article, but an uncontroversial one like this shouldn't be a problem.  Hut 8.5  17:26, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I meant to say moved. I don't know why I said redirected. ~EDDY  (talk /contribs ) ~ 17:30, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

Anthony Conway
I'm new to Wikipedia editing, but I found an autobiographical article for Anthony Conway. He is an artist but the problem with his page, is he links himself as a founding artist in the new realist movement, and has his name listed in a list of artists who have contributed greatly to Classical Realism, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classical_Realism

He links his page on Wikipedia to every great artist you can think of, and his sources are a repetition of one or two of the same articles where he was interviewed in his hometown.

It's an autobiography, and should be deleted. Seeker1111 (talk) 16:09, 14 October 2015 (UTC) Seeker1111

i nominate Occidental–Whittier football rivalry
i nominate Occidental–Whittier football rivalry because it is non notable. theres no evidence that it is a important topic. it is a small rivalry that no one cares about it — Preceding unsigned comment added by <IP_ADDRESS> (talk) 22:35, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
 * This is not the place to nominate an article for deletion. Please see WP:AFD. Having looked at the article and done a cursory search I find little to support a claim to encyclopedic notability. Sports rivalries require the same level of in depth coverage from multiple reliable sources as any other topic per WP:NRIVALRY. I have tagged the article for questionable notability and ref improve. If someone wants to send this to AfD we can have a more detailed discussion of its merits or lack thereof. -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:14, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
 * That's a discussion for AfD or for the article's talk page, not for here, User:Ad Orientem p  b  p  11:19, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Poor instructions on closed discussion text
"The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review)"

So, here's the thing. These instructions for further comment are rather poor. If the page was deleted, the article's talk page will just be re-deleted, so that's not a good place. And there are a large amount of new editors at articles for deletion, and creating a deletion review is technically tricky, so that's also a poor choice. We need to point our new editors to a better place and not lead them astray. Maybe to the deletion discussions associated talk page? Maybe to the administrator's talk page? I'm not sure. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 04:20, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Unless one is prepared to open a Deletion Review, there mostly is no good reason to have any further discussion. We could advise people to consult the closer, but that will usually be an excersize in frustration, though it should be done before going to WP:DRV. Opening a deletion review is not that hard, and clear instructions are provided. No one is likely to look at the talk page of a closed Afd. I suppose we could point people at the Teahouse also. DES (talk) 14:19, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Update the example?
I think Articles for deletion/Example should be updated to use a more current look for how an AfD page is properly formatted, but I don't want to touch it since I would neither know just what to do nor want to break anything. —烏Γ (kaw), 07:08, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Automated alert system?
Is there any system for alerting users of and attracting them to deletion discussions, like how WP:FRS operates for RfCs? —烏Γ (kaw), 08:23, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Bumping this, both to attract an answer and to prevent archiving yet. —烏Γ (kaw), 07:08, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
 * WP:WikiProject Deletion sorting organizes a number of lists onto which relevant AfD debates are transcluded, by their authors or by other volunteers, so that (for example) WP:Articles for deletion/How to Host a Murder appears in WP:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Video games and in WP:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Virginia. People interested in particular subjects can watchlist the relevant Delsort lists so that they are aware of new AfDs in their field. JohnCD (talk) 14:14, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Archived addressed threads
I've archived a few addressed threads that were marked as "done". — Cirt (talk) 11:50, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Deletion to Quality Award
I've created the WP:Deletion to Quality Award.

This recognizes editors who've taken a page previously considered for deletion — to Featured Article or Good Article quality.

The award is inspired by the Million Award, the Article Rescue Squadron, and the WikiProject Quality Article Improvement.

Please see Deletion to Quality Award.

Thank you,

— Cirt (talk) 11:51, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

The recent music genre AFDs
I have decided to revert each of the music genre AFDs I have made. I went through each of those articles one by one before deciding to AFD them. If not for the concept in general, then for the article's current sourcing which left much to be desired. Thankfully some deep Google searching has revealed suitable sourcing in enough to make me reconsider this. I would have liked to have a sincere discussion about the state of these articles, and I know for a fact that various ones should undeniably be deleted, but it seems the focus is on the few I got wrong, so I will back down. Perhaps a discussion can be done somewhere about how we as a community can actually imporve all these articles. I apologise for offending anybody, and please refrain from the insults. Thanks. :D--Coin945 (talk) 14:17, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Mareco Broadcasting Network
Can someone please nominate Mareco Broadcasting Network for deletion? I've provided the reason on the article's talk page. Thanks, <IP_ADDRESS> (talk) 15:33, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
 * ✅ -- GB fan 15:43, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Frederico Morais
I'm not experienced on editing here and am not sure if I'll be able to properly nominate an article for deletion, so if someone wants to do it for me I'd like to nominate the article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frederico_Morais

I was searching google for Frederico Morais, a well known surfer, but instead bumped into the above page. As a Portuguese football fan I'm pretty sure that individual isn't in any way notable. There is not a single mention of him on online press records and all the sources of the article are just the organizations where he's worked. The article looks like a professional resumé, was all written by the same editor and looks suspiciously autobiographical. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arruda81 (talk • contribs) 02:31, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
 * ✅ see Articles for deletion/Frederico Morais.  davidwr/  (talk)/(contribs)  04:28, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pages in Category:Lists of airline destinations
This AFD was closed (correctly) as a SNOW keep - but that leaves dozens of articles still tagged for AFD. WP:BADAFD has asploded. If anyone wants to take a few minutes and process a few of these (Un-tag, add the afd-multi to the talk page), it'd be appreciated. (If you have a script that would do the same thing, have at - that's even better.) Thanks! UltraExactZZ Said~ Did 16:42, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

 * FWIW, you use the same afd-multi for each page, since it's one debate. No need to copy and paste every one. UltraExactZZ Said~ Did 16:47, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Blackstar (David Bowie album)
Can someone please nominate Blackstar (David Bowie album). I believe the article fails WP:INDISCRIMINATE as it is simply a single-line article which gives a future relase date. I attempted a redirect, which was undone by the article's author User:Lugnuts with the comment "there is info". Lugnuts then failed to WP:AGF and added a user warning to my talk page. I then attempted a WP:PROD citing WP:INDISCRIMINATE, which Lugnuts again reverted claiming I was disrupting Wikipedia to make a point. Lugnuts then left a message on my talk page calling be a troll.

I believe that Blackstar (David Bowie album) will at some point in the future will become notable, but until such time it doesn't need an article. -- <IP_ADDRESS> (talk) 11:10, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

 * Wrong. Read WP:GNG. And WP:BEFORE. Thanks.  Lugnuts  Dick Laurent is dead 12:22, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

 * The more notable the artist, generally, the further in advance their album gets an article. Here we have multiple sources and clear notability. It's no violation of WP:CRYSTAL, because the subject is being noted in reliable sources now. And it's actually got a name so WP:HAMMER doesn't apply either. Indiscriminate doesn't apply, as such, because the artist is unquestionably notable. So, while you can insist on an AFD if you like, the reality is that the article appears to comply with all of the relevant policies and guidelines, and a debate on that subject would be closed rapidly as Keep. UltraExactZZ Said~ Did 13:31, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Need help finding old AFD discussion
It was for an "electronic sports" team called 4Kings. I'm not entirely sure what the article was titled, either 4Kings or Four Kings or some variant there of. I believe the AFD occured around Nov/Dec 2005.--Prisencolin (talk) 17:00, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Articles for deletion/Four Kings -- Finngall talk  17:08, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Awesome, thanks.--Prisencolin (talk) 02:08, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Undoing improper close
closed Articles for deletion/Antonia Gerena Rivera (2nd nomination) as keep less than four hours after making his/her first edit. Could somebody reopen this so someone else can decide what to do with this? Rainbow unicorn (talk) 20:52, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Undone, I'm working on a close now. DES (talk) 21:32, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

AfD participants may be good administrators
When deciding if a potential admin is fit for the tools, the candidate's AfD stats are a significant consideration.

So, I'm posting here. You could be very helpful in evaluating potential candidates, and maybe even finding out if you would be a suitable RfA candidate.

So, please consider watchlisting and taking a look at this page:

 * Requests for adminship/Optional RfA candidate poll

Many thanks and best wishes,

Anna Frodesiak (talk) 02:54, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Mareco Broadcasting Network
Can someone please re-open the discussion? The user who closed it (Wikienglish123) was blocked and it looks like he/she didn't know what he/she's doing. And please undo what he/she has done on Mareco Broadcasting Network. Thanks, <IP_ADDRESS> (talk) 06:50, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
 * IMO a neutral admin closing that debate would have closed it as Keep as well, so there's nothing to be done. Wikienglish123's only edit to the article was to remove the AfD nomination, which the closing admin would also have done. Reyk  YO!  07:43, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

AFD nomination needs completing
Would a registered user please complete this AFD nomination? Substed afd2 template follows. Thank you.

Retroscripting
AfDs for this article:

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Judging by a Google News archive search, the term has only been used by the creators of Home Movies in reference to that show. None of the sources cited in the article use any form of the word except for one, and that one links the word back to our article, which at the time was a completely unsourced stub. —<IP_ADDRESS> (talk) 04:11, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

 * Done - I restarted the nomination from scratch (with a copy of your rationale) just to play it safe and avoid errors. GermanJoe (talk) 12:30, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks! —<IP_ADDRESS> (talk) 15:29, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 November 2015
Please remove the third (colon-indented) paragraph of. It is wholly redundant with, and less informative than, the immediately preceding sentence.

—<IP_ADDRESS> (talk) 03:58, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
 * It is not entirely redundant, as it warns users that "you will get stuck part way through the nomination procedure." I will open a discussion on your behalf asking if this line and the preceding line should be changed. Furthermore, the text itself is spread over two different templates, Afd footer and AfD in 3 steps.  Redoing either template requires checking all usages so that pages in which only one of these two templates is used aren't "broken" by the change.  In other words, keeping the redundancy may be easier than proving that it's never not redundant.  davidwr/  (talk)/(contribs)  04:02, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 November 2015
support deletion because the person is not notable

<IP_ADDRESS> (talk) 12:51, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: You're editing the talk page for WP:AFD, not the specific page for a deletion discussion Cannolis (talk) 18:25, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

AfD from the grave
This open AfD was relisted last on 10 October 2015, but has remained unnoticed since by closing admins. Apparently it was relisted twice on the same day in a short period of time, which may have led to this problem. I have removed the html comment-hiding elements on the 2015/10/10 log page and then tried to refresh Mathbot's Old discussion page, but that seems to go only back up to a limited amount of days. Could someone look into this? - HyperGaruda (talk) 07:50, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I relisted it again so that people can actually see the discussion, as it seems to have gotten lost in the dust. ansh 666 10:13, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I've see this before in my trolling of Article alerts/Problem entries/Old for old AfDs. It appears that when a discussion is relisted for the second time in the same day by a Twinkle user by mistake, or by different users in an edit conflict situation, the discussion is commented out from the current day's log page without a new transclusion being created.  -- Finngall  talk  18:06, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Template loop detected?
Could someone knowledgeable about AfD templates have a look at Articles for deletion/LeMel Humes please? Looks like the nomination's transclusion is bugged somehow, or maybe simply duplicated in itself. GermanJoe (talk) 11:38, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
 * . JohnCD (talk) 15:40, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Renato Abella
I think they are not notable. Does not meet the criteria for WP:MUSICIAN and google search does not turn about a lot of results. I don't know how to nominate an article and I am not sure if I am correct about this or not. Therefore, I am not nominating it. Susana Hodge (talk) 05:36, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Abiola Abrams also seems non-notable to me. The article is filled with promotional stuff and beneath all the fluff, Abrams does not qualify.Susana Hodge (talk) 05:46, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
 * are you requesting that someone nominate these articles on your behalf? I would list them for you but I'm not sure that's what you're asking. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 15:46, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

 * Yes, please nominate them.Susana Hodge (talk) 10:58, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

AfD Culture
FYI discussion ongoing at Village_pump_(policy) since October 2015. Ottawahitech (talk) 22:42, 22 November 2015 (UTC)please ping me

Question and proposal
AFDFORMAT presently claims that there exist tools (plural) and bots that parse AfDs which will only recognise bolded words. To date, I have only been able to identify one tool (AfD Statistics) that does this. I am aware of no bots whatsoever of which that statement is true. I suspect that the alleged other tools and bots do not exist. I have not, however, had time to carefully examine every single tool and bot. Can anyone either confirm that my suspicion is true, or identify the other individual tools and bots? I think it is important that essays in the Wikipedia space do not contain factual claims that are unverified or demonstrably false. Accordingly, unless the other alleged other tools and bots are identified in a reasonable amount of time, the words "some bots and tools" should, in my view, be changed to "at least one tool", with no mention of bots, or something to that effect. James500 (talk) 00:00, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
 * The AfD closure stats page also uses it; that's all I can think of off the top of my head for now. ansh 666 22:54, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

Having given the matter further consideration, I'm going to go ahead and amend the essay AFDFORMAT with a rationale of "attempted verification failed". I will include a list of the tools already identified. If anyone discovers any other tools, or any bots whatsoever, they can add them to the list. James500 (talk) 07:10, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Don't bold your !votes
Interested in what do editors think of essay as it was created by an editor who really does not like to bold !votes. LibStar (talk) 10:45, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I think it is completely daft, like most of this editor's offerings. Bold or don't bold, who cares? But the author habitually produces gigantically long badgering rants that waffle on for thousands of bytes and expects us to believe that six keystrokes is too much effort. I mean, really! Reyk  YO!  13:30, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
 * It isn't six key strokes. In my case each individual AfD requires twelve. And multiplied over a large number of AfDs, it is very large number. Over the course of 4,000 AfDs (a number LibStar has already exceeded), the number of keystrokes would be 48,000 not six. That is a lot of keystrokes. All of this is explained in the essay. And I don't do any such thing. In fact, I have not edited any AfD since 28th July, partly because of the behaviour of certain other participants. And if you are worried about my alleged verbosity, you should be pleased that I have written this essay, as it means that I won't have to rehash these arguments on talk pages if someone badgers me about bolding again. It will allow me to use a much greater economy of words. I can now answer them with a single shortcut. James500 (talk) 02:47, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

 * +1 - Completely stupid essay that quite honestly deserves deleting! - The norm is to bold !votes and I will continue to do so! - If anyone think it's rude or obnoxious than they need to get out more!. – Davey 2010 Talk 14:13, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
 * (1) The essay doesn't say that bolding !votes is obnoxious. It says that pestering other editors to bold their !votes is obnoxious. And some people are in the habit of so pestering other editors, sometimes, seemingly, as a proxy for another issue, namely, prosecuting The Holy War to make editing so unpleasant for non-deletionists that they will not want to edit anymore (WP:HARASS). And stopping that kind of behaviour is one of the reasons why this essay absolutely must stay. (2) While bolding could be the norm, there is not adequate statistical evidence to say with certainty that it is. James500 (talk) 19:33, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
 * If a !vote isn't bolded it more or less gets ignored by the closer, WP:DISCUSSAFD does state and I quote "When editors recommend a course of action, they usually do so in bold text, e. g., "Keep", "Delete", "Merge", "Redirect", "Transclude" or other view. Some bots and tools which parse AfDs will only recognize bolded words."... so bolding is necessary, I 100% agree that editors shouldn't be harassed over it (I've never told anyone to bold their !votes & would never do so - If they don't wanna bold it then it's up to them), I believe bolding is helpful but meh we're all different here and see things differently I guess... – Davey 2010 Talk 20:01, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
 * DISCUSSAFD is an essay. WP:DONTBOLD explains, at some length, why it is only an essay. The last time bolding !votes was discussed, Spartaz, who is definitely an admin, said, and I quote, "To be very clear - bearing in mind I have closed thousands of drvs and afds, the bolding or non bolding of a comment has absolutely no impact in the way that the closing admin calls the close". So I don't see any evidence that admins ignore unbolded !votes. They are certainly not supposed to. James500 (talk) 22:12, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
 * And? .... It's still a page that 98% of !voters follow so why confuse everyone just because you dislike it? - Bolding is more helpful and useful than not, Some admins/editors ignore the unbolded and some don't . – Davey 2010 Talk 23:31, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
 * If editors think that the content at the top of WP:AFD is a policy or guideline that they are obliged to follow (and some of them do, and I was once one of them) they are already confused. DONTBOLD decreases their ignorance by letting them know that WP:AFD is basically an essay. Where have you got 98% from? Just relying on your memory of the AfDs you have participated in is not a valid method of statistical analysis, because it is unlikely those AfDs are a random sample if you use things like deletion sorting lists, and a human being's memory isn't good enough for that kind of task. Which admins ignore the unbolded? James500 (talk) 00:12, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Might I suggest you go and do something constructive like I don't know .... Improving the encycloepdia?, Constantly arguing with everyone who dislikes your essay (which by the looks of it is everyone so far!) doesn't do you or this place any favours, Stop creating moronic essays and go do something that's actually beneficial to the project, I'm done replying. – Davey 2010 Talk 04:58, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
 * That is extremely rude. James500 (talk) 05:14, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Not rude at all. Extremely valid. LibStar (talk) 05:18, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Calling someone a moron is rude. Condescending to someone in that way is rude. Telling me to go and improve the encyclopedia when I have created hundreds of articles and expanded many more is rude. I don't want to say more for fear of inflaming this. James500 (talk) 05:30, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

"The burden of bolding !votes is not merely an additional burden on the time, finances[6] and physical and mental stamina of individual editors" Why not add the ~ sign off. Those extra keystrokes over a lifetime could cause mental and physical exhaustion. As Reyk points out, this is from an editor who has extreme difficulty writing concisely. The irony. LibStar (talk) 14:24, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Because signing one's post serves an important purpose: identifying the author. Bolding serves no useful purpose that I can see. James500 (talk) 19:17, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
 * why not campaign for one ~ to be used for sign off. the extra 3 ~ is as wasteful as the arguments you present for not bolding. LibStar (talk) 23:05, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
 * A single tilda probably could not be used for that purpose as it would be ambiguous. It is a very common mathematical symbol that means "approximately equal to", and I assume that we would want to use it for that purpose. That said, reducing the number of tildas to three or two might be a good idea, assuming that is not also ambiguous or otherwise objectionable for practical technical reasons that I have not thought of yet. Even so, that is not a change that could be affected by the community (unlike the bolding issue), as it is part of the mediawiki software, so I doubt there would be much point in me writing an essay for the community rather than a letter to the software developer. I suspect that even the WMF could not change that as I am under the impression they get that software at least partly from someone else. I would have to find out precisely why the software writer had chosen that set of symbols first. James500 (talk) 23:40, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
 * it is incredibly lame to suggest a few extra keystrokes somehow equates to arduous mental, physical and financial burden. Wikipedia is totally voluntary, if the keystrokes are getting too much best you stop. LibStar (talk) 22:09, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
 * You are quoting out of context. The essay talks about the overall burden of everyone doing this from a time and motion perspective. And it advances other arguments. James500 (talk) 23:14, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
 * perhaps you need to consult a medical practitioner regarding the mental and physical burden of extra keystrokes. you notice you are not getting any consensus for your lame essay. LibStar (talk) 23:25, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Consensus is WP:NOTAVOTE. James500 (talk) 01:36, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

you're once again failing to even realise that the essay has close to zero support. perhaps the mental and physical anguish of all those keystrokes are affecting you. LibStar (talk) 03:26, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
 * No, what I am said is: since consensus depends on the quality of arguments, the number of people who support or oppose the thing is irrelevant. If you want to show the essay doesn't reflect consensus, it isn't enough to produce lots of people who say they don't like it. You have to produce convincing counter-arguments to the arguments that it makes. James500 (talk) 04:07, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

 * This is a serious thing, not a joke? Ridiculous.  If you don't want to type in the ' marks, you just click on the vote and click the bold capital letter B at the top of the edit screen to bold it that way.  Easier to read things that way.  I agree it should be deleted.   D r e a m Focus  18:09, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't often agree with Dream Focus, but here I do! LibStar (talk) 23:05, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
 * My edit screen on the mobile site (for I use a phone to edit) does not have a capital B at the top. It is not significantly easier to read. James500 (talk) 19:07, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

 * What seems dubious is when the nominator uses bolding to get counted as a !vote too. For a fresh example, see Articles for deletion/National composer. Andrew D. (talk) 18:46, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
 * (1) I think that making comments about the length of my !votes is a pretty clear violation of the policy WP:AVOIDYOU. (2) We do not delete essays because we do not agree with what they say. Essays are allowed to reflect minority positions. (3) This has been discussed before. The people in favour of bolding !votes were out-!voted four to three. (4) We do not delete essays because we intend to WP:WIKIHOUND an editor, as we have been doing for some time, and because the presence of the essay will make it harder to obfuscate about that editor's motives, about the status of AFDFORMAT (it is only an essay) and so forth. That would be a pretty clear case of gamesmanship.James500 (talk) 18:58, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
 * If you have something specific to accuse me of, let's hear it. Otherwise, keep your vague insinuations to yourself.  Reyk  YO!  20:01, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I have struck the comment for the time being as I am in no mood to conduct a detailed post mortem on our past interactions at this moment. And I can't provide diffs for things I imagine might happen in the future. It is clear to me that LibStar primarily started this thread because, a very short time before, I asked him to remove what I thought was a violation of the second and third bullet points of the guideline WP:POLEMIC, where he says quite negative things about me, relating to one of our many, many, many previous encounters, from his user page. And this thread is 'tit for tat'. He must have found the essay DONTBOLD by looking over my contributions, as it had been up for too much time before I asked him about his user page. James500 (talk) 20:54, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Reyk, I think this edit, in particular, suggests, once one looks past the spin, and reads between the lines, that you think it would be acceptable for other editors to follow me, and actually follow me, around AfD, because you think I am too inclusionist, and I interpret subjective guidelines like GNG in a way that is too inclusionist for your taste (but still perfectly legitimate), since I clearly did not do the other things you accused me of, and what else does that leave as a reason for following me? Am I wrong in thinking that? James500 (talk) 21:35, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Why don't you report me to ANI, or any other venue of your choosing, if you think there's something wrong with anything I have said or done? You're still just making vague, baseless insinuations. Your "reading between the lines" is just finding things in my words that I did not put there. Reyk  YO!  23:01, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment This is an essay and like most essays, will probably languish in obscurity. No need to delete. --Neil N  talk to me 19:04, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Agree The odd essay is likely destined for obscurity and it is not necessary to delete. Capitalismojo (talk) 19:18, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Bold - if this is meant to be a deletion discussion, please list at WP:MFD. Personally I don't see the need for it, but I also don't see the need to waste much of the community's time on an obviously out-of-consensus essay. Move it to userspace and be done with it. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 22:22, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I would prefer it to be outside of my user space. I don't like having essays in my user space per se. I don't think any essay should be in the user space unless it directly and unambiguously contradicts the clear words of a policy or guideline. I don't think this essay conflicts with consensus. I don't think there is any consensus that !votes must be bolded, only that they can be. James500 (talk) 22:52, 18 November 2015 (UTC) I would have thought the correct approach would be to leave it where it is, and if other people disagree with it, let them create WP:DOBOLD. James500 (talk) 22:58, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm of the opinion that essays should not be in project space unless it's demonstrated that they clearly document accepted practice, or are considered humorous. Yours is neither - it's your opinion that users should not bold !votes, and you appear to be in the minority because everybody bolds their comments in these discussions. Your opinions are fine, but they should be relegated to your user space. One might say that advising editors to reverse a clearly standard practice in this way is disruptive. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 00:00, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
 * It is not everybody. In addition to me, S Marshall and Spartaz told me they regularly do not bold their !votes. I recall seeing plenty of unbolded !votes from many editors at various AfDs. You might find, if you look, that the majority of less active editors don't bold their !votes. I see no valid proof that these claims are true. All I see is a perception that they are true, and that kind of perception can be totally wrong. I see no valid statistical study that proves that statistic. If you have done such a study: How large was your sample? How did you obtain it? How did you ensure it was random? What precisely were your findings? (I want actual numbers). Show me that your result was statistically significant in a way that a professional statistician would accept. Otherwise it is just another unproven assertion, like many others round here. I see no "standard practice". I do not agree that "lots of people do it" automatically creates consensus. In all cases that would create a self fulfilling prophecy where consensus could never change (because people think they have to follow the guidelines, so they do, and the guidelines have to follow what people do). And we know that consensus can change. So that must be wrong. This case is particularly bad because of the unclear way in which AFDFORMAT is marked. People may wrongly follow that essay because they wrongly imagine it is policy, and that is no consensus at all. A 'Catch-22' is not a consensus. I doubt that humorous essays should be allowed anywhere. The only way to demonstrate that an essay documents accepted practice would be to put it through the proposal process and promote it to a guideline. And since consensus is not a vote, and depends on the merits of arguments, a minority position can, in theory, be consensus. James500 (talk) 01:01, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

 * As a closer I like the bolding, it makes it easier to get a general idea of each person's opinion. Each person may comment many times but generally only does a bold summary once. Naturally one must still read the debate and be careful to include people who did not bold. HighInBC 22:23, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Disagree I think this essay is way over the top, and I doubt it will gain much traction, but, who knows, people might start following its suggestions. There is nothing sacred about bolding suggested actions. As an occasional (and once upon a time regular) closer, I find it helpful in quickly scanning a discussion to see the general trend before doing more detailed analysis. I hope I would never overlook a view simply because the editor had failed to use bold, but it is possible. I see no reason to delete this essay, but it shouldn't be linked from policy/guideline pages unless/until it has more support than it now seems to. Individual editors can choose whether to link to it and how. I agree that badgering someone over whether a view has a bolded action included is silly and counter-productive, and at least arguably violates WP:HARRASS. I don;t know what bots may react to this, and for what purposes. DES (talk) 23:35, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Close?' Why are we discussing this further? Just let it fade into the Wikipedia bottomless pit, this essay looks like it was made by someone with way too much time on their hands that could have been used for article improvement. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 03:54, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Undecided until it is determined which comments are satirical. VQuakr (talk) 04:26, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I will continue to bold because I like to, and because it aids the skimming of a lengthy debate. I will ignore this crank essay, which is a complete waste of everyone's time. Cullen328  Let's discuss it  04:37, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
 * This essay doesn't seek to force people to refrain from bolding !votes. It is merely advice. Skimming a debate is probably not a good thing. This discussion is a waste of time. An essay cannot waste anyone's time because no one is forcing anyone to read it. James500 (talk) 04:56, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

 * To put it as Patton would:'Bold-ass, bold-ass, toujours bold-ass! Anmccaff (talk) 04:53, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Close this pointless thread now This entire thread should be closed immediately as it is out of process and serves no purpose. The contents of this thread should probably be moved to the talk page of the essay. If people want to discuss that essay, they should do so on the talk page of that essay. If people want it deleted, the only place that can be done is MfD. If people want a guideline on bolding !votes, that can only be done through RfC. No one here (including myself and the essay itself) seems to be proposing any changes to AfD itself. The point is that this thread should simply not be happening. James500 (talk) 06:44, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
 * ironically you took the effort to bold here. Those extra keystrokes weren't too hard were they? LibStar (talk) 08:06, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

 * I am re-opening this thread to announce that I have nominated the page for deletion at MfD: Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Don't bold your !votes. -- Softlavender (talk) 00:51, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

Incoherent guideline
Step II says:

 * Add a deletion sorting template to the nomination, if appropriate.

However, there are no "deletion sorting templates", or indeed templates of any kind, at that link or anything it links to. Can someone therefore either fix this instruction or remove it? Thanks. Softlavender (talk) 10:55, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

 * I've made a change to to link to the sorting template and explain what it's for Noyster  (talk),  12:36, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

 * OK thanks, at least there's a template now. What does "if appropriate" mean? And what does adding a template (with a category) actually do? Softlavender (talk) 12:41, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

 * The template simply adds a line of text to the AfD discussion, e.g. Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. It's appropriate only when you or someone else has added the entry to the list itself, in this example to WikiProject Deletion sorting/Aviation Noyster  (talk),  13:32, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

 * Then again the guideline is inaccurate. It states that This notifies members of the most relevant Wikiproject. Could someone please just remove all mention of deletion sorting templates from the guide to nominating an article? Thanks. Softlavender (talk) 21:19, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

 * Template further edited to make explicit that the entry needs to have been added to the deletion sorting list itself, before putting the delsort template on the AfD discussion.
 * With the frequent complaints about insufficient participation at many AfDs, I don't agree with removing any encouragement to use deletion sorting - note that the Twinkle process for nominating an AfD doesn't point you in that direction. For those interested, I looked at the 76 AfDs in the log for 11 November. Only 11 of these had been put on deletion sorting lists by the nominator. The majority of the rest were picked up by other editors - notably, , Shawn, - mostly within 24 hours; but a quarter of all nominations fell through the net and weren't put into sorting at all or not until relisting after 7 days. So we would do well to get more nominators to use deletion sorting for themselves Noyster  (talk),  11:55, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

 * It still doesn't make any sense. Right now it says:

 * If appropriate, inform members of the most relevant Wikiproject(s) through one or more "deletion sorting lists". Then add a template to the nomination, to insert a note that this has been done.

 * What does "inform members of the most relevant Wikiproject(s) through one or more 'deletion sorting lists'" mean? How does one do that? There is no information on the deletion sorting lists page of how to do that. If no one can make it clear what action is being requested, this needs to be deleted, as it only adds confusion to an already long and confusing set of instructions. Softlavender (talk) 00:32, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

 * The deletion sorting list page tells one how to do that.
 * However, it seems to me that this should be a separate Step IV. It wouldn't make sense to list the AfD in the deletion sorting lists before the AfD itself has been created. - Kautilya3 (talk) 00:45, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

 * The deletion sorting list page does not tell one how to do that. It doesn't do anything of the kind. Softlavender (talk) 00:58, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Each category (e.g. BC) listed at WP:DS/C has instructions on adding a discussion to the list and placing a notice on the discussion. See the scripts and tools that are available to assist with deletion sorting. I use a modified version of User:APerson/delsort. — JJMC89  (T·C) 03:26, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Each category page has instructions, but not deletion sorting lists, which was all the guideline linked to. This has been somewhat remedied now by removing this from the nomination instructions entirely, and placing the material down below under after-care, with some re-worded instructions that are clearer. Softlavender (talk) 03:32, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

CENT
May I ask why CENT is transcluded onto all AfD logs? I realize that AfDs are discussions, but that seems to be the only connection between the two, and CENT seems a tad irrelevant... it's not a major issue or anything, but I'm just curious. Kharkiv07 ( T ) 20:09, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

AfD withdrawn
I have withdrawn the AfD here. Someone might want to close it, or let me know if I can close it myself. Kingsindian ♝♚ 23:54, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
 * If it meets the criteria for a "close/withdrawn" (I think the criteria are either "no replies suggesting any close other than keep" or "no replies suggesting any form of deletion or other action that requires an administrator", I forget which) then you can close it. See WP:AFD, WP:Speedy keep, and WP:Non-admin closure and they pages they link to, the exact criteria for a non-admin speedy-close and the procedures to do the close correction should be in there somewhere.  davidwr/  (talk)/(contribs)  00:18, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done. ansh 666 22:02, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Deletion policy
There is an RfC at Wikipedia talk:Deletion policy that asks: "Should our default practice be to delete article histories and contributions when a small article is converted into a redirect to a larger article?" Cunard (talk) 05:52, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

AfD requires completion
Could someone help me with the creation of an AFD nomination, since it seems only registered users can create an AFD page?

I wish to nominate all of following pages for deletion (bundled nomination), the rationale is provided below.

These Indian secondary school articles part of a school system (Kendriya Vidyalaya) are not independently notable. All the articles contain no secondary sources at all and carry large amounts of unrefernced fluff with promotional tone, some of which I recently tried to clean up. There is also a lot of duplication of information with the main article, since all the KV schools share the same features – affiliation, syllabus, fee structure, admission policies, etc are all the same.

I don't think there's anything worth merging into the main article. The only things that can be merged are perhaps the year of establishment and locational settings into List of Kendriya Vidyalayas. Everything else is unsourced or sourced with primary sources, and duplicative, or unencyclopedic WP:NOTDIR stuff.

As an alternative to deletion, we may also consider redirecting the pages to List of Kendriya Vidyalayas, or stubifying each article to 2-3 sentences, covering the non-duplicative details, that is, the year of establishment and locational settings. If/when one of the schools gets coverage in reliable source, its article could be expanded.

<IP_ADDRESS> (talk) 13:38, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

 * Now at Draft:Articles for deletion/Kendriya Vidyalya school articles. <IP_ADDRESS> (talk) 18:37, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
 * And now live at Articles for deletion/Kendriya Vidyalaya school articles. Could someone add the AFD tags to articles? <IP_ADDRESS> (talk) 13:46, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

Proposals for consideration
A number of campaigns are launched by WP such as recently ended one WP:WAMP for equalizing global representation of communitites and subjects related to them or to their region and culture. Simultaneously page deletion process is also applied by some biased users who fire the gun of rules, without knowing the true intention of the foundation for framing rules. This situation causes an anti-campaing tool and needs attention of Admin/managers/well wisher of WP. In order to maintain the true spirit of WP:NPOV page deletion proposer should have familiarity with the subject or community before his/her tag for page deletion is considered for action. I therefore propose:
 * (1)	Where contents are harmful to WP no compromise on speedy deletion.
 * (2)	In all other cases familiarity with subject/community should be basis for page deletion
 * (3)	In case of conflict between communities ruling of third party should prevail
 * (4)	Except Admins, no user be allowed to tag the page for deletion within a week more than one time
 * (5)	Any person/community claims for discrimination action (e.g. tag for page deletion) should be placed for mediation to users who are serving as mediators in our WP

Thanks for consideration. Nannadeem (talk) 11:42, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

 * The decision to delete is already reserved to administrators. As to the degree of familiarity with the topic needed to participate in a discussion, this varies greatly with the topic and the rationale for deletion: in some cases little or no familiarity with the topic is needed to make a judgement, but what is always needed is familiarity with Wikipedia policies. It's true that editors can be too quick to nominate for deletion an article related to an unfamiliar topic or field on the basis of "notability", when they don't know where to look for sources. Many discussions are closed "no consensus - NPASR (no prejudice against speedy renomination)", but where an AfD is clsoed as "Keep" there may be grounds for discouraging a prompt renomination Noyster (talk),  13:54, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

 * @ Noyster thanks. I further point out that even a user who fails to create a worthy page becomes a page deletion proposer.  Does this make sense?  We should develop an environment of positiveness by grabbing misuse of rules. Nannadeem (talk) 14:18, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Nannadeem, since editing on Wikipedia is, for the most part, completely anonymous, how would anyone know who or who is not an editor who has familiarity with subject/community? It would be based on the honor system which is not a solid foundation for a change in policy and practice. You will also get protests based on Avoid instruction creep objections. I agree that it's better if an editor familiar with a subject evaluates its merits but I think that is most important in the AfD process and that requires more editors to get involved in those discussions.
 * More than 800 articles get created every day and it is unlikely that Wikipedia would be able to match up editors familiar with the subject of each article and not soon suffer tremendous backlogs. I think the best we could do is to train New Page Patrollers to be cautious in their tagging of articles if they are not familiar with a topic. That's a matter of education, not creating new procedures and policy. Liz  Read! Talk! 16:07, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

 * Without commenting on the other items, I will note that item 4, "Except Admins, no user be allowed to tag the page for deletion within a week more than one time", is problematic. Presumably, you're not talking just about AFD (which in standard circumstances can't be tagged more than once in a week, as tagging it will put it into discussion for a week - unless the result is a snowball keep, in which case there are already guidelines against retagging it), but to the range of deletion tags (speedy, blprod, prod, and afd). Making this rule would discourage use of the gentler forms of deletion, such as PROD, and encouraging going directly to AFD, which requires more involvement of the community and thus uses up time and attention that could be of value elsewhere. Often, the proper response to a PROD is to go right to AFD, as PRODding is a way of asking "does anyone object to this deletion" and, upon finding out someone does, AFD is "okay, then let's discuss it." BLPROD is less a tag to get the article deleted and more one to get it sourced, is mechanical in nature (i.e., based on rules, not judgment), and should not be discouraged by saying "if you mark this, as you're supposed to do, then you're not allowed to find other deletion-oriented objection for a week." In general, it discourages general appropriate maintenance, telling folks that they cannot deal with problems as they see them, but rather have to remind themselves a week later to readdress them. --Nat Gertler (talk) 15:35, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
 * @Liz Thanks. My proposals relate to page deletion by a non-concerned nominator and users who take part in discussion with vote for "Keep, Delete etc" (No question on their comments).  Familiarity with subject/community can be evaluated through contribution history which a user/editor has at his credit.  If I contribute on a topic it is my learning and self education as well.

 * @Nat Gertler Thanks. Clarification to item-4, if I place a tag for page deletion to Page-A, and on same day or second day I place another tag to Page-B, and so on.  This is not only a Tag bombing but also minimize the attention and care on part of AFD nominator to satisfy the discussion with particular reference to familiarity with page being proposed for AFD process.  Whereas the core issue is: why the page is proposed for deletion e.g. clean-up, notability, verify-ability etc.  Here (save science topics) subject/community issue arises because, accordingly to my knowledge, WP represents the globe and there is no foreign language in WP, WP covers all (at best) languages, communities, regions of the world.  So in these circumstances familiarity is essential to grab the misuse of policy/rules on part of some biased users/editors. Nannadeem (talk) 15:30, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
 * @Nannadeem: It's only Tag bombing if the tags are unjustified... and this description makes it sound as though you're saying that if you tag any page for deletion, you cannot also tag any other page for deletion for a week, which would be a major impediment to Wikipedia maintenance. Even if you're saying that you cannot tag any kinda-related page for a week, this would interfere with various appropriate maintenance efforts (for example, if someone were to create new pages for every member of their high school math team, a non-admin could not go clean that up.) Perhaps this discussion would be clearer if you can point to some specific example where you feel things went wrong; that way, we would have a clearer understanding of your concerns, and could be looking at your proposal in terms of its goals, and also consider if those goals can be achieved in other ways. --Nat Gertler (talk) 17:20, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

 * @Nat Gertler Thanks. Please be clear my proposals do not relate to page creations, review or approval of drafts and actions from Admins. My proposals relate to already created pages.  I do not know Chinese language. Suppose: by chance or with biased approach I tag a page of Chinese poet for deletion and some-one without familiarity to subject takes part in deletion voting.  Does this make sense? In my opinion this is misuse of rule, because it is not the intent of statute it is the expressed interpretation with implied vested interests.   If I claim that someone is committing discrimination then there should be role of mediators.  Needless to say that one cannot claim such a tool repeatedly.  We should encourage positive contribution rather than negative.  Further I am not talking about admins. Matters/jobs.  Nannadeem (talk) 18:23, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I think that goes to why we don't consider deletion discussions to be "votes". But even if someone is not a Chinese language speaker, they can point out "hey, this guy won the Nobel Prize, of course he's notable", or "the suggestion that he's notable rests in the claim that he took third place in his school's poetry contest, which does not meet our guidelines as a notable award." And when it comes to language, excluding the large base of English speakers from being involved in discussion of foreign topics will cut way down on the number of possible editors who can understand the subtleties of the Wikipedia guidelines, as they are written in English. That doesn't mean that anyone should be putting forth "I cannot read the reference, and thus this should be deleted", and of course any such argument from ignorance should be given little consideration by the admin closing the AFD. --Nat Gertler (talk) 22:43, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Others have already pointed out problems with #3 and #4, so I won't repeat those. Regarding #2 / familiarity with the subject matter:
 * On questions of notability, familiarity with the subject matter is a big help, but even more important is knowing where to look for references from reliable sources and being able to say with some degree of credibility
 * "I know where sources SHOULD be available for an article about this kind of subject, I've looked there, and there weren't enough to support a claim of notability"
 * or alternatively,
 * "I know where sources SHOULD be available for an article about this kind of subject, but I don't have access to those sources. The topic seems like it is probably not notable but further research is required.  I opened a discussion on the article's talk page a few weeks ago and have contacted the relevant WikiProjects but so far nobody has stepped forward with any references from reliable sources.  Therefore, I am proposing deletion [or:  I am opening an AfD with a recommendation that it be deleted with a WP:REFUND available to anyone who provides a single reliable source relating to the topic]."
 * davidwr/ (talk)/(contribs)  02:02, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
 * On that note, another option is having the article sandboxed so that it can be improved and moved back to mainspace when whatever concerns have been expressed at the AfD discussion have been addressed. DonIago (talk) 15:09, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

One may see misuse here Articles for deletion/Rehan Azmi with reference to Pakistan's oldest English Daily DAWN. Nannadeem (talk) 22:36, 12 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't see misuse there; someone is casting doubt on the quality of a source, but that can be responded to through discussion. And that same editor that you are complaining about dwas the one who could point out to you that the Books LLC source that you were using to support notability was not a usable source. Barring him from the discussion may have barred that appropriate contribution. --Nat Gertler (talk) 23:24, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

 * @Nat Gertler I have referred DAWN and not Books LLC. Nannadeem (talk) 10:38, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

Computers In Personnel
Can someone please complete the deletion process for https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computers_In_Personnel — Preceding unsigned comment added by <IP_ADDRESS> (talk) 14:44, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Has been initiated by another new account at Articles_for_deletion/Computers_In_Personnel. (uninvolved myself) GermanJoe (talk) 15:10, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

Request to delay deletion of SOME speedy-deletion candidates if they are at AFD
See Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion. davidwr/ (talk)/(contribs)  16:37, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Treasure_Jones
I'm a newbie so please don't bite. Come across the headline page and I can't really see anything notable about him. Do you think I should list it at possibly contentious articles for deletion?Lyndaship (talk) 16:08, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Hello and welcome! You are always at liberty to nominate an article for deletion - if you have Twinkle installed it completes the procedure with delightful ease - but in this case I think the verdict would likely be "Keep", as there does seem to be the necessary "significant coverage" in various newspapers and books to establish "notability", over and above the references already in the article. If interested it may be more worth while to improve the article and deal with the problems it has been tagged for Noyster (talk),  09:47, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Issues with Deletion sorting?
Anyone else having issues with the Deletion sorting template not automatically listing deletion discussions at the various WP:DELSORT listings? I think Deletion sorting has failed to automatically add to the listings for me the last 2–3 times that I've tried to use it. So I'm wondering if anyone else is seeing this issue?... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 02:46, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
 * As I understand it the Deletion sorting template makes no claim to automatically add an entry to any deletion sorting list. It merely adds a line of formatted text to the AfD page stating that that has been done. You also have to separately go to the relevant deletion sorting page and transclude the AfD discussion by inserting Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PageName. Some tools that claim to assist with this process are listed here, but I haven't tested them Noyster (talk),  09:29, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I have recently added User:APerson/delsort to my .js settings, and it seems to work quite well (Windows XP, FF, vector skin). It does both, tagging and adding the nomination to the relevant delsort pages, and it also has a convenient list of common sort tags to select from. GermanJoe (talk) 11:21, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Ooo, that's a good suggestion – I'll try that. User:APerson/delsort should probably be added to a 'See also' section in the Deletion sorting template's documentation... It should also be made clear in the template's documentation that entries will still need to be manually added to the various Delsort listings, 'cos that isn't clear currently. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 17:50, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
 * That's a good suggestion too :) - done (the "link script" part). GermanJoe (talk) 12:46, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

Contested deletion
(Re: Articles for deletion/Francis Chanda)

This article should not be articles for deletion the article contains useful information about the person in it Raysum2020 (talk) 23:26, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

 * I've fixed your comment on the deletion page and removed code here that was causing problems. Please go here to participate in the deletion discussion. You can ask there if you need help. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 23:52, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

XfD: Delayed raising of a second reason to delete or keep
I'm seeking a clarification and discussion of Wikipedia policy that I am in disagreement over with another editor. I have posted it for discussion at the Village Pump (policy) XfD: Delayed raising of a second reason to delete or keep. Thisisnotatest (talk) 07:10, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

Inside politics (TV program) and Talk:Inside politics (TV program)
Because spelling is wrong. -- Koam1998 (talk) 01:58, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
 * That's a redirect - it belongs at WP:RfD. ansh 666 04:54, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

File:Cnntonightlogo.jpg
Because two File, so File:Cnntonight.jpg deleted. -- Koam1998 (talk) 01:53, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
 * That's a file, it belongs at WP:FfD. ansh 666 04:54, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

January 2016 - Old discussions bug
There appears to be some trouble with Mathbot: Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Old. Is that also maybe why 14 January does not show up in the list of old AfDs? - HyperGaruda (talk) 07:31, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Problem solved. According to the revision history, Mathbot skipped 1 day for some reason. After having manually added 14 January to Articles for deletion/Old and refreshing the search, Mathbot included that day again. Everything is ok now :) - HyperGaruda (talk) 15:41, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Andrew Lowe
The page "Andrew Lowe", which I created, has been set for deletion for lack of references. I have added references, but the "set for deletion" notification persists. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kcmartenslol (talk • contribs) 04:36, 23 January 2016

 * the discussion typically lasts for seven days after when a determination is made of the consensus. I'll add a comment to the discussion page that you have added references for you. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 16:19, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
 * You are confusing the earlier marking of the article for deletion for lack of references (what we call a BLPROD) with the current deletion discussion, where an editor has opined that the article should be deleted because the references that exist do not indicate that Lowe is notable enough for inclusion in Wikipedia (an understandable confusion for a relatively new Wikipedia editor.) Click here to go to that discussion and take part in it. --Nat Gertler (talk) 16:34, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Help completing an AFD nom
I have put up the article Neil Cohn for deletion; since I'm not registered, I only did step one (adding to the page). Can someone help me create the actual deletion page? I have posted the deletion rationale to Talk:Neil Cohn; I just need someone to create the deletion page and paste that rationale in. Thanks! <IP_ADDRESS> (talk) 04:47, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

 * Done GermanJoe (talk) 05:25, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

Closures
Hi, Just a query - For well over a year I've been closing AFDs a day early which I'm now banned from ... So this new way's a tad confusing at the moment!,

So say basically instead of closing at 12pm (midnight) on the new day I should be closing at 12pm (midnight) on the 8th day if that makes sense?

I've done a picture which should hopefully do a better job at explaining than me! ,

Thanks, – Davey 2010 Talk 15:48, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I always thought it was seven days from the creation timestamp of the discussion, so if I were to start a discussion right now, you could close it at 15:53, 3 February 2016 (UTC). So if you're going by midnights, then you would need to wait for midnight on the 8th day, yes. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 15:52, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Oh right, But closing them at the timestamp would be even more confusing surely ? .... To be absolutely honest I don't think anyone knows really when to close them....,
 * Ah well I'll close them at midnight on the 8th that way I won't end up blocked .... Hopefully!, Anyway thanks for clearing that up for me - Much appreciated, Thanks, – Davey 2010 Talk 15:59, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Midnights have nothing to do with it, the rule is quite clear, see WP:CLOSEAFD: "A deletion discussion should normally be allowed to run for seven full days (168 hours)". Go by the timestamp in the nominator's signature, and don't close before the same clock time seven days later. Nothing is gained by closing early, it only give people an excuse to go to DRV and complain that the decision was rushed. JohnCD (talk) 16:06, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I tend to close around midnight to make life easier atleast for me anyway, So I was doing it on the 7th day but not leaving as a full day ... riiiiight!, Well I had my reasons & all that but anyway was just querying it so thanks for your help, – Davey 2010 Talk 16:15, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I edit-conflicted again, coming back to say: of course they don't have to be closed at once after 7 x 24 hours. If midnight is a convenient time for you to work that's fine, but wait for the next midnight after 168 hours have passed. JohnCD (talk) 16:17, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Okie dokie will do, Thanks again for both your helps, – Davey 2010 Talk 16:22, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

source: wikimedia

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

title: Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Archive 68


text:
User:Elielg5299

currently a college student somewhere in the philippines.

areas of interest are: music, engineering, computer programming, christianity, philosophy, literature.

would be making contributions particularly in those areas.

title: User:Elielg5299


text:
User:Roysandeep308

Er. Sandeep Roy is an alumni of IIT(ISM) Dhanbad and Ambassador of International Youth math challenge(IYMC) 2020.

title: User:Roysandeep308


text:
User:Nagakressh

Hello I am NagaKressh. Im from California. If you have anything you want to ask, questions, comments, or remarks please go to my talk page.

title: User:Nagakressh


text:
Jonas Söderlund

Jonas Söderlund (born June 1, 1971) is a Swedish organizational theorist and Professor in the Department of Leadership and Organizational Behavior at the BI Norwegian Business School, and author. He is known for his work in the fields of human resource management, project management.

Youth, education and early academic career
Söderlund was born in Stockholm, Sweden in 1971, son of Söderlund Claes R. and Yvonne Elisabeth Söderlund. In 1995 he obtained his MSc in Business Administration and Economics from the Linköping University in Sweden.

After his graduation Söderlund started teaching and continued his studies at the Linköping University, In 1998 he obtained his Licentiate of Business Administration, and in 2000 his PhD in its International Graduate School of Management and Industrial Engineering (IMIE). His thesis was entitled "Time-limited and complex interaction – studies of industrial projects." In 1998 he had attended the Program in General Management at the Harvard Business School as visiting doctoral student.

Further academic career and honours
In 2000 Söderlund started as Assistant Professor at the School of Management at the Linköping University, where he was promoted to Associate Professor of Business Administration in 2003. From 2003 to 2007 he also served as Director of the Linköping Project Center at the Linköping University. In 2007 he was appointed Professor in Project Management at the BI Norwegian Business School. In 2009 Söderlund was awarded the HR Research Award for Best Research on HRM 2009 by the Uppsala University and the Institute for Personnel & Corporate Development (IPF). In 2011 he and Karin Bredin obtained the International Project Management Association (IPMA) Research Award 2011 for "outstanding research on HRM in project-based organizations."

Selected publications

 * Lars Lindkvist, Jonas Söderlund & Fredrik Tell ''Managing product development projects: on the significance of fountains and deadlines,1998.
 * Jonas Söderlund. Time-limited and Complex Interaction: Studies of Industrial Projects. Ekonomiska institutionen, Univ. [distributör], 2000.
 * Jonas Söderlund. Developing project competence: empirical regularities in competitive project operations, 2005.
 * Jonas Söderlund. HRM in project-intensive firms: changes and challenges, 2006.
 * Karin Bredin & Jonas Söderlund. Human resource management in project-based organizations : the HR quadriad framework, 2011.
 * Jonas Söderlund. Project Management and Organization Theory: IRNOP Meets PMJ. 2014.
 * Peter Morris, Jeff Pinto & Jonas Söderlund (Eds.) Oxford Handbook of Project Management, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2011.

 * Articles, a selection
 * Jonas Söderlund. "Building theories of project management: past research, questions for the future." International journal of project management 22.3 (2004): 183-191.
 * Söderlund, Jonas. "On the broadening scope of the research on projects: a review and a model for analysis." International Journal of Project Management 22.8 (2004): 655-667.
 * Söderlund, Jonas. "Pluralism in project management: navigating the crossroads of specialization and fragmentation." International Journal of Management Reviews 13.2 (2011): 153-176.

title: Jonas Söderlund


text:
rent-a-cop

Etymology
From, modelled after the brand name Rent-a-Car.

Noun

 * 1)  A private security guard, usually one regarded as inferior to and less skilled than a true law enforcement officer.

title: rent-a-cop


text:
Sports in New England

Three popular American sports were invented in New England. Basketball was invented by James Naismith, a Canadian, in Springfield, Massachusetts, in 1891. Volleyball was invented by William G. Morgan in Holyoke, Massachusetts, in 1895. Paintball was invented in 1981 in Henniker, New Hampshire.

It is also widely believed the first organized ice hockey game in the United States was played in Concord, New Hampshire, in 1883.

The region is famous for its passion for baseball and the Boston Red Sox, as well as for the intense rivalry between the Red Sox and the New York Yankees.

On November 1, 1924, the Boston Bruins of the National Hockey League became the first NHL franchise to be based in the United States. They are now the second-oldest surviving major professional sports team in Boston, after the Red Sox. The Bruins' historic rivalry with the Montreal Canadiens for ice hockey fans in the Boston area has, at times, reached the level of intensity of the Yankees – Red Sox rivalry in professional baseball in the region.

The New England Patriots football team is based in Foxborough, Massachusetts, halfway between Boston and Providence. In 1999, the Patriots flirted with the idea of moving to Hartford, in what three National Football League (NFL) franchise owners called "the greatest financial deal any NFL owner has ever received". The deal, however, fell through, and the team remained in Foxborough.

Both the oldest Major League Baseball (MLB) professional baseball park still in use, Fenway Park, dating from April 1912, as well as the oldest indoor ice hockey rink still in use worldwide, Matthews Arena, which first opened in 1910 and currently stands on the property of Northeastern University for their collegiate ice hockey teams, are within the Boston city limits.

Famous sportsmen playing for New England teams

 * Boston Red Sox: Bobby Doerr, Joe Cronin, Johnny Pesky, Carl Yastrzemski, Ted Williams, Jim Rice, Wade Boggs, Carlton Fisk, David Ortiz, Pedro Martinez, Roger Clemens, Jason Varitek, Tim Wakefield, Jimmie Foxx, Lefty Grove, Harry Hooper, Cy Young, Dwight Evans, Rico Petrocelli
 * Boston Bruins: Eddie Shore, Lionel Hitchman, Bobby Orr, Aubrey "Dit" Clapper, Phil Esposito, Cam Neely, Johnny Bucyk, Milt Schmidt, Rick Middleton, Terry O'Reilly, Ray Bourque, Patrice Bergeron, Wayne Cashman, David Krejci, Bill Cowley, Zdeno Chara, Tiny Thompson, Frank Brimsek, Eddie Johnston, Gerry Cheevers
 * Boston Celtics: Robert Parish, Dennis Johnson, Bill Russell, Jo Jo White, Bob Cousy, Tom Heinsohn, Satch Sanders, John Havlicek, Dave Cowens, Jim Loscutoff, Don Nelson, Bill Sharman, Ed Macauley, Frank Ramsey, Sam Jones, K.C. Jones, Cedric Maxwell, Kevin McHale, Larry Bird, Paul Pierce
 * New England Patriots: Gino Cappelletti, Mike Haynes, Steve Nelson, John Hannah, Bruce Armstrong, Jim Lee Hunt, Bob Dee, Tom Brady, Rob Gronkowski, Nick Buoniconti, Steve Grogan, Andre Tippett, Stanley Morgan, Ben Coates, Jim Nance, Sam Cunningham, Drew Bledsoe, Jon Morris, Troy Brown, Tedy Bruschi, Ty Law, Willie McGinest, Houston Antwine, Kevin Faulk, Raymond Clayborn, Matt Light, Rodney Harrison
 * Boston Braves: Hugh Duffy, Hank Gowdy, Rabbit Maranville, Tommy McCarthy, Johnny Sain, Kid Nichols, Warren Spahn, Al Spalding, Charles Radbourn
 * Hartford Whalers: Rick Ley, Gordie Howe, John McKenzie, Ron Francis, Kevin Dineen, Mike Rogers, Tom Webster, Pat Verbeek

Baseball

 * Major League Baseball
 * Boston Red Sox (Boston, Massachusetts)
 * International League (AAA)
 * Worcester Red Sox (Worcester, Massachusetts)
 * Eastern League (AA)
 * Hartford Yard Goats (Hartford, Connecticut)
 * New Hampshire Fisher Cats (Manchester, New Hampshire)
 * Portland Sea Dogs (Portland, Maine)
 * New York–Penn League (A)
 * Lowell Spinners (Lowell, Massachusetts) (1996-2020)
 * Futures Collegiate Baseball League (Independent)
 * Norwich Sea Unicorns (Norwich, Connecticut)
 * New Britain Bees (New Britain, Connecticut)
 * Vermont Lake Monsters (Burlington, Vermont)

Football

 * National Football League
 * New England Patriots (Foxborough, Massachusetts)
 * Indoor Football League
 * Massachusetts Pirates (Worcester, Massachusetts)
 * East Coast Football League – (AAA)
 * Boston Bandits (Boston, Massachusetts)
 * Connecticut Mustangs (Meriden, Connecticut)
 * Connecticut Bulls (Bristol, Connecticut)
 * Marlboro Shamrocks (Marlborough, Massachusetts)
 * Southern New England Admirals (North Smithfield, Rhode Island)
 * Western Mass Raiders (Springfield, Massachusetts)

 * East Coast Football League – (AA)
 * Granite State Destroyers (Manchester, New Hampshire)
 * Haverhill Hitmen (Haverhill, Massachusetts)
 * Mill City Eagles (Chelmsford, Massachusetts)
 * Randolph Oilers (Randolph, Massachusetts)
 * Troy City Titans (Fall River, Massachusetts)
 * Valley Generals (Derby, Connecticut)

 * New England Football League - (AA)
 * Glens Falls Greenjackets (Glens Falls, NY)
 * Middleboro Cobras (Middleboro, Massachusetts)
 * New England Bombers (Braintree, Massachusetts)
 * Rhode Island Riptide (Cranston, Rhode Island)
 * Southern Vermont Storm (Bennington, Vermont)
 * Vermont Ravens (Burlington, Vermont)

Basketball

 * National Basketball Association
 * Boston Celtics (Boston, Massachusetts)
 * Women's National Basketball Association
 * Connecticut Sun (Uncasville, Connecticut)
 * NBA G League
 * Maine Celtics (Portland, Maine)

Ice hockey

 * National Hockey League (NHL)
 * Boston Bruins (Boston, Massachusetts)
 * American Hockey League (AHL)
 * Bridgeport Islanders (Bridgeport, Connecticut)
 * Hartford Wolf Pack (Hartford, Connecticut)
 * Providence Bruins (Providence, Rhode Island)
 * Springfield Thunderbirds (Springfield, Massachusetts)
 * ECHL
 * Maine Mariners (Portland, Maine)
 * Worcester Railers (Worcester, Massachusetts)
 * Premier Hockey Federation (PHF)
 * Boston Pride (Boston, Massachusetts)
 * Connecticut Whale (Danbury, Connecticut)

Soccer

 * Major League Soccer
 * New England Revolution (Foxborough, Massachusetts)
 * USL Championship
 * Hartford Athletic (Hartford, Connecticut)
 * Rhode Island FC (Pawtucket, Rhode Island)
 * MLS Next Pro
 * New England Revolution II (Foxborough, Massachusetts)
 * USL League Two
 * AC Connecticut (Danbury, Connecticut)
 * Black Rock FC (Manchester Center, Vermont)
 * Boston Bolts (Waban, Massachusetts)
 * GPS Portland Phoenix (Portland, Maine)
 * Seacoast United Phantoms (Amesbury, Massachusetts)
 * Western Mass Pioneers (Ludlow, Massachusetts)
 * Boston City FC (Revere, Massachusetts)
 * National Premier Soccer League
 * Greater Lowell Rough Diamonds (Tyngsborough, Massachusetts)
 * Hartford City FC (Hartford, Connecticut)
 * Rhode Island Reds FC (Providence, Rhode Island)

Lacrosse

 * National Lacrosse League (NLL)
 * New England Black Wolves (Uncasville, Connecticut) (2015-2021)
 * Major League Lacrosse (MLL)
 * Boston Cannons (Boston, Massachusetts) (2001-2020)

Motorsports facilities in New England

 * NASCAR
 * New Hampshire Motor Speedway (Loudon, New Hampshire)
 * NHRA
 * New England Dragway (Epping, New Hampshire)
 * SCCA
 * Lime Rock Park (Lime Rock, Connecticut)

Gaelic football

 * Boston GAA

Rugby union

 * Major League Rugby
 * New England Free Jacks (Weymouth, Massachusetts)
 * USA Rugby Elite Cup
 * Boston RFC (Boston, Massachusetts)
 * New England Rugby Football Union

Rugby league

 * USA Rugby League
 * Boston Thirteens (Boston, Massachusetts)
 * New Haven Warriors (New Haven, Connecticut)
 * Oneida FC (Boston, Massachusetts)
 * Rhode Island Rebellion (Providence, Rhode Island)
 * American National Rugby League
 * Connecticut Wildcats (Norwalk, Connecticut)

NCAA Division I schools in New England

 * Football Bowl Subdivision

 * Boston College (ACC / Hockey East)
 * University of Connecticut (American / Hockey East)
 * University of Massachusetts Amherst (Atlantic 10 / Hockey East / Independents)

 * Football Championship Subdivision

 * Boston University (Patriot League / Hockey East)
 * Brown University (Ivy League / ECAC Hockey)
 * Bryant University (Northeast)
 * Central Connecticut State University (Northeast)
 * Dartmouth College (Ivy League / ECAC Hockey)
 * Harvard University (Ivy League / ECAC Hockey)
 * College of the Holy Cross (Patriot League / Atlantic Hockey)
 * University of Maine (America East / Hockey East / Colonial)
 * University of New Hampshire (America East / Hockey East / Colonial)
 * University of Rhode Island (Atlantic 10 / Colonial)
 * Sacred Heart University (Northeast / Atlantic Hockey)
 * Yale University (Ivy League / ECAC Hockey)

 * Non-football

 * Fairfield University (Metro Atlantic)
 * University of Hartford (America East)
 * University of Massachusetts Lowell (America East / Hockey East)
 * Northeastern University (Colonial / Hockey East)
 * Providence College (Big East / Hockey East)
 * Quinnipiac University* (Metro Atlantic / ECAC Hockey)
 * University of Vermont (America East / Hockey East)

Additionally, three colleges compete at the Division I level in ice hockey only: American International and Bentley College compete in the Atlantic Hockey Association, while Merrimack compete in Hockey East and America East in the second half of 2013.

Hartford Whalers
Until April 13, 1997, Hartford also had its own major hockey team, the Hartford Whalers. Originally known as the New England Whalers, they changed their name in 1979 after leaving the WHA for the NHL, hoping to carve a niche market in Hartford.

In 1997, the Whalers left Hartford for Raleigh, North Carolina (amid much controversy), where they became the Hurricanes.

Fan base
In the parts of southwestern Connecticut that are close to New York City, most people are New York Yankees and New York Mets fans, who are often self-identified as suburban New Yorkers. The New York Giants and New York Jets also receive significant support from New England, primarily from the southwestern portions of Connecticut. Additionally, until the team relocated to Washington, D.C., for the start of the 2005 season, the Montreal Expos received some fan support in northern New England. The Quebec Nordiques and Montreal Canadiens were the NHL closest teams in Northern New England.

For the Mets, when they were in the World Series in their championship season of, split allegiances among fans of both the Mets and opposing Boston Red Sox led to an article in The Boston Globe to coin the phrase "Red Sox Nation".

Since the mid nineteen nineties, the University of Connecticut men's and women's basketball programs (winning 5 men's and 11 women's NCAA national titles since 1995) has drawn a large regional following especially in their home state of Connecticut.

The Boston College Eagles hockey team has also attracted a large following, winning four national championships in 2001, 2008, 2010, and 2012. Their football team also garnered support while current Atlanta Falcons quarterback Matt Ryan played for the Eagles. The Boston University Terriers hockey team has likewise received large support over the years, winning the national championship in 2009, and has been a staple of Boston collegiate hockey over the past century. The Green Line Rivalry between Boston University and Boston College has been said to be one of the greatest rivalries in all of sports; the two teams compete against each other as well as the hockey teams from fellow Boston universities Harvard University Crimson and Northeastern University Huskies.

New England is home to an NFL Football team, the New England Patriots. The Patriots, based in Foxborough, Massachusetts, are the most popular NFL team in Massachusetts. However, the other 5 states all have fan base with another NFL team, but the Patriots remain supreme overall. The Pittsburgh Steelers have a fanbase in eastern New England (Rhode Island, New Hampshire, Maine), and the New York Giants are dominant in the western states (Connecticut, with a sizable number in Vermont).

New Hampshire Motor Speedway is an oval racetrack which has hosted several NASCAR and American Championship Car Racing races, whereas Lime Rock Park is a traditional road racing venue home of sports car races. Both NASCAR Cup races at New Hampshire Motor Speedway draw over 100,000 fans, thus making NHMS the largest capacity sports venue in New England. New Hampshire also possesses the New England Dragway facility in Epping, New Hampshire, as one of the very few remaining dragstrips in the New England region.

title: Sports in New England


text:
Arne Swabeck

Arne Swabeck (1890–1986) was an American Communist leader.

Swabeck was born in Denmark and emigrated to the United States where he became one of the founding members of the Communist Party. In the late 1920s he was expelled from the party as a Trotskyist and worked together with James P. Cannon and other American Trotskyists to create the Socialist Workers Party. Swabeck visited Leon Trotsky in his exile in Turkey in 1933.

In the late 1950s, Arne Swabeck became a Maoist and left the SWP in 1967. For a number of years, he was in the Progressive Labor Party. Swabeck wrote the book entitled The Split of the Socialist Party which was published by New England Free Press in 1969.

In 1980, Swabeck appeared as himself in the movie Reds. He was briefly interviewed as one of a series of elderly witnesses to events described in the movie.

title: Arne Swabeck


text:
User:Steveon1

Overview
Fernwe in ThreeLLUMINATi is a futuristic novel by Armenian author, Sar Giss. Originally written in English, it was published in 2017. The novel focuses on a 2800 year`s world society which is almost incapable to feel any kind of emotions. In his book`s prologue, Sar Giss explained the title of his book: "Fernwe" is a category of a feeling of nostalgia for a place unknown, and "Threeluminati" is a three-dimensional illumination process of the spirit.

Plot
The technological era has resulted in that people forget how to feel emotions. Jeffrey Subarto, one of the most notable neuropsychologists of that time, undertakes a psychological research project with a tagline "Sell your feelings". The aim of the project is to save the almost emotionless humankind by researching the feelings offered by people who are still able to feel. The only person who applies for participation in the project is Saira Seymour. After holding an interview with her, Jeffrey decides to buy and research her feeling, called Fernwe (a feeling when you miss a place you have never been before). During the research stage lasting for 25 hours in Freyenyard, they have a mental-to-spiritual conversation together. Here Saira Seymour philosophically reveals her three-dimensional spiritual awakening process and the feeling of Fernwe that is activated within such a process. The whole interview is recorded in hologram version.

Characters
Jeffrey Subarto – a neuropsychologist who organizes the research project on human feelings

Saira Seymour - Seller of the feeling Fernwe

Mrs. Ansie – Jeffrey`s mother

Lauren – Jeffrey`s secretary

Themes
Futurology – The book is about the 2800 year`s events. It includes some mystical prediction in terms of the upcoming generations` lives.

Spiritual Awakening – The concept of “Threelluminati” has been developed by Giss himself. It`s a three-dimensional illumination process of the soul. The book tells about the process of spiritual awakening in abstract personification by attributing human characteristics to abstract ideas.

title: User:Steveon1


text:
Duthro Sharif

Duthro Sharif (Sindhi:ڊٺڙو شريف) is a village located in Talkua Tando Adam, District Sanghar in Sindh province, Pakistan. The Shrine of Pir Hadi Hassan Bux Shah Jilani is also located in the south east of Duthro Sharif.

title: Duthro Sharif


text:
User:Dr. Kalleshwaraswamy CM/sandbox

Kalleshwaraswamy CM

Kalleshwaraswamy CM is an Entomologist working as Assistant Professor at University of Agricultural and Horticultural Sciences, Shivamogga, India.

Area of specialization

Insect taxonomy Insect Bio- diversity, Insect vectors of plant Pathogens and Pest management

Education

Ph.D. University of Agricultural Sciences, Bangalore, India, 2006 M.Sc. (Agriculture: Entomology), University of Agricultural Sciences, Bangalore, India, 2002 B.Sc (Agriculture), University of Agricultural Sciences, Bangalore, (Shimoga Campus)India, 1999

Honors

Fellow, Association for Advancement of Pest Management in Horticultural Ecosystems', Bangalore, India (2015)

External links

https://scholar.google.co.in/citations?user=b-VWCYsAAAAJ&hl=en

title: User:Dr. Kalleshwaraswamy CM/sandbox


text:
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Steven John Glass

The result was speedy delete - author agrees he is not notable. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 15:44, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Steven John Glass

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

non-notable person, no indication of notability Deunanknute (talk) 14:09, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:12, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:12, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:12, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

 * Delete Agree, doesn't meet WP:GNG as the only refs are the website for the pharma company he runs and a press release from that company. BakerStMD T|C 17:42, 12 February 2015 (UTC)


text:
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Royce Isaacs

The result was delete. Tone 08:32, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

Royce Isaacs

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Non-notable professional wrestler, fails WP:GNG  Galatz גאליץ שיחה Talk  15:22, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions.  Galatz גאליץ  שיחה Talk  15:22, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:32, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:32, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Colorado-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:32, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

 * Delete a non-notable professional wrestler.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:30, 24 August 2020 (UTC)


text:
Talk:Market overhang

I'm pretty sure this article is wrong
If you do a Google search for "Market Overhang" you'll see that the definition has more to do with a company having a large amount of shares that no one knows what they're going to do with. This lowers investor confidence.

http://financial-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Market+overhang http://www.trading-glossary.com/m0082.asp http://en.mimi.hu/stockmarket/overhang.html

"Overhangitis" is not a word at all. - Richfife 19:18, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Market overhang. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added tag to http://voip.brockmann.com/C1272193231/E811623386/index.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20030416174211/http://www.informationweek.com/738/nortel.htm to http://www.informationweek.com/738/nortel.htm

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 17:41, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

title: Talk:Market overhang


text:
File talk:Fennvile hs logo.png

Consider correcting the Spelling
The file name contains a spelling error. Correcting it would render something like "Fennville hs logo.png". ShoneBrooks (talk) 18:10, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

title: File talk:Fennvile hs logo.png


text:
Tiago Peixoto

Tiago Peixoto may refer to:

 * Tiago C. Peixoto, Brazilian political scientist
 * Tiago P. Peixoto, Brazilian physicist

title: Tiago Peixoto


text:
feutre

Etymology
From, cognate with and.

Verb

 * 1)  to do, to fuck around with, to dick around, to fritter, to tinker

Etymology
, from, from , (compare 🇨🇬).

Noun

 * 1) felt
 * 2) felt hat; trilby (UK), fedora (US)
 * 3) felt-tip (pen)

title: feutre


text:
Wikipedia:WikiProject Spam/LinkReports/oyaworld.com

Links

 * oyaworld.com resolves to [//<IP_ADDRESS> <IP_ADDRESS>]
 * Link is not on the blacklist.
 * Link is not on the domainredlist.
 * Link is not on the Monitorlist.
 * None of the mentioned users is on the blacklist.
 * Link is not on the whitelist.
 * Link is not on the monitor list.
 * Link is not on the whitelist.
 * Link is not on the monitor list.

Users
No users found.

Additions
No additions recorded.


text:
Blyton Group

Blyton Group is an Australian media and entertainment company. The company primarily operates in the radio industry under its subsidiary Capital Radio Network and owns hospitality, service and entertainment businesses in New South Wales.

History
The company was started by Kevin Blyton who first acquired a radio station 2XL (now XLFM) in the Snowy Mountains and has since grown the radio network and expanded into hospitality. With the exception of XLFM, Snow FM and 3GG, all radio stations are operated as a 50/50 joint venture with Grant Broadcasters.

The current COO of Blyton Group is Josh Elliot. Former radio host with Capital Radio Network, Andrew Dunkerley, served as Operations Manager until his departure in July 2020.

In 2020, Blyton Group announced a 10-year master-plan for continued development of its Charlotte Pass Snow Resort, beginning with an upgraded chair lift.

In November 2021, Grant Broadcasters sold their wholly owned radio stations to ARN. Their share of Capital Radio Network stations and wholly owned Geelong stations K Rock and Bay 93.9 remained with the Grant Broadcasters' owners, the Cameron family.

Radio Network
Operating under the name Capital Radio Network, the Blyton Group wholly owns three radio stations and has a joint venture with Grant Broadcasters for the remaining stations. The radio network operates in 5 locations across Australian Capital Territory, New South Wales, Victoria and Western Australia. The Snowy Mountains radio station organised the automated music for the Blyton Group's Magic Mountain amusement park speakers.

Wholly owned stations

 * Snowy Mountains, New South Wales
 * XLFM
 * Snow FM
 * Gippsland, Victoria
 * 3GG

Joint venture with Grant Broadcasters

 * Australian Capital Territory
 * 2CC
 * 2CA
 * MyDAB Canberra
 * Snow FM (relayed from Snowy Mountains on DAB+ )
 * KIX Country
 * New South Wales
 * Southern Tablelands
 * GNFM
 * Eagle FM
 * KIX Country
 * Snowy Mountains
 * KIX Country
 * Perth, Western Australia
 * 6iX
 * X Digital
 * KIX Country
 * MyDAB Perth

Former stations
In the 1990s, Kevin Blyton held a 40% stake in Newcastle's NXFM.

Outside of buying and selling stations in the same stations/territories as current stations, he has also held stations in Tasmania and owned Q92fm in Queenstown, New Zealand which he purchased in 1992.

Hospitality and services
Blyton Group operates two snow resorts in the New South Wales Snowy Mountains region. The two resorts are Charlotte Pass Snow Resort and Selwyn Snow Resort.

The company also has multiple hotels as a part of their operations in the region:

 * Kosciuszko Chalet Hotel, Charlotte Pass
 * Lucy Lodge, Charlotte Pass
 * Stillwell Hotel, Charlotte Pass
 * Selwyn Accommodation Centre, Selwyn Snow Fields

In the 2019-2020 Australian summer bushfires, the Selwyn Snow Resort burned down, the Blyton Group has committed to rebuilding.

In addition to the resorts and hotels, the Blyton Group owns the Snowy Mountains Airport Corporation, which operates Cooma-Snowy Mountains Airport and as a part of their Charlotte Pass resort, operate an over-snow bus service linking the village to Perisher Valley.

Entertainment
Group also operates the movie theatres in the Snowy Mountains townships of Jindabyne and Cooma. In Merimbula, the Blyton Group have the Magic Mountain amusement park.

title: Blyton Group