Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2015 July 8

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 7 July	9 July >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. If anyone wants it userfying let me know. Davewild (talk) 06:50, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

GotUrethane[edit]

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

Promotional, no reliable, independent sources and none found on Google, no indication that this company meets the notability guideline. Contested PROD, reason for removing was "deletion tag removed. i searched google and found sources mentioning this organization". The user who removed the tag has not produced any such sources. Howicus (Did I mess up?) 23:26, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. lavender|^{(formerly HMSSolent)}|lambast 01:09, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. lavender|^{(formerly HMSSolent)}|lambast 01:09, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:CORP as there are no reliable sources at all that discuss the company. Inks.LWC (talk) 04:22, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Inks.LWC (talk) 04:25, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and draft/userfy - This could be a better article but my searches (News, Books, browser, highbeam, thefreelibrary) found nothing good with the best result being this ("California Manufacturers Register"). SwisterTwister talk 21:48, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedied by User:Callanecc as an article created by a sockpuppet of a banned user. Bearcat (talk) 05:19, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Kathy Figueroa[edit]

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

WP:BLP of a writer with no strong claim to passing WP:AUTHOR. The article makes no substantive claim of non-local notability anywhere outside of the small town where she lives, and the article is cited exclusively to her books' sales pages on an online bookstore and to the front splash pages of the local community weekly newspapers in her own hometown rather than to any content about her in either of the newspapers. Further, I just did a ProQuest search and found that she gets just four hits in "Canadian Newsstand Major Dailies" — and she was the bylined author, not the subject, of every single one of them. Simply put, she simply does not have enough independent media coverage to get over WP:GNG. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 22:47, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. lavender|^{(formerly HMSSolent)}|lambast 01:09, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. lavender|^{(formerly HMSSolent)}|lambast 01:10, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. lavender|^{(formerly HMSSolent)}|lambast 01:10, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I'm just not finding notability. For example, she lists material published with "Brian Wrixon Books", but this publisher lacks notability, even lacks a website, merely has a Facebook page [1] on which he self-describes as: "A private not-for-profit Canadian publisher registered with Library and Archives Canada." This sort of publisher is no indicaiton of notability, nor can I find anything else indicating that Figueroa is a notable poet, although she may very well be a good one.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:35, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment without regard to whether the article should be deleted or kept, it should be noted that a user identifying as the subject of the article posted a {{help me}} request on their user talk page at User talk:BeesAndTrees with potential sources. --Nick⁠—⁠^Contact/_Contribs 17:35, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Davewild (talk) 06:51, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

OUN (B) – UPA[edit]

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

An unreferenced opinion why this abbreviation is "incorrect" Staszek Lem (talk) 22:35, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:41, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:41, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:41, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete An essay about why a non-notable term is incorrect, fails WP:GNG. Joseph2302 (talk) 18:19, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Opinion essays are never appropriate for the mainspace and the subject matter is such that it cannot be saved by a move to the project space. – Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 19:21, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Simply looks like an essay article because of the claim that the abbreviation is incorrect without a proper source. Plus no evidence of notability. --TL22 (talk) 13:58, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Davewild (talk) 06:52, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Roojoom[edit]

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

This is a small start up (7 employees) which has only received substantial coverage relating to $600k of funding. I think it is a case of WP:TOOSOON and that WP:CORP isn't met. SmartSE (talk) 21:58, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. lavender|^{(formerly HMSSolent)}|lambast 01:12, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. lavender|^{(formerly HMSSolent)}|lambast 01:12, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Nom's assertion: "has only received substantial coverage relating to $600k of funding" is not accurate. In fact, there was substantive coverage before funding announcement, Here [2] And more recent articles are about about the model, not the funding Here [3], here [4], and here [5]. It is the amount and depth of coverage that makes an article pass GNG (not whether coverage was triggered by a funding announcement). Searching google news on Roojoom turns up pages of coverage in multiple languages.E.M.Gregory (talk) 13:24, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Of course, you might think that if a social media start-up decided ot give itself a WP page it could/would do a better job of it.E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:23, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Passes WP:GNG. Wiki92man (^Talk/_Stalk) 08:48, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 00:27, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Art jewelry forum[edit]

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

Sources do not indicate notability as they are not sufficiently independent. Seem to be an assortment of pages from their website, mentions of them in various artist's CVs, a press release and something from the publication they funded. Neither the references nor a web search indicate that anyone independent has given them in -depth coverage. Happy Squirrel (talk) 21:50, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that There are two sources that are from .edu addresses. Both these sources are art galleries operated by American Universities.Clarefinin (talk) 13:15, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

My first thought was, what is art jewelry? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Art_jewelry I see it is something notable that does exist. And my understanding is artjewlryforum.org is a website for promoting and selling this? Probably no way of a website on the topic getting notable enough to need it's own wikipage. Just not enough people will be buying jewlry art because of it's expensiveness. This might change in the future, who knows, but at this point the reliable sources aren't there to justify it. Popish Plot (talk) 14:18, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There is a market for art jewelry. There is a market for individual collectors, as well as a large market for museum acquisitions. Almost every large American museum has a collection of art jewelry, most notably:

The Metropolitan Museum of Art in NY, The Museum of Art and Design, The Philadelphia Art Museum, Huston Museum of Art, The Mint Museum, and on and on and on.Clarefinin (talk) 17:02, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Very few people own a Van Gogh, but that in itself does not mean that there is not a lot of content written about his pieces. It is very conceivable that people will write about "art jewelery" in a significant manner even if no one can afford to actually buy it, and that a publication catering to this topic could become notable. However, I am just not seeing any evidence that such has happened with this publication. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 14:35, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This publication includes historic articles from scores of international art historians, theoretical interpretations of work, and exhibition review.Clarefinin (talk) 17:02, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note that the only mention in the .edu references is of the order of "this exhibition was given a grant by...", not exactly in-depth coverage. Happy Squirrel (talk) 15:56, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Happysquirrel, I chose those particular references to cite that those were grant recipients. If I flushed out individual sections with reviews of those particular shows, would that help the the pages chances?Clarefinin (talk) 17:02, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Clarefinin:, Yes that might help. What determines whether a topic can have a stand alone article is evidence that other reliably published sources without a connection/interest in the subject have written about the subject in a significant manner. Places that co-sponsor/receive/give grants are not independent. And just because something is mentioned on an .edu site does not mean that the content has been "published" with editorial oversight etc. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 12:24, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:36, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:36, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:36, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - All I could find in the mainstream press through a Google News search was a few passing mentions and a PR piece or two. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 07:51, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that several other Wiki pages uses articles from Art Jewelry Forum as their sources.Clarefinin (talk) 13:15, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am in a predicament now that this organization is used as an academically sound source, but it has never been discussed itself in depth by other academic sources. I am a graduate student in the field of metalsmithing/jewelry. Unfortunately our field on a whole has been historically vastly undocumented. This has slowly been changing, but there is, to date, only a handful of texts written on the field, most of which are too old to have referenced Art Jewelry Forum. The lack of academic writing about our field is in large part why AJF was founded; its core mission is to help legitimize and historicize the field. As someone who currently teaches at a university level in our field, I can assure you that our field considers AJF as an academic source in of itself. Articles from AJF are used in the curriculums of hundreds of metalsmithing/jewelry programs at the university level. My opinion is that an organization that has such a respected and wide influence on a field on a whole, and academia specifically, deserves a wiki page.Clarefinin (talk) 13:15, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It can't just be your opinion though. I don't really have an opinion since I'm not an art jewlry expert. But without reliable sources how can it be here? No one doubts that art jewelry itself deserves a wiki page it's just that artjewelryforum.org the website doesn't. Modern Art has it's own wiki page but modernart.net, the top website for selling pieces, does not. Popish Plot (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 17:11, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

AJF is not interested in selling jewelry. They are interested in the publication of academic articles. They are a publisher, not a seller.Clarefinin (talk) 17:42, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ah ok I got confused after reading your earlier comment "There is a market for art jewelry." I had read that wrongly. Well no matter what it is for, is it notable? They are interested in publication of academic articles. Are there reliable sources that mention them? It relies too much on primary sources here aka links to the website itself. Then non reliable sources like the larkscraftys.com one which says it is in conjunction with artjewlryforum. How about a third party source not connected to them? The two .edu sources are the best bet but I think it might not be enough for concensus to say this is notable. Do any of the sources used for https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Art_jewelry mention this organization, the art jewelry forum? Popish Plot (talk) 18:35, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL) this might help Popish Plot (talk) 18:39, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If it has "such a respected and wide influence on a field on a whole, " then there will be sources to verify such a claim. We are not here to establish AJF as a reliable source. It is likely that the places in Wikipedia where AJF has been used as a "source" are also in need of corrections. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 13:32, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No academic journal talks about other academic journals. They are, in essence, in competition with each other.Clarefinin (talk) 17:02, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

While academic journals might not "talk about each other", their a multitudes of other reliable sources where such coverage can and does occur. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 18:21, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:GNG and WP:CORP, due to not enough coverage. Exact reason why Draft:Art Jewelry Forum (AJF) was rejected yesterday, this is why you shouldn't just create an article after it's rejected at WP:AFC. Joseph2302 (talk) 13:18, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have expanded several sections of the page and added a fair number of additional references. If someone could be so kind as to take another look and give me feedback it would be much appreciated! I also have a questions on linking to foreign wiki pages. AJF is an international organization; its board members span four of five continents. I would like to link select board members to their own wiki pages in their respected countries, but was told not to create international wiki links.... Are there any suggestions of how I can create an easily understood link between the AJF page and the board members international wiki ages? Also, someone added that a citation was needed when I was talking about a specific book being "the first of it's kind". There is nothing besides press releases which also state this. I am stating this, personally, because I am an expert on the field, know every book published on the field, teach the history of the field at a top ten university, and know that it is, in fact, groundbreaking. Is there a way to contest the "citation needed"? Thank you everyone for your help with this projectClarefinin (talk) 18:08, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, about the citation needed, unfortunately, because Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, it can only publish things that others have said in reliable secondary sources. Press releases are just not independent and cannot be used as sources. Furthermore, although you may have evidence as an expert in the field for this claim, if it is not published, it is original research and cannot be on Wikipedia. I have had a similar experiences with a math article. It is extremely frustrating, but if the statement cannot be sourced, it will unfortunately have to be removed. About inter-language links, all the Wikipedias do try to be include content about notable international figures. No matter the person's nationality, if they satisfy English Wikipedia's inclusion guidelines, an article can be written about them. Some may already have existing articles. Otherwise, perhaps a translated article would be a good addition to enwiki. If they do not satisfy enwiki's inclusion guidelines, then wikilinking is definitely inappropriate. Hope that makes sense. Happy Squirrel (talk) 18:22, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

HappySquirrel, thank you for clarifying, and yes it makes sense. As I am sure you've gathered, I'm new to wikipedia, and there is a lot of customs to become acquainted with. If I wanted to make an english version of an international wiki page is there an easy way to request a duplicate? Or would I just create one from scratch with translated text? Also, what is your feeling on the AJFs page in regards to establishing "notability" at this point? 24.179.112.58 (talk) 18:44, 11 July 2015 (UTC) (Note: If IP editor "24.179.112.58" is actually Clarefinin, then please remember to try and log in before you comment. I am pretty sure this was just an accident, but it could lead others to mistakenly assume that multiple accounts are being used by a single editor. So, it's best to stick with a single account. Thanks. - Marchjuly (talk) 22:50, 11 July 2015 (UTC))[reply]

Comment: What Happysquirel says about press releases is not entirely true. Press releases are considered to be primary sources and they can be used to source information, but they must be used carefully and typically only for certain types of uncontroversial factual information. For this reason, a primary source is not acceptable for asserting notability per WP:ORG because Wikipedia notability is in a sense more of an "interpretation" than a absolute "fact". It needs to be shown that multiple secondary or third-party reliable sources have significantly covered the subject per WP:ORGDEPTH for notability to be established. - Marchjuly (talk) 22:43, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep probably notable. This is basically all the coverage to be expected about any organization of this type, and I think it's sufficient. It seems to be the largest organization in its field, and we usually accept that as notability. DGG ( talk ) 22:34, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Updated article seems better, haven't got time to properly analyse the sources now, but probably just about notable, per WP:GNG. Also, I guess if they are the top of their field, then as @DGG: says, keep is probably best. Joseph2302 (talk) 22:46, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per DGG above. His point about "largest" entirely valid I think. c1cada (talk) 23:26, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep While the lack of independent references is a weakness (but also a problem for most niche publications/organisations) contemporary art jewellery is a recognised high art form, embedded in the university system, covered in its own publications, and collected and researched by museums. As a person who works in the museum sector I can confidently say Art Jewelry Forum is a notable organisation and source of a significant amount of the relevant online publishing in this area.Auchmill (talk) 03:19, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Passes WP:GNG. Wiki92man (^Talk/_Stalk) 08:54, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the new sources satisfy me that this passes GNG. As DGG points out, the small size of the field explains why sources are hard to find, as they are mostly in more niche publications. Happy Squirrel (talk) 18:14, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Although opinion may vary about whether this is fine art, the subject is impotrtant, and the Art jewelry forum is actively publishing.Hiart (talk) 18:30, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: In full disclosure: I've met and worked with a few AJF folks at a workshop. That said, if I may, I'd like to ask people to consider the organization in the light that DGG, Happy Squirrel, and Auchmill suggest: this organization is ~~the largest~~ one of the largest in their field, even if seemingly niche outside of that field. AmandaRR123 (talk) 22:24, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, to be the most precise I should say "one of the largest" rather than "the largest", since I don't have firm numbers on that, but I think the main point still stands. AmandaRR123 (talk) 22:30, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep agree completely with the "keep" comments above. WilliamDigiCol (talk) 13:37, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to U.S. Route 15 in North Carolina. -- RoySmith (talk) 00:46, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

U.S. Route 15-501 in North Carolina[edit]

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

Non-notable road concurrency with no sources found. Perhaps a more detailed blurb in both U.S 15 and U.S. 501 would be a better option. Tinton5 (talk) 20:32, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes - Please get rid of it. --WashuOtaku (talk) 23:52, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:16, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:16, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Every individual stretch of road that happens to carry a concurrency of two or three separate highways does not need its own standalone article separate from the ones about the highways it's part of — especially when said article is completely unreferenced and can likely never consist more of two sentences. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 00:25, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Redundant with U.S. Route 15 in North Carolina which replicates all this content. Colapeninsula (talk) 10:22, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - "15-501" is common verbiage in North Carolina to refer to the concurrency of US 15 and US 501. In the past, I supported keeping this as a separate article covering the concurrency (see this discussion). Also, in the previous AFD, it was noted this page needed to stay for attribution. Dough4872 00:29, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I should clarify that the 15-501 page should be converted to a dab page. This current page attempts to do that but should probably be formatted better. Dough4872 19:04, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Convert to disambiguation page which should have been done already. --Rs chen 7754 21:02, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Davewild (talk) 21:07, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to U.S. Route 15 in North Carolina (or disambiguate) to satisfy attribution. Regards, Yamaguchi先生 (talk) 20:57, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Convert to disambiguation page—something which, as rschen7754 notes, should have been done long ago. This will also allow it to maintain attribution requirements. Imzadi 1979 → 08:14, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to U.S. Route 15 in North Carolina (if there is anything to merge). Redundant with the target. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:02, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was close and histmerget Unsigned closure by Anthony Appleyard done at 09:24, 11 July 2015‎

Star(David Bowie song)[edit]

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

No sign of sources in the article or otherwise that reflect that subject meets notability guidelines for songs or general notability guidelines. Should be redirected to album article. Note that Star (David Bowie song) was redirected to album CutOffTies (talk) 20:49, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Sources are easy to find. For example, see The Complete David Bowie; or Strange Fascination. Andrew D. (talk) 22:08, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

From the one source I can bring up (SF), it seems to be a pretty quick mention that does not indicate it would fulfil this for wp:NSONGS Notability aside, a standalone article is only appropriate when there is enough material to warrant a reasonably detailed article; articles unlikely ever to grow beyond stubs should be merged to articles about an artist or album. --CutOffTies (talk) 00:12, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The other source has pages of information and history about the song and so we're good. Merging to an album or artist is not appropriate because the song may appear in multiple albums and be covered by multiple artists (as this one has). The song and its title are the natural atomic level for this information, facilitating search, indexing and coverage. Andrew D. (talk) 13:37, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I was able to bring back The Complete David Bowie this time and see the information on the song. It seems that book covers every single Bowie song. Are there any general music sources that cover this song? Thanks. --CutOffTies (talk) 03:56, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:29, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:29, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:29, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Don't know why people create entirely new articles when Star (David Bowie song) already exists as a redirect. If kept, a histmerge should be performed. It would also be a benefit to readers if said sources were added to the article. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 18:35, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 12:28, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

World Youth Organization[edit]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

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

Non-notable organisation. No evidence that they have actually done anything of any significance whatsoever. Their website states that they are "not officially launching the organisation till January 2016". The only meaningful 'third-party' sourcing - a piece in a local online newspaper [6] - is written by a Tom Hinchcliffe, a name shared with a person whe identifies himself as their 'Senior Press Officer' on their Twitter page [7]. Not that the article in question does anything to establish notability anyway, since it merely reports that an announcement about the organisation's founding has been made. At best, this is run-of-the-mill WP:CRYSTALBALL stuff, promoting an organisation that might possibly become significant in the future if they actually do something concrete, rather than engaging in self-promotion. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:45, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:59, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:59, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I believe the article is credible for viewing and reading on Wikipedia and does present relevant information to educate browsers on the organisation. The World Youth Alliance does not seem to have any better citations. However I do agree, as the organisation has not launched yet it does make it more difficult for the organisation to have much notebale sources. But all in all, I think the article provides sources which are of high enough certainty that it is verified information to be published on this platform. Biotiteegg (talk) 16:12, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest you read Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies) - the sources don't come within a country mile of the requirements. Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, and contains articles on subjects that are demonstrated through third-party coverage to be of significance now. It isn't a platform for the self-promotion of organisations that claim they are going to do something next year. And no, much of the content in the article isn't verified at all - it isn't even sourced. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:37, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Biotiteegg (talk) 11:02, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Rosyangel121 (talk) 11:03, 13 July 2015 (UTC)— Rosyangel121 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

This is not a vote. It is a discussion, based around whether the article should be kept or deleted according to relevant Wikipedia policies and guidelines. Simply posting 'keep' without explanation will have no bearing on the final decision. AndyTheGrump (talk) 12:43, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

When will a conclusion be reached? Biotiteegg (talk) 14:16, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete article was twice refused at AfC, see User Talk:Biotiteegg, but moved to mainspace nevertheless. Only sources in the article are primary, including their official site, a blog post in the Huffington Post by their CEO-to-be, and a piece in a Yorkshire paper by their "press-officer". Organization is scheduled to be launched in January 2016, but it is doubtful whether under-age persons really can legally open an organization (in Brazil, where they say will be a branch, it's definitely forbidden, people under 18 are not legally liable under any circumstances). Thus it severely fails WP:CRYSTAL and WP:GNG. Kraxler (talk) 15:17, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - With a lack of independent reliable sources, the article fails WP:GNG, and as the organization has not yet been launched, there are issues with WP:FUTURE as well. Inks.LWC (talk) 10:17, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- too soon, and thus fails WP:GNG and WP:CORP. Joseph2302 (talk) 23:07, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Consensus is that the article does not meet the notability guidelines. Davewild (talk) 07:10, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Bottle Rocket Studios[edit]

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

Non notable company lacking significant coverage in reliable sources. Identical article [8]] declined by Sulfurboy. Philg88 ^♦talk 16:10, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - It's unfortunate they abandoned the AFC process. Non-notable via WP:CORP. All sources are either primary or just press releases. Sulfurboy (talk) 16:26, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please Keep - It came to my attention a few weeks ago that this page is long overdue for an update. I am the new website and social media manager of Bottle Rocket Studios. The only reason I state this is to avoid a conflict of interest as it is not my interest, but my job. Please let me know if there are any steps that should be taken to further prevent deletion or if I should simply create a new page.
The abandonment of the AFC process was due to the fact that I realized I could submit a request to change the title of the page. The new page I attempted to create (titled Bottle Rocket Studios, that I believe you are referring to) was a poor attempt at changing the name before I had thoroughly explored all courses of action.
To give some backstory, my original intent was 2 fold: 1. to create a profile that could be used within our marketing department so that changes could be made when needed without having to go through me every time. 2. I made a poor assumption that making a company branded account name would show that the edits and new page I attempted to make were going to from a reliable source. I understand that I broke several community standards in doing so and am working to make amends.
I apologize for my blatant disregard of community standards as I attempted to quickly make amendments to the page. I will continue to read up on the community and content guidelines and plan to avoid any similar situation in the future. (I also apologize if this is not a standard response, but I wanted to get a statement on the post before this had a chance to go any further) BricePraslicka (talk) 19:25, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment @BricePraslicka: This article is not a "company profile" like you suggest, but instead an article that anyone can edit. If you're here to build a company profile, then use a social network or official website. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia for neutral tone articles on notable things. Joseph2302 (talk) 19:34, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment @Joseph2302: Thank you for the clarification. If I were to rewrite the page (as I planned to do anyway) to speak of the innovations that Bottle Rocket has made to the mobile and virtual reality industry, would that potentially be notable enough for a page? As I stated earlier, I have been working to bring myself up to speed on this whole process and the community guidelines. I do however, at the moment, seem to not understand what makes some companies notable and not others. I had the understanding that Wikipedia was an encyclopedia of knowledge, not a place for only notable topics. Regardless, thank you again for the clarification and understanding. Also, thank you @Gene93k: for the addition of articles related to community standards that must be met. BricePraslicka (talk) 20:29, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable, fails WP:GNG and WP:CORP. Joseph2302 (talk) 19:31, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:04, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:04, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:04, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:CORP ukexpat (talk) 12:50, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. per SK1 - No valid or even policy-based reason for deletion, Articles are nominated for notability concerns not how much money they earn (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 17:55, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Starla Brodie[edit]

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

Not notable. Absurd. There are poker players who make more than her lifetime earnings in tournaments multiples times per day, 365 days per year. Yet an essay at WikiProjectPoker claims any WSOP side event makes you notable. Sorry, that essay is wrong. She is not notable. Handpolk ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 00:59, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2015 July 1. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 01:14, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep as the first female WSOP winner (and not of a "side event") and a two-time winner. As for the amount, should we also negate Johnny Moss's victory at the very first Main Event because he only won $30,000? Should five-time WSOP winner Gary Berland be deleted too? His biggest WSOP cash was less than Brodie's: $24,000 to $35,200. You can't apply today's standards to yesterday's players. Clarityfiend (talk) 05:37, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Everything other than the Main Event is a side event, by definition -- the term used on Wikipedia is 'preliminary event' -- same thing.
WP:OSE is not a valid way to establish notability.
If winning established notability, RS's would have written about it. That they haven't, means that by definition it was not notable.
Any arguments about notability which aren't based on RS's are original research which is not considered or allowed. Handpolk ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 17:58, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. No reason offered for deletion. 2005 (talk) 20:49, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That you think "she is not notable" is not a reason for deletion says everything about your views in this topic area and why all of the votes for keep you are about to offer should be ignored. You have no respect for WP:N. Handpolk ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 21:30, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Now you are flat out making stuff up. Starla Brodie is notable, she has some coverage, for example, so why are you making up that section in quotes? Please don't act like this is some life or death thing that you have to slash through. 2005 (talk) 22:15, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You said I offered no reason for deletion. Now you are arguing against the reason I gave. I'm confused, did I offer a reason or not? Handpolk ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 22:55, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:38, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:01, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Per others. Rray (talk) 15:34, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JAaron95 ^Talk 15:47, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. No reason offered for deletion. Toffanin (talk) 16:47, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Davewild (talk) 07:10, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Quality villas[edit]

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

Notability: seems like a very ordinary company. Name makes googling problematic, but cited sources certainly do not. The New Statesman article, for instance, does not mention the company as far as I can see. TheLongTone (talk) 13:55, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:06, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Morocco-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:11, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:11, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:11, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:12, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I'm more inclined to delete simply because there aren't that many good third-party sources about this, although it'd be nice it were kept because at least it's neat and sourced given there are much worse articles that need tending to, but there could still be better sources. My searches found nothing particularly outstanding aside from this. FWIW, I searched with "Quality villas travel company" and seemed to have worked (no explosion of other results for "quality villas"). SwisterTwister talk 05:06, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JAaron95 ^Talk 15:44, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Couldn't find any sources providing much significant coverage. Fails WP:GNG. APerson (talk!) 17:22, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Does not meet WP:N, verified after several internet source searches. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:21, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. There are virtually no reliable sources that this company even exists. We are not a webhost for exclusive time share companies. Bearian (talk) 19:23, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Consensus is that the article does not meet the notability guidelines. Davewild (talk) 07:13, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Marie-Ange Faugérolas[edit]

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

Non-notable author. Fails both WP:AUTHOR and WP:BASIC. According to her self-published biography (here), she is an "award-winning" author, but the awards she apparently won are little known: the 2003 Literary Prize of the National Gendarmerie (French: Prix littéraire de la Gendarmerie 2003) and the Award of Excellence at the Étretat Literary competition. I couldn't find any secondary source mentioning her awards. And she does not seem to have received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject. Edcolins (talk) 19:50, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly, a strong sense of WP:PROMO in this article created by a single-purpose account Geothebg (talk · contribs) (the other work on record by that editor is the also-problematic Geoffroy Faugérolas.) The material from the self-published biography (which I excised from the article for WP:COPYVIO reasons) suggests some coverage in various media sources, but without a listing of that or other significant sources (the article is currently all sourced to related-party sources or databases, neither of which show significance), it's hard to find real support for inclusion. --Nat Gertler (talk) 20:11, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There is a passing reference in an 1996 article [9] in Le Monde, but no evidence of significant coverage. --Edcolins (talk) 20:26, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Paris Premiere (Marie-Ange) author of shows ^[1] Movie reference The Tsarevich ^[2] Her publisher Pygmalion-Flammarion ^[3] Her publisher l'Harmattan ^[4] Her American publisher Penguin ^[5] Her Distributor: ^[6] Marie-ange celebrity name: ^[7] La presse de la manche: https://www.dropbox.com/s/9s0fyosnmdcdrbg/Scan.jpeg?dl=0 30 articles on her first book: https://www.dropbox.com/sh/u399w74qpz0cyj0/AAD0WRml-A1KAWlYvw86B9cFa?dl=0 and I can keep going like this for hours... (Geothebg (talk) 22:55, 25 June 2015 (UTC))[reply]

References

^ http://spectacles.premiere.fr/Salle-de-Spectacle/Spectacle/Les-Jumeaux-Drole-De-Magie-1530656
^ http://www.cinelinx.com/indie-beat/item/5448-reviewed-the-tsarevich-a-film-to-keep-an-eye-on-this-festival-season.html
^ http://editions.flammarion.com/Search_Result.cfm?keywords=faugerolas
^ http://www.editions-harmattan.fr/index.asp?navig=catalogue&obj=result&ntable=0&andor=OR&artiste=faugerolas&motExact=1&orderby=titre&ordermode=ASC
^ http://www.editions-harmattan.fr/index.asp?navig=catalogue&obj=result&ntable=0&andor=OR&artiste=faugerolas&motExact=1&orderby=titre&ordermode=ASC
^ https://bnccatalist.ca/ViewTitle.aspx?id=2127323
^ https://www.dropbox.com/s/b2om9xhxgd4pydz/Journal%20Des%20Femmes.png?dl=0

Most of the things you list don't actually help the case. We're not doubting that the subject exists, the question is establishing notability, so databases of films, or publishers' listings, don't advance that. The book reviews do a better job; my French is not good enough (i.e, it's non-existent) to judge whether they fully contribute to the type of notability that WP:AUTHOR calls for. --Nat Gertler (talk) 01:27, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What about the presence of her work in the universities around America? http://www.worldcat.org/title/theophile-gautier-lhomme-des-femmes/oclc/52055570&referer=brief_results Geothebg (talk) 03:03, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not really, no. Please read WP:AUTHOR to understand better what we're looking for. --Nat Gertler (talk) 03:19, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the information. I've collected on the subject's website a collection of articles written about her: http://marieangefaugerolas.com/news-awards/ Geothebg (talk) 05:10, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As you can apparently place things on the author's domain, you should probably review our guidelines for dealing with conflicts of interest as well. --Nat Gertler (talk) 05:19, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That's why I wanted to contribute with the sources and let the team of editors have an objective edit of the article. Geothebg (talk) 05:25, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for all these references [10]! ~~I will have a look.~~ --Edcolins (talk) 20:30, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've read through the references you provided (except for the one in arabic, it seems), and I still think that she is not notable enough, per WP:BIO. The coverage fails the "significant coverage" threshold. I can only see "brief bursts of news coverage" (see WP:NOTTEMPORARY) in mostly local or regional outlets at the time some of her books were published, possibly in the context of promotional activities. There are also a lot of passing references. --Edcolins (talk) 14:03, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. My media sweeps did not reveal much. Even an unfiltered search did not yield much either; the so-called sources listed in the article or this page really are not up to snuff as per WP:RS.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 01:08, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:02, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:02, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:02, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JAaron95 (Talk) 13:57, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JAaron95 ^Talk 15:44, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable writer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:05, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Very little participation, but no support for deletion apart from the nominator and a reasonable argument for keeping made. Davewild (talk) 07:16, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Kulczyk Foundation[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG: no claim to any notability. P 1 9 9 ✉ 17:04, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. lavender|^{(formerly HMSSolent)}|lambast 00:02, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. lavender|^{(formerly HMSSolent)}|lambast 00:03, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I'm not a Polish speaker so I can't help there but News found some results, and although it says it started in 2013 Books also found results from before 2013 (2006, 2007, etc.). SwisterTwister talk 05:50, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JAaron95 (Talk) 13:57, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - the Polish article is a bit better and has info about some of their projects. Seems like a relatively new but notable foundation.[11], [12], [13] —Мандичка^YO 😜 00:09, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JAaron95 ^Talk 15:43, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Davewild (talk) 07:18, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Native Guns[edit]

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

Seemingly NN local hip hop duo. No record label. No in-depth coverage to pass GNG. The most notable coverage of this act is a couple of obscure reviews and inclusion of his album in an undergraduate syllabus. The Dissident Aggressor 13:41, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - My searches actually found several results but nothing I think would make a substantial improvement, here, here, here (Google and Yahoo browser searches found same results), here and here. At most, this could be mentioned somewhere else but I'm not seeing a good target. Looking at the history, first edit here to gradual improvement such as this until being trimmed here. Locally notable maybe but I'm not seeing much possible improvement (note also that this article has almost existed ten years, December 2005 with basically not much significant improvement). SwisterTwister talk 05:45, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:56, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:56, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JAaron95 (Talk) 13:58, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JAaron95 ^Talk 15:43, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Sandstein 07:47, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Monarchy Party[edit]

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

WP:NRV. No citations provided from reliable sources, and I was unable to verify that any exists. Lots of WP:PRIMARY. Timeraner (talk) 05:57, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2015 June 24. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 06:09, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This should will also be updated with the heavy coverage about the party in this book about Marshal Ledbetter http://www.amazon.com/Making-Sense-Marshall-Ledbetter-Political/dp/0813060168. I will do it at some point, I hope this article is still there to do it. The article from the NY Times about Charlie Ward as a reference documenting he was Student Body President, and he was under the MOnarchy Party. The Journal for Higher Education article is not minor, I have a copy of it, and is printed by the London times. If needed I can scan the darn thing in. Paper references still work in this digital age. Most of these events happened before there was good documentation on the net for things. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.237.120.89 (talk) 01:57, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I just don't see the coverage. Almost everything is college newspaper coverage, which doesn't count toward meeting GNG. —Мандичка^YO 😜 06:22, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There's 2 references to the Washington Post, one to the New York Times, and one to The Journal of Higher Education. If they're genuine and substantial, that would be sufficient coverage. Colapeninsula (talk) 10:10, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Links to coverage of the U of Maryland's 1980s "Monarchist Party" campaigns include NYT [14], a syndicated version of the NYT story [15][16], WaPo [17][18]. --Arxiloxos (talk) 18:26, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I put forward that the Florida Flambeau is not a student newspaper in the way other campus papers are. In Florida the papers were kicked off campus in the 1960's-70's due to some liability ruling, and were bought up by major publishers. It is neither owned or run by FSU, nor is it student run. The Flambeau is a Gannett publication (USA Today) and is a branch of the Tallahasse Democrat. It's staff is paid, and is not student, but does focus it coverage on the FSU campus and student topics. It is a real paper, not a student paper as on most campuses. Those references should be considered.

Keep - thanks to Arxiloxos. Timeraner (talk) 18:45, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Timeraner (talk) 18:04, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Timeraner (talk) 18:04, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -This article should not be speedily deleted for lack of asserted importance because... (Because it covers an unique alternative form of student government based on royalty that for the most part worked. Granted it is a SGA and not an important national political party but the rare example of a reactionary form of governance evolving is in itself interesting and noteworthy if looking at political parties that are deliberately created to go against the establishment [i.e. the Pirate Party UK]) Septagram (talk) 21:05, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - A cute story, thousands of universities have thousands of colorful stories and histories like this, but it is sourced only to student newspapers and myspace. The claim in the lead of "received media attention in The Washington Post and The Times of London" seems to be a creative stretching of the truth. The Washington Post story about Charlie Ward's vice-presidency of the student body does not mention the "Party", while the Times of London is wholly absent. The U. Maryland "chapter" gets a brief WP:MANBITESDOG write-up in the NY Times, but that is not enough to support a Wikipedia article. Tarc (talk) 12:49, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:49, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JAaron95 (Talk) 14:05, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JAaron95 ^Talk 15:41, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Davewild (talk) 07:23, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ummet Ozcan[edit]

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

Delete: promotional article for non-notable musician. Quis separabit? 04:27, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Notable enough fo me to search for his article. I did however remove the worst selfpromo in it. So now I think the article is ok. --Averater (talk) 19:22, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:46, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:46, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JAaron95 (Talk) 14:11, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think the article is fine now. Ummet is a semi big name DJ, and many other DJs that rank alongside him have their own Wikipedia entries.

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JAaron95 ^Talk 15:41, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - passes WP:MUSICBIO #2, had a #1-hit in the Flanders/Belgian official charts, and several other charting positions in different countries. There's also a lot of coverage, see here. Kraxler (talk) 15:32, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Davewild (talk) 07:24, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Mythicist Position[edit]

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

All possible sources focus on Christ mythicism. Attempts to expand it would simply be a WP:POVFORK. Ian.thomson (talk) 01:31, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The proper name for this article would be Mythicism, already in existence as a redirect.TheLongTone (talk) 11:18, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I'm not an expert of this but there aren't that many good results at Books, one result with News and some more at browser. SwisterTwister talk 05:13, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:41, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JAaron95 (Talk) 14:27, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JAaron95 ^Talk 15:40, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Davewild (talk) 07:24, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Lee Goodall[edit]

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

Not enough coverage in reliable sources to verify or sustian article. Wining Junior Nationals does not pass WP:NTENNIS. I can find no coverage about this Lee Goodall and being a reporter is not notable. Fails WP:GNG, WP:ANYBIO and WP:NTENNIS. Jbh ^Talk 00:37, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. lavender|^{(formerly HMSSolent)}|lambast 00:47, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. lavender|^{(formerly HMSSolent)}|lambast 00:48, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JAaron95 (Talk) 14:27, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - looks suspiciously like an autobiography (by a single-purpose editor) with the only claim of any significance being he was a "British junior national champion" at tennis (I can't find any proof of this). Fails WP:GNG. Sionk (talk) 21:57, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JAaron95 ^Talk 15:39, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The subject has not made any widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in his field, nor has he received a well-known award or honor. The article is not written from a neutral point of view and lacks reliable sources. MJ94 (talk) 17:28, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. Ashbeckjonathan (talk) 20:45, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Davewild (talk) 07:25, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Brazilian Animal Rights Review[edit]

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

unclear notability Fgnievinski (talk) 21:15, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:11, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:11, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organisms-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:11, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:11, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not indexed in any selective database, no independent sources. Does not meet WP:NJournals or WP:GNG. --Randykitty (talk) 17:20, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JAaron95 ^Talk 15:36, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No primary, secondary, or independent sources. No media coverage. No scientific peer-reviewed journal is citing publications from BARR. Toffanin (talk) 16:57, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and Toffanin. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 05:41, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Davewild (talk) 07:26, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wang Fei (musician)[edit]

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

No references for a WP:BLP; both external links are from chineseculture.net, which according to the opening paragraphs is a website created by her. Most of the Google results of "Wang Fei" + "guqin" are from guqin.org, which again is something created by her. Honestly, while founder of North American Guqin Association sounds impressive, the truth is barely anyone in North America has heard of guqin, much less play or appreciate it, so I'm not sure how notable this makes her. Also worth mentioning is that Wang Fei (musician) originally redirected to Faye Wong, so even if the article is kept, it needs to be renamed somehow as a pop singer is also a musician. Timmyshin (talk) 21:17, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. 5 albert square (talk) 23:19, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Have renamed to Wang Fei (guqin player) cannot stay at (musician) given Wang Fei (singer) but probably delete. In ictu oculi (talk) 02:39, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:20, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:20, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now and maybe draft/userfy - Unless good Chinese sources are found, I didn't find much aside from a few mentions here. SwisterTwister talk 04:41, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JAaron95 ^Talk 15:36, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Ed (Edgar181) 19:22, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Revista Brasileira de Engenharia Química[edit]

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

non-regular publication record; no sign of peer review. Fgnievinski (talk) 21:25, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:10, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:10, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:10, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:10, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not indexed in any selective database, no independent sources. Does not meet WP:NJournals or WP:GNG. --Randykitty (talk) 17:18, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JAaron95 ^Talk 15:35, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and RK. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 05:40, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep per WP:SK #1. No rationale for deletion has been provided. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:25, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

R40 Live Tour[edit]

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

Aus0107 (talk) 22:04, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 02:14, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:22, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:23, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:23, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JAaron95 ^Talk 15:35, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. No reason offered for deletion. Toffanin (talk) 17:01, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedily deleted by Bbb23 under G5. Antrocent (♫♬) 21:24, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Turner Broadcasting System Turkey[edit]

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

Unsourced, no indication that this division of TBS exists, created by likely sock of a blocked user. Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 15:14, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:00, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:00, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:00, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy deleted by Bbb23 under G5. Antrocent (♫♬) 21:26, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Turner Broadcasting System Bulgaria[edit]

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

Unsourced, no indication that this division of TBS exists, created by likely sock of a blocked user. Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 15:12, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:59, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:59, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bulgaria-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:59, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Davewild (talk) 07:27, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nedžad Kazić[edit]

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

This page has been listed at WP:PNT for 2 weeks and is still untranslated. I'm listing it here because a previous PROD has already been declined. Eventhorizon51 ^(talk) 14:53, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It won't be long before these articles reach their deadline as well. These pages also have not seen any translation efforts.

Delete all three, doesn't appear to be any current efforts to translate. ~ Rob^Talk 18:10, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all. I de-prodded two of them, but that was merely for procedural reasons. At the current stage there is no merit though in keeping these pages. De728631 (talk) 18:45, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:57, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:57, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:57, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bosnia and Herzegovina-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:57, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:57, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:57, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all three Also fail notability. Staszek Lem (talk) 00:43, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nedzad Kazic, I looked under Неџад Казић and nothing; though this may not be the correct name. Keep Samanta Stuhr - why are these noms grouped together? Laziness? Not created by the same person and not on similar topics. —Мандичка^YO 😜 20:45, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

All three have not been translated for extended periods of time, and it's typical to PROD them after a week. Keep in mind they can always be recreated if someone cares to supply an English version of them. ~ Rob^Talk 21:17, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

So what? That they haven't been translated does not impact their respective notability in any way. Nominator did not even put up "find sources" for the others, only for Kazich. I found tons of articles on Samanta Stuhr. —Мандичка^YO 😜 08:46, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Notability isn't the only thing to consider when articles are up for deletion. It is a long-standing consensus that non-English material that is not quickly translated is typically deleted. See WP:PNT. ~ Rob^Talk 13:47, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all, procedural deletion per PNT standard procedure--Jac16888 ^Talk 22:32, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Davewild (talk) 07:27, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Binjhrajji Pugalia[edit]

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

Nothing addable on Google. I dream of horses (T) @ 13:24, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. I dream of horses (T) @ 13:27, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. I dream of horses (T) @ 13:27, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not able to even verify that this person exists. Fails WP:GNG and WP:V. ~ Rob^Talk 10:43, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Clearly not notable, fails GNG. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 18:47, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 00:29, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Shraddha TV[edit]

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

Accepted and moved from draft space and then promptly tagged with {{db-A7}}. Is it notable? — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 12:57, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nope hence why I declined the submission last year. The only coverage thus far is that the station was opened. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 13:02, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep:- Licensed radio and TV stations are generally kept as notable if they broadcast over the air and originate at least a portion of their programming schedule in their own studios. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 17:26, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:02, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:02, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:02, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Buddhism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:02, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: It is licensed TV channel so its notable. Moreover,Sri Lanka is very very small country having population equal to any metro city of Big nation, so whatever happening in this nation may not be covered by The New York Times and BBC. This TV channel must be famous at national level as Sri Lanka is Buddhist country and this channel is also about Budhhism. National language of Sri Lanka is Sinhalese language and mention of this channel must be in Sinhalese language news papers and journals, I don't think that Sri Lanka has any notable English newspaper and even if Sri Lanka has any notable English news paper still its less likely that English news paper will give news about any non-English spiritual channel. So we can't just deny this article. It is licensed TV channel from small country so it is notable at that level. --Human3015 knock knock • 21:03, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Human3015's comments are very simplistic and paternalistic, particularly for Sri Lankan editors. - This TV channel must be famous at national level as Sri Lanka is Buddhist country and this channel is also about Buddhism. Sri Lanka has a number of Buddhist, Sinhalese, Tamil and English television channels, just because it is a Buddhist channel does not make it inherently 'famous'. Sri Lanka also has a number of national English newspapers which can be accessed for news about the country. The issue is whether the channel is notable or not according to Wikipedia guidelines. Dan arndt (talk) 01:27, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dan arndt, I don't have any specific POV regarding any specific nation, I was just giving some rationale to prove my point. You seems to be familiar with Sri Lankan issues, then you must be aware about Sri Lankan Civil War, Sinhalese vs Tamil war. Those people are passionate for their local language, entire politics revolves around language. Sinhalese have far more importance than English in Sri Lanka. For example Sri Lanka's current President knows only "Sinhalese" language, nothing else. So I want to make a point that Sinhalese Media is more active and most read media in Lanka. So if we want to check notability of this TV channel then we can't just rely on English language sources, we should also look for sources in Sinhalese and Tamil. I don't know both languages so I can't search for it and can't establish its notability. I just want to say that, if we don't find any source in English language still we should not deny its notability unless we confirm it by other language sources. According to Wikipedia policy also we can use non-English sources, those Sinhalese news papers also have status of national dailies. --Human3015 knock knock • 01:58, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I trust you will be adding those sources that "may" exist in those languages? The first few difficulties I foresee is verfiability. I'd also like to point out that wikiproject guidelines on notability do not overrule or trump wikipedias. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 02:05, 9 July 2015 (UTC)Hell in a Bucket (talk) 02:03, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The channel name in Sinhalese appears to be ශ්‍රද්ධා රූපවාහිනිය (?). Given that I speak zero Sinhalese and have no instincts about which links in my Google search may be news sources, I am not easily able to come up with more sources. It appears that this is a newspaper article about the channel from 2013, but Google Translate gives a pretty poor idea of what it says. I'm not sure what volume of online news would be expected for a television channel in Sri Lanka. Calliopejen1 (talk) 18:08, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Calliopejen1, thanks for your efforts, your given link shows that its news about Shraddha TV on National daily of Sri Lanka in Sinhala language. I copy pasted headline ශ‍්‍රද්ධා රූපවාහිනිය ඩයලොග් ටීවී ඔස්සේ on google translator, it translates as Shraddha Dialog TV via TV, there must be some words missing in translation we have to translate it word by word. But one thing is sure that entire news is about Shraddha TV and headline contains word Shraddha TV. It means its notable TV channel in Sri Lanka. --Human3015 knock knock • 18:26, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - the article already cites a number of verifiable newspaper sources and clearly meets WP:GNG. Dan arndt (talk) 02:08, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: This is a well-known Buddhist TV channel in Sri Lanka. SWR2.9 (talk) 08:13, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 00:26, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Aptech[edit]

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

It is six years since this article was last discussed. It still seems spammy in tone and lacking in independent references. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 12:51, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep:- I easily found sources in multiple independent reliable sources that established the subject notability, such as The Guardian Nigeria, The Economic Times, The Shillong Times, The First Post, The Economic Times, Franchise india, The Business Tribune, The Economic Times, NDTV, Hindu Business Line, Times of Indian, Business Standard, The Economic Times, Times of India to mention few. Trout slap to RHaworth for such a ridiculous nomination. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 18:22, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:50, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:50, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:50, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Meets WP:CORPDEPTH: [19], [20], [21], [22], [23], [24]. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:27, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy Keep. DonIago (talk) 13:15, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

SCA armoured combat[edit]

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

Almost exclusively primary sources despite being tagged for such concens for over 3 years. Subject likely doesn't garner a great deal of attention from independent sources. Probably best off having relevant material merged to Society for Creative Anachronism. DonIago (talk) 12:51, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn by nominator - My compliments to Deathlibrarian (talk · contribs) on what I would call a massive improvement of the article. My concerns regarding primary sourcing have been more than adequately addressed. DonIago (talk) 13:12, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:03, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

SCA armoured combat is a martial art (combat sport) in it’s own right… done, in a tournament structure, by thousands of people in around 20 different countries, and has been around for some decades now. When you compare that to some martial arts that are done by a handful of people , in one country (like Bartitsu or Pojo) that have their own page… it would certainly seem worthy of having its own article. To a degree, it sits as a stand alone concept, in that it is a combat sport that many people do (and sometimes not wearing historical clothing), and they don’t do other general SCA activity. The other issue here is, the SCA general article page is already too long – there’s not really any room to move the material on this page into it. Deathlibrarian (talk) 23:54, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

How many people do it is, for encyclopedic purposes, less of a factor than how much coverage it has received from non-primary sources, IMO. If it's received more coverage from non-primary sources than the article currently suggests, the article should be updated. If it has not received such coverage, then I question whether it's notable enough to merit its own article at this time. DonIago (talk) 05:14, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please note, as per WP:N I have now removed all associated sources, (works produced by the article's subject or someone affiliated with it) and replaced them with reliable sources that are independent of the subject. I agree, in the old form, there was a lot of SCA associated secondary materal, with that removed, it should now meet WP:GNG. There's significant coverage, there is in fact more that I haven't referred to, but IMHO 10 articles or so is enough for a Wikipedia article of this size. I hope this satisfies the WP:N issue. Deathlibrarian (talk) 11:13, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Nice job in dealing with the issue - that should have been done long ago.Peter Rehse (talk) 11:23, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Economy and Values Research Center would need to be nominated separately as it was not included in this AFD. Davewild (talk) 07:29, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

EV Consulting[edit]

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

notability not established for tiny company Ysangkok (talk) 10:09, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:47, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Armenia-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:47, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:47, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I agree that notability is not established. The same applies to Economy and Values Research Center that is a R&D center of this establishmet Alex Bakharev (talk) 03:23, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JAaron95 (Talk) 14:03, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:57, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Davewild (talk) 07:30, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Agent X (producers)[edit]

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

Article does not meet WP:GNG or WP:NMUSIC. Has had notability flag since April 2013 with no improvement. Assertion of notability by the article through association to notable acts which is inherited. Cowlibob (talk) 12:15, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:51, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:51, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JAaron95 (Talk) 14:03, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - they do seem to have had some impressive contributions in music, but on the other hand there's a seemingly total lack of press coverage. Korny O'Near (talk) 22:29, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:55, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 12:28, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Charade (Prince album)[edit]

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

This is a bootleg recording or demo album featuring alternate takes from Prince's Parade album and not an official release. Some coverage but nothing significant from reliable sources, which is required for such releases to meet notability requirements. If they are out there, it certainly shouldn't be listed as a studio album in Prince albums discography. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 23:13, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I deleted it from the discography, it's not a "studio album". Kraxler (talk) 16:25, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. lavender|^{(formerly HMSSolent)}|lambast 00:00, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:GNG. Koala15 (talk) 19:19, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:11, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JAaron95 (Talk) 13:57, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:51, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - one primary source talking about it, one directory listing, non-notable unofficial local? release. Kraxler (talk) 16:24, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NALBUM. Would have suggested a redirect, but there's 2 possible redirect targets, and neither option seems fair. Joseph2302 (talk) 23:08, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep. Nomination withdrawn. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 06:12, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

AirG Inc.[edit]

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

Subject of the article fails WP:ORG. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 13:36, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

To demonstrate that this organization passes the WP:ORG 'notability' test, I cite 1 article in Wall Street Journal, AND report in Mashable 2 demonstrating that organization owns and runs one of the top 10 most frequented services on mobile phones in the United States, AND business insider article [25] citing the organization have over 50 million customers (making it intrinsically notable to those 50 million individuals), AND for fun a Jerry Springer (popular TV show in America) video showing customers discussing their interactions on airG Yotube, perhaps an example of 'inherited and not inherent' notability as defined by WP:ORG. I hope this demonstrates that organization passes the WP:ORG notability test. Jonfrate (talk) 05:42, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:08, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:08, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:08, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and draft/userfy simply because although there are some sources, there aren't that many good third-party ones and my searches found results but not much outstanding here, here, here and here. SwisterTwister talk 04:59, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

* Keep: There are enough reliable secondary sources to establish WP:NOTE. I also made a number of edits to the article. Thanks. Safehaven86 (talk) 17:38, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:43, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete most of the sources given are press-releases, which don't qualify under WP:N and WP:V... Linkle KMF (talk) 13:42, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Which sources are press releases? I went through the article quite thoroughly, and none of the nine current sources appear to me to be press releases. Thanks. Safehaven86 (talk) 19:08, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I have added 14 new sources, and I believe just 2 of my sources are press releases. Kimbjorkland (talk) 03:48, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: There are enough reliable secondary sources to establish WP:NOTE. Original post cited WP:ORG concerns, but I see 3rd party evidence citing 'millions' of end users (some 20, some 100 million). 'Notability' can't be a concern with that many customers. I did initial submission, but am still researching and will contribute more to this page. Thanks for reading. Kimbjorkland (talk) 03:48, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

none of the sources establish notability. They are mere press release. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 08:02, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly, and even press releases reprinted elsewhere do not satisfy the requirements of WP:N. Linkle KMF (talk) 14:01, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

With respect, I count 24 references (at present), true that 5 or 6 appear to be press releases or reprints, but many of the others are either national newspapers (Globe and Mail, Wall street Journal, Business Insider) or regional newspapers or governmental publicatoins (SF News, Vancouver Sun, Government of Canada Trade Commission). The WP:N "Independent of the subject" test is easily passed. The WP:N "Reliable" test is also passed - in my humble opinion. Best Regards Kimbjorkland (talk) 14:23, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: While I previously voted "keep," I'm quite concerned that recent edits to the article are 1) overtly promotional and 2) being made by sock and/or meat puppets. Therefore, while I think the article likely does meet WP:NOTE, at this point it's probably best to WP:TNT. Thanks. Safehaven86 (talk) 16:52, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I have eliminated ALL references to press releases, and corresponding text associate with it. Still needs work. 174.6.117.58 (talk) 16:14, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: As noted by others, I think the subject is notable, and there are lots of external references. Blowing the article away to restart seems excessive. rcousine (talk) 17:41, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your comment that "As noted by others, I think the subject is notable" seemed like a WP:LEADER to me. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 18:25, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Is it a bit pejorative to suggest WP:LEADER in this case? Seems like Wikipedia:Overzealous deletion. Your initial concerns were that references that were used in article were "mere press releases". Current version of article has 33 references. 0 appear to be press releases. The existing references include: CNET, Wall Street Journal, The Globe & Mail, Business Insider, Wireless Week, GigaOm, Mobile Marketer, Media Post and others. Some are national newspapers. Some are regional publications or industry/trade publications. Does your concern that the references are 'mere press releases' still exist? Jonfrate (talk) 20:15, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I stand by my statement. The article covers a subject that has been mentioned in major media outlets multiple times. The notability should be beyond dispute. As for blowing up the article? Why? The chances you'll get a better article on the subject the second time around is low. Is there a specific thing you wish was excised or edited from the current version? I might look at making the language a little more NPOV, but that's it. rcousine (talk) 21:01, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
1. Gobry, Pascal-Emmanuel (2011-02-03). "Meet AirG, The Mobile Social Network You've Never Heard Of That's Ten Times Bigger Than Foursquare". DMNews. Archived from the original on 2015-07-19. Retrieved 2015-07-19.
2. Dostal, Erin (2012-06-14). "AirG launches ad targeting capabilities". Haymarket Media Group. Archived from the original on 2015-07-19. Retrieved 2015-07-19.
3. Smith, Steve (2012-06-04). "Red Bull Campaign Shows That Social Mobile Has To Get Beyond The Banner". MediaPost Communications. Archived from the original on 2015-07-19. Retrieved 2015-07-19.
4. Gornitzki, Dana (2006-05-04). "More cell connections than people". The Globe and Mail. Archived from the original on 2015-07-19. Retrieved 2015-07-19.
  The article notes:
  Similarly, AirG -- a privately owned Vancouver company that employs 100 people -- is keen to get a piece of the U.K. pie. Fred Ghahramani, the company's managing director, started it with two partners in 2000. AirG operates in 30 countries and specializes in mobile gaming and mobile-based social communities.
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow AirG to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 05:41, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Since the subject notability has been established by multiple independent reliable sources, I withdraw my nomination to Keep the article and am closing the debate. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 06:12, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. —Tom Morris (talk) 08:47, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Subterranean View[edit]

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

Dubious notability - no independent coverage. Eleassar ^{my talk} 13:11, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

See also: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/City View. SwisterTwister talk 05:11, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:16, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Slovenia-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:16, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless good Slovenian sources are found as my searches found nothing good; FWIW, the Slovenian article looks a little better so any possible improvement can probably start there until making its way here. I can't quite speak for City View though as I'm not a Slovenian speaker. SwisterTwister talk 05:11, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:42, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nice pictures. Not content for Wikipedia. See Wikipedia:Alternative outlets. Redirect to List of street view services. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:20, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. —Tom Morris (talk) 08:47, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

City View[edit]

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

Dubious notability - no independent coverage. Eleassar ^{my talk} 13:11, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

See also: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Subterranean View. SwisterTwister talk 05:19, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:17, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Slovenia-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:17, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:18, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete simply because there doesn't seem to be any good English sources and my searches found nothing. SwisterTwister talk 05:19, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:42, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete - non-notable Google Maps extension. Linkle KMF (talk) 13:43, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Hotel Ibis. —Tom Morris (talk) 08:44, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hotel IBIS Delhi Airport[edit]

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

Individual hotels in a chain are un-notable, even if mentioned in important newspapers etc. Eat me, I'm a red bean (take a huge bite) 11:48, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, ordinary hotel with no more than routine coverage.TheLongTone (talk) 13:03, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:34, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:34, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:40, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as there's nothing to suggest this article (currently reads a little promotional and personal) can be changed or is independently notable with my searches finding results here, here, here and here. Concerned with the current condition, I think it's maybe best not to draft/userfy unless needed or preferred. SwisterTwister talk
delete or merge into the India section of Hotel Ibis.E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:52, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge or Redirect with/to Hotel Ibis. Philg88 ^♦talk 06:54, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Davewild (talk) 07:35, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Abongo Humphrey[edit]

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

Non-notable MMA fighter. Single Top tier fight and that was a loss. This was a contested PROD which counted ShoMMA: Strikeforce Challengers as top tier. It is not the same as Strikeforce, nor top tier. It is part of ShoMMA and designed to showcase potential. Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mixed martial arts/MMA notability/Archive 9#WP:MMABIO vs WP:NMMA. Peter Rehse (talk) 10:52, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 10:52, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Yeah WP:MMABIO had me confused, i realized my mistake and went to revert my edit 5 minutes later but noticed you started a AFD so here i vote. GuzzyG (talk) 10:59, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That teaches me not to jump the gun. There was confusion all around, now clarified, and at this point the Abongo Humphrey was the only remaining example.Peter Rehse (talk) 11:11, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No it's not your fault, i jumped the gun, my mistake, apologies. Oh well, it won't happen anymore as Abongo is the last man standing with this issue. Good the confusion has settled. GuzzyG (talk) 11:29, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:46, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:46, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete does not meet notability guideline for MMA fighters.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:09, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete MMA fighter that lacks the top tier fights to meet WP:NMMA and the significant coverage required to meet WP:GNG. Papaursa (talk) 20:15, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No notability for this person. Ashbeckjonathan (talk) 20:39, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. As no evidence to meet the notability guidelines cited by the delete supporters has been produced. Davewild (talk) 07:36, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Albert Jack[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG with only a single WP:NEWSPRIMARY interview source. Does not appear to meet any of the criteria of WP:AUTHOR. McGeddon (talk) 08:56, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support falls short of all the points of WP:AUTHOR.--SabreBD (talk) 09:32, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:35, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:35, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:43, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

keep - its a page with information about his works. he's not super famous but still he should stay Thursby16 (talk) 22:29, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- @Thursby16: See WP:ILIKEIT JMHamo (talk) 23:32, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:GNG JMHamo (talk) 23:32, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Davewild (talk) 07:37, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi-Bird QH125-10[edit]

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

Zero coverage in any sources. Must meet WP:GNG with significant coverage in independent sources. Models of vehicles are not inherently notable; see previous discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Yamaha FZ700 Dennis Bratland (talk) 16:33, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:43, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:43, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JAaron95 (Talk) 13:58, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Philg88 ^♦talk 10:27, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as fails to demonstrate notability as per WP:GNG. Agree with proposer, no reliable sources. Drchriswilliams (talk) 13:04, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. -- RoySmith (talk) 22:23, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

List of people on the cover of I-D magazine[edit]

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

This article contains excessive amounts of ~~statistical data~~ named data without any prose to explain their purpose, or in-line citations to verify their content, which goes against ~~WP:NOTSTATSBOOK~~, WP:INDISCRIMINATE, WP:STAND, and potentially WP:OR.

I am also nominating the following related pages for the same reasons:

Wes Mouse | ^T@lk 15:29, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note original rationale was as presented here, subsequently altered after discussion below.[26] postdlf (talk) 18:41, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I can understand the nominator's concerns, but it ought to be noted that being a Vogue cover model has long been a hallmark of notability for fashion models. See for example the results of a GBooks search [27]. --Arxiloxos (talk) 15:55, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to comment: Perhaps the Vogue ones are sufficient to be kept, and maybe merging them all into a new article List of Vogue cover models, with sub-sections for each country. That'll at least give the article stance to be a potential feature artticle. But the other non-Vogue ones don't seem to be nontable, and come across as the creator using Wikipedia for a speadsheet-type database; and Wikipedia is not a webhosting services. Wes Mouse | ^T@lk 16:05, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:54, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:55, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:56, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The nominator has misunderstood WP:OR. First, it does not require citations within an article. The policy is that all information must be verifiable. So the fact that information does not yet have citations does not mean it is OR. It is only OR if it's not possible to have citations for it. Second, where we have magazine issue dates, that is a citation (and a source is reliable for its own content), unless it's argued that the cover model is somehow not identifiable from the issue itself (i.e., they're wearing a mask and no caption says who they are). On a separate point, I agree with the previous commenter that these have varying merit and should not have been lumped together, because being on the cover of one magazine may be significant within a given industry and being on the cover of another may be completely trivial. Or the covers of certain magazines may have themselves gained significant attention regardless of who is on them. postdlf (talk) 00:45, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - based on List of Russian fashion models being a perfectly notable list alone. —Мандичка^YO 😜 14:34, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- I didn't even notice that in the list; that's obviously completely different than the magazine cover lists, and its inclusion here shows some serious lack of care on the part of the nominator in examining these. I think speedy close is really the only way to close this, in favor of more narrowly targeted AFDs. postdlf (talk) 15:11, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Postdlf: perhaps one needs to be reminded about assuming good faith before shooting their mouth off and openly stating that a nominator has a "serious lack of care". That is not a nice thing to say about anyone, and I sure as hell would never say it to any user who nominates things. The user who created all of these articles also created a string of other "list of" articles, all of which lacked notability. It was another user (I assume to be an administrator) who advised to link all of these too for further investigation. So telling me I have "lack of care" before checking into the whole facts is a bad faith comment to make. Please kindly redact your remarks. Thanks you. Wes Mouse | ^T@lk 15:27, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If you're saying that you included the Russian model list in this AFD just because it was created by the same editor, that doesn't exactly help your case. Add to that your completely incorrect application of WP:OR, your bizarre claim that these lists have "excessive amounts of statistical data" (I see no statistics in any of these lists), and your inclusion of lists of potentially widely varying merit under the same generic rationale (and one list of completely different substance, merely the same general subject area), and that makes this a poor nomination, one that does not demonstrate evidence of compliance with WP:BEFORE. If you in fact did perform careful examination of each of these lists and their potential, then as my high school math teacher would say, "show your work." postdlf (talk) 15:47, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Postdlf: care to read my comments again and re-word your question? Putting words into someone's mouth is a bad faith thing to do. What I said was that at another AfD I had listed a load of articles that shown statistical voting patterns between countries at the Eurovision Song Contest, upon further investigation it emerged that the editor also created a pile of articles containing lists that had no prose explaining what the lists are about, and no reference section for {{Cite magazine}} refs (which if these models appeared on a magazine as stated, then citing the said magazine properly, is the correct method to carry out, per WP:CITE.

List of Russian fashion models has no prose to explain what the list is about, and therefore makes it look like an WP:INDISCRIMINATE list of names without any meaning. Then we have List of Numéro magazine cover models which says it is a "catalogue of names"; have we forgotten that Wikipedia is not a catalogue? I already noted in a comment above that all of the separate lists of Vogue models by country would probably be better off all merged into List of Vogue models. At least in doing so, would allow the article to look half-decent, would benefit from having prose content, and citations - and most likely make it a feature list in Wikipedia quality terms. And if that were to be carried out, then I would withdraw my nominations of those Vogue articles listed. But the burden is not on myself to do such a merge on a topical area that I am unfamiliar with. We then have List of people on the cover of Maxim magazine (Russia), which is just a tabled list of names, with no citations, not even {{Cite magazine}}, nor does it house a references section to give it credibility and notability.

All of these list articles fail the core guidance set out at WP:STAND, which states that "stand-alone lists are subject to Wikipedia's content policies, such as verifiability, no original research, neutral point of view, and what Wikipedia is not, as well as the notability guidelines". Most of them fail WP:V as there are no in-line citations to verify the content; most fail WP:NOT; and they are most certainly not written in a neutral point of view. Now, read the guidelines again, and tell like your maths teacher once said "show me your work". Wes Mouse | ^T@lk 16:13, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What you said in your nomination in this AFD was "This article contains excessive amounts of statistical data", which none of these lists do. I have no idea why you're mentioning a Eurovision AFD here. But it's pointless to argue about what you've said when anyone can read it, and on the merits you're persisting in the same misunderstandings.

Having a separate references section is merely a formatting choice, as is the use of footnotes or the use of citation templates. That an article currently lacks them (or indeed presently lacks any kind of references, whether in-line, footnoted, or not) has nothing to do with whether the information is actually verifiable. Likewise, whether a topic is notable or not has nothing to do with the current state of an article, but instead only with whether sources exist that would establish notability. In fact, as I already pointed out above, a date for a magazine is a citation for an issue of that magazine regardless of what formatting is used to present it, because that's all the information you need to know what issue to look at to verify that issue's content. But you seem hung up on the irrelevant fact that the date is presented in the tables rather than in a footnote. A deletion rationale that goes no further than the current state of the lists fails, and strongly suggests you didn't consider their potential as is required by BEFORE.

On the list intros, it's also irrelevant what they currently say because they can always be rewritten or expanded. What matters is the substance of the content and the potential of the topic. The (somewhat strange) choice of the word "catalog" in one of the list intros can easily be changed and doesn't determine what the list substantively is. And you're equivocating in any event because one meaning of "catalog" is simply a list, and we clearly mean a different and very specific sense of the word in WP:NOTCATALOG (such as a sales catalog containing "pricing or availability information") that doesn't at all apply here. It's also clear just from the title that List of Russian fashion models should contain fashion models that are Russian, and we routinely and uncontroversially limit such lists to people with articles or who merit articles. There could be a reasonable dispute as to whether it's reasonable to split "fashion models" off as a separate classification (our category system does not do so), but no one has commented on that, and as List of Russian models doesn't yet exist the solution per WP:ATD would be to move it to that title and expand it.

On the merging suggestion for the Vogue lists, no, as a volunteer you're not obligated to perform a merge yourself (though that's not at all what WP:BURDEN, which you linked to, is about), but if you want something done but don't want to do it yourself you can always add an appropriate tag or make a talk page suggestion for others. And once you've admitted that you would not support deletion if merger was performed, you've withdrawn your own deletion nomination regarding those lists (again per WP:ATD, as well as WP:SK#1).

All of this leads me to the conclusion that this nomination should either be withdrawn by you or speedy closed and the Vogue lists tagged for merging so that proposal can be discussed/performed through normal channels. And then if there are any remaining lists for which you can actually present a specific deletion rationale after following BEFORE, then relist them in new AFDs that actually focus on their specific merits. postdlf (talk) 17:08, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Postdlf: Too long, didn't read all of it. But the fact you don't know why I mentioned a Eurovision Afd, clearly shows incompetence on your part. I had clearly stated that I had noted of all these model-related articles at that Eurovision AfD for admin consideration into whether they required separate action or not. I was advise to list them all in a new Afd, which is this very AfD. Now, how confusing can that really be? And one cannot demand a "speedy close". Seven days need to pass, unless there is a clear snow ball. The fact that there is a conflict in how these are being seen is perfectly clear that further discussion and input from other editors is required, before any closure can be even contemplated. Wes Mouse | ^T@lk 17:46, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"I had clearly stated that I had noted of all these model-related articles at that Eurovision AfD for admin consideration..." LOL, no, you didn't clearly state that, and I had to dig through your contribution history to find that AFD (which you didn't link here) and then dig through the edit history of that AFD to find where you had dumped the model links in the middle of it (which you had since removed). You had only said in this discussion that someone somewhere said you should list them together. And what they actually said was that they had nothing to do with the Eurovision AFD so you should list them separately. Which really doesn't matter either way because it was your choice to start this mass nom, no one else's responsibility. I've explained point by point where you're wrong, and suggested a way forward that even leaves open whether some of these lists should be deleted. But you're endlessly arguing irrelevant points rather than responding to substantive rebuttals, so good day, sir. postdlf (talk) 18:11, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't any sense in merging all the Vogue covers.... some of these are really long! The UK and US editions go back to the 1950s. Plus there are 12 new ones each year! It would be the longest article on WP. I don't think much introduction is needed either. —Мандичка^YO 😜 19:47, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment/question re List of Russian fashion models article, does this mean wikipedia should have a seperate list of fashion models and/or other types of models from every country? (If so, Wikipedia:WikiProject Fashion has a lot of work to do) Coolabahapple (talk) 17:06, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Probably not a bad idea, at least for the countries that have produced a lot of supermodels/notable models. —Мандичка^YO 😜 12:39, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:08, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all The nomination's expectation of prose seems to misunderstand the nature of our lists, which mainly serve as indexes to the pages with prose on. ID and Vogue magazines are quite influential in the field of modelling and fashion and their covers are correspondingly significant. For example, see this book by Terry Jones, no less! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Andrew Davidson (talk • contribs)
Delete articles lack prose and sources to establish notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:02, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete articles lack prose and sources to establish notability.Pincrete (talk) 16:46, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

These are lists, not articles and so the demand for prose is bizarrely inappropriate. Sources which establish notability per WP:LISTN include:

"Proud as a Peacock": An Historic and Semiotic Analysis of Illustrated "Vogue" Magazine Covers from 1909 and 1911
Vogue Covers: On Fashion's Front Page
In Vogue: The Illustrated History of the World's Most Famous Fashion Magazine
Postcards from Vogue: 100 Iconic Covers
Magazine Covers: art for the people
Unseen Vogue: The Secret History of Fashion Photography
100 Years of Magazine Covers
The Girl on the Magazine Cover: The Origins of Visual Stereotypes in American Mass Media
Magazine Covers
Great Magazine Covers of the World

Andrew D. (talk) 18:09, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, the prose issue is really strange to raise in this context. Their identical arguments are also inappropriately focused on the current state of the lists (i.e., what the "articles lack" at present), rather than addressing the potential of the topics. postdlf (talk) 20:07, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all. The Vogue and I-D lists for sure, based on the substantial evidence presented of their notability. I see no case for deleting List of Russian fashion models although it probably needs to be limited to clearly notable entries. There has been less discussion about Numéro and Russian Maxim, and I suppose a "no consensus" close (i.e., a close without prejudice to more focused AfDs if desired) would be a reasonable alternative outcome for those two. --Arxiloxos (talk) 19:58, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep At least a procedural keep for now. Perhaps one could make an argument that some of the minor Vogues don't need lists, and I don't know about Maxim or Numero. But lumping them all together here makes no sense. Calliopejen1 (talk) 01:03, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all Vogue has a decent readership, so they are appropriate lists. And a lot of people might find them useful. Rainbow unicorn (talk) 05:14, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Largely per User:JamesBWatson, who lays out an argument that is not rebutted and appears to have the support of many editors. Obviously this discussion has been heavily disrupted by puppetry of some description, but not all "Keep" opinions were of that variety. However, they did not address the points raised by the "Delete" arguments, instead bringing to the table variants of WP:GOOGLEHITS or WP:ITSNOTABLE. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 13:20, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Acorn Mobility[edit]

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

Below, Joseph2302, SmartSE and Timtrent (signature "Fiddle Faddle") raise the question of possible IP-sockpuppetry in this discussion, so I have investigated the three IP addresses used here. 213.229.101.59 and 43.245.164.116 are proxy servers, both operated by the same company, while 99.232.13.165 is a Virtual private network. Considering the editing history of the IP addresses, together with that of the creator of the article, who is indefinitely blocked, I don't think there can be much doubt that the IP addresses are being used (a) to evade a block, and (b) to give the spurious impression of support from several independent editors. It is also possible that the use of three IP addresses that geolocate to three different places may be a deliberate attempt to increase the appearance of being three separate and independent people. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 10:39, 10 July 2015 (UTC) [reply]

When this was accepted at WP:AFC it was 'ok', that is it had a better that 60% chance in the accepting reviewer's mind that it would survive a deletion discussion. This is what reviewers are, generally, asked to do.

Today it is a bloated piece of appalling advertorial, probably by a paid editor, certainly with WP:COI. This advert needs to be removed. Wikipedia is not the place to promote your corporation or its products. Use your own web site for that. I could have used speedy deletion, but I want to ensure, if deleted, that any replacement article is so different from this one that it is appropriate here, hence AFD Fiddle Faddle 08:48, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

delete per WP:NOTDIR and WP:MILL We're not here to record every single business who's only claim to fame is that they exist and do carry on that business. Andy Dingley (talk) 09:17, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - it's a fairly sizeable company with large revenue and looks like offices in multiple countries. Received significant coverage. If it's too promotional, edit away. —Мандичка^YO 😜 09:37, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It is true that the article is promotional, but as the comment above rightly says, that can be dealt with by editing, but, more importantly, there is also no evidence that the subject satisfies Wikipedia's notability guidelines, which is not so easily dealt with.

First of all, to answer some points given as reasons for "keep". Wikipedia's notability criteria are not based on such matters as how "sizeable" a company is, or how large its revenue is. It is perfectly possible to propose changes to Wikipedia's notability criteria, but this discussion will be assessed by its closing administrator on the basis of the current guidelines.

The majority of the references are links to pieces in very local newspapers (e.g. Keighley News) or, in some cases, in trade publications (e.g. insidermedia.com). Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies) says "Evidence of significant coverage by international or national, or at least regional, media is a strong indication of notability. On the other hand, attention solely from local media, or media of limited interest and circulation, is not an indication of notability". At first glance, there appear to be a few bits of coverage in more significant publications, such as the Yorkshire Post (a newspaper based in Leeds, which is a significant city, unlike Keighley, though it does not, as its title suggests, cover the whole of Yorkshire) and the Daily Mail (a national newspaper). However, closer examination shows that such coverage is not substantial: for example, an article in the Yorkshire Post merely gives a one-sentence mention of Acorn Mobility, and the Daily Mail article does not even mention Acorn Mobility at all. (The Wikipedia article claims that in the advertisement referred to in the newspaper article, a stairlift made by Acorn is used, but the newspaper article cited as a source does not say so. Even if a source could be found which does say so, the fact that an advertising company happened to use a particular make of stairlift in making an advertisement for a product unrelated to that company would not be evidence of notability of that company.) Many other sources do not actually support significant content of the article either. Most of the news coverage is also just reporting of individual incidents, such as an announcement of a factory closure, in which there are a few mentions of the fact that Acorn is the owner of the company of the company owning the factory.

Several of the references are clearly promotional, some directly (encouraging us to buy Acorn products), most more indirectly: for example, several of them are news write-ups of events which are clearly publicity-seeking exercises by the company: you organise some event such as a visit to your business by a local politician, or a donation to a charity, and you make sure you send a press-release to the local newspapers, which are virtually bound to publish them, because that is one of the main ways local papers get copy. Other sources are not independent, such as a page at www.wkeowntrust.co.uk, which begins with the sentence "The William Keown Trust is pleased to announce that we have become partners with leading stair lift manufacturer, Acorn Lifts."

All in all, the pattern of references I see is typical of what happens when an article is written by a paid editor, who knows enough about how Wikipedia works to realise that providing dozens of references is a good way of making it look superficially as though the subject is notable. What you do is collect dozens of sources which have some connection with the subject of the article, never mind how significant or relevant the sources are, and scatter then about in the article. Most probably nobody will ever check them all and realise that the references don't actually show notability. See WP:BOMBARD for a longer account of this practice. None at all of the references can be regarded as substantial coverage in a reliable independent source. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 11:08, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Agree this YP source should be changed or struck out 43.245.164.116 (talk) 09:13, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment A Factory closure constituents a noteworthy event not advertising or similar 43.245.164.116 (talk) 09:13, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, of course a factory closure constituents a noteworthy event, and of course it is not advertising. However, a newspaper report on the closure of a factory which just mentions that a particular company owns the company which owns the factory is not substantial coverage of the company which owns the other one, and it is such substantial coverage which is required to show notability. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 09:58, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Disagree www.wkeowntrust.co.uk promotes the dignity of people with disabilites you are taking the term or partner out of context into a commercial term to strengthen your argunment when in fact there is not one 43.245.164.116 (talk) 09:13, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid I don't understand what you mean by that, but what I was saying is that an organisation which regards itself as a "partner" of a business ( in any sense of the word "partner") is connected to that business, and so is not an independent source. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 09:58, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment however they are references and need re ordering or striking out 43.245.164.116 (talk) 09:13, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The majority references from the Daily Mail and Insidermedia are not local as you cited below 43.245.164.116 (talk) 09:13, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Did you actually read all of my comment? I actually stated that the Daily Mail is national, not local, but that the cited Daily Mail article does not even mention Acorn Mobility. As for Insidermedia, I described that as a "trade publications", not as "local". I also don't know what you mean by "majority references", but out of dozens of references, there is one to the Daily Mail and one to Insidermedia. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 09:58, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment repeating your argument when already covered in other comments 43.245.164.116 (talk) 09:13, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Agree with the above, the company is not notable, fails WP:GNG and WP:CORP, as lots of the references are promotional/not reliable. Joseph2302 (talk) 11:32, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment need more constructive comment here 43.245.164.116 (talk) 09:13, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep How does it differ from say Acorn Computers? This is a company that appears to be dominant in it's industry. No one else claims such volume of production. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.232.13.165 (talk) 19:07, 8 July 2015 (UTC) — 99.232.13.165 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Comment Note this account is a SPA, and appears to be connected to the company. Joseph2302 (talk) 19:11, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Acorn computers innovated. Can you demonstrate similar innovation for your company? It's not turnover that matters, but turnover as a proportion of market share might. Andy Dingley (talk) 19:19, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, they innovated themselves out of business. Why don't you create the Global market share matrix that I believe might support a notable reprive.

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:44, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:44, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:44, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Found numerous results for Acorn Stairlifts, Mentioned as a commonly known name in article. The page however is very promotional and should be fixed accordingly.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 20:16, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What do you meant by "numerous results"? Do you mean "numerous Google hits" or something similar? If so, mere number of hits is not enough: you need to find hits which are substantial coverage in reliable independent sources. If you have found any of those, please tell us where. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 20:26, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment (edit conflict) Some of the contributing editors also found numerous results and added them to the article. Numerous results are by no means useful references in the way we require them to be. It is not particularly helpful to state that one has found numerous results without both ensuring that they meet Wikipedia's needs and without adding those that meet our needs to the article. I refer you to JamesBWatson's discussion on references above. Fiddle Faddle 20:29, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment the numerous results are the cited references inside the article on the Wiki page213.229.101.59 (talk) 08:40, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

William Hague on Acorn Stairlifts. "This is a very impressive business and one of the terrific things about it is its success in exporting. More than half of the business is based on export. This is creating good, skilled jobs for the future, which is a tribute to the staff and management here". Notable performance? 99.232.13.165 (talk) 21:19, 8 July 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.232.13.165 (talk) 20:55, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please sign your comments here. Use ~~~~ at the end of your comments. Please note that the deletion discussion is influenced very rarely by contributions such as that. Wikipedia cares about the quality of the article and the referencing within it. If you can source that quotation correctly and add it to the article in a relevant manner, that would have a bearing on the outcome. Please do not spend your efforts in seeking to obtain a 'keep' outcome in rhetoric, but in good editing practice. Fiddle Faddle 20:59, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Advertisement about a company which does not meet WP:CORP. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 21:47, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Fiddle Faddle, your attack on this page is premature and unjust, see below. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.232.13.165 (talk) 22:11, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Special note: advertising and promotion

Advertising is prohibited as an official Wikipedia policy. Advertising should be removed by following these steps, in order:

1. Clean up per Wikipedia:NPOV

2. Erase remaining advertising content from the article

3. Delete the article by listing it at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion if no notable content remains.

Why did we go straight to step 3 ? 99.232.13.165 (talk) 21:59, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If this article is deleted 100's more will need to be. Consistency is Required. 99.232.13.165 (talk) 22:01, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Because if you remove the promotional text and original research, you are left with no evidence of a notable company. If experienced users believed it was worth keeping, they would have been voting keep. Joseph2302 (talk) 22:07, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Then we will delete hundreds of others, as, indeed, we are doing on a regular basis. No precedent is ever set by any article for any other. If it were we would have a brutally fast descent into idiocracy. Please also see WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS as an argument to avoid during a deletion discussion. Do not ever accuse me of attacking anything. I have proposed this article for a deletion discussion. It is being discussed. There will be an outcome. You may or may not like that outcome. Whatever it is, Wikipedia will have been improved. Fiddle Faddle 22:27, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I think your outcome you want is clear from your comments and hiding behind a so called discussion is in itself eroding Wikipedias values been constructive and name particular areas for review and constructive changes not just a general attack on the whole of the article 43.245.164.116 (talk) 09:13, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The company has some marginal notability[28], but articles on marginally notable topics that are flooded with trivial awards, unsourced content, promotion, etc. are better off being deleted per WP:TNT. Also, I believe our community standards is that we expect a person or company to get national level sources before an article can be accepted. Does anyone know if there are national level sources about this org? I would also be interested in seeing the references mentioned by @Serialjoepsycho: that allegedly include claims to notability, so they can be reviewed. If any source, local or not, includes a strong claim to notability, like "Company ______ is famous for ______" that is pretty much an instant Keep. If it is kept, I might spend a but more time to get a quality stub in place. CorporateM (Talk) 22:49, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Arthritis Foundation offers a commendation to products that are proven to make life easier for those with arthritis and other physical limitations. Read more here] for more information about it if you like. [29] Accorn lifts has recieved this commendation [30]. No other stairlift company seems to have. Dailymail [31], ITV [32], and BBC [33] recently covered an inquest where faulty acorn lifts where to blame. There are others but these are the most prominent in the very short search I did. Here's a small regional [34]. I'm not going to keep digging. If you're expecting sources in comparison to the Chevy Volt get real. This is a product for disabled folks. This is not a product for everyone.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 00:09, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that an organisation has given a "commendation" to a product does not, in terms of Wikipedia's notability guidelines, have any bearing on the notability of the company producing that product. If you think that should be changed, then you are, of course, free to propose amendments to those guidelines. The reports you mention on the inquest are certainly national coverage, but they are essentially national coverage of the inquest, and while mentions of the company that made the faulty stairlift are included, the articles are not substantially about the company. The fact that a company's product once led to a fatal accident, while certainly newsworthy, does not make that company generally notable. You say "If you're expecting sources in comparison to the Chevy Volt get real. This is a product for disabled folks. This is not a product for everyone." I assume that what you mean by that is something like "of course there aren't substantial sources for this product of interest only to a limited audience, but there's as much coverage as you can expect for such a subject." If you do mean something like that, then the answer is that Wikipedia's notability guidelines require substantial coverage, not coverage which is "as much as you can expect for a subject which is never going to get substantial coverage". The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 12:09, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

While this is called a "commendation" it is specifically an award. I provided links to further information on this commendation. To get this commendation it has to meet certain standards and it is tested. These are not mere mentions is passing in the articles about the inquest. You assume? Well don't. Dell doesn't get as much coverage as Apple. Velocity Micro gets less than either. But the standard is wp:corp and a part of that is WP:AUD. WP:AUD makes it clear that the local sources cut it but they do not cut it alone. It's required that at least one international, national, or regional source. The BBC, ITV, and Daily mail source that you argue are about the inquest are more than simple mentions in passing of Acorn mobility. They do constitute significant. One of those along with the local media coverage shows that this is a notable subject.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 18:38, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I'm done. I just Googled Fiddle Faddle. Anyone going voluntarily by that name is not worth my time. I will move onto another client and put this down to experience. I have a real world life. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.232.13.165 (talk) 00:44, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The joy of irony is that it is lost on those who really ought to understand it. But that is the nature of irony. It seems to me that you have declared a WP:COI with Acorn Mobility being a client of yours. Fiddle Faddle 08:22, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This doesn't speak of notability as its self published but as for inovation they seem to have been the first to use DC batteries in stairlifts. [35]-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 05:34, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Innovation is always excellent, but they must pass WP:CORP to have an article here. A great many things and corporations are innovative; by no means all are notable. Fiddle Faddle 08:25, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Agree with (talk) company has much notoriety and innovation unique to them, too fast to deletion, concerns should been raised on talk page keep it and clean up. Theres 1000's more worse213.229.101.59 (talk) 08:37, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep

Special note: advertising and promotion

Advertising is prohibited as an official Wikipedia policy. Advertising should be removed by following these steps, in order:

1. Clean up per Wikipedia:NPOV

2. Erase remaining advertising content from the article

3. Delete the article by listing it at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion if no notable content remains.

Protocol not been followed here guys needs to pass steps 1 and 2 first43.245.164.116 (talk) 09:01, 9 July 2015 (UTC) — 43.245.164.116 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Comment Seems highly likely all the IPs are the same person, or meatpuppets- I believe the closing admin should count them all as 1 user. Joseph2302 (talk) 11:11, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Yep. The geolocates all look dodgy as well e.g. [36] [37] which look to be some form of proxy. SmartSE (talk) 12:38, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note Please also see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Acorn Publications where suspicions about the activity surrounding this discussion and the article itself have been raised. Fiddle Faddle 17:53, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There's some type of British Regional award.. "Yorkshire International Trade Award." [38] That accorn stairlifts seems to have won. This seems to be apart of a group of yearly trade awards put on in the UK in various regions by [39]. -Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 18:33, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I agree with JamesBWatson's analysis. I've searched for sources myself in factiva and google news and couldn't find any substantial national coverage of the company. Granted, they are not completely non-notable, but the majority of the sources are local newspapers and most likely originated as press releases from the company itself. At the moment I don't consider WP:CORP to be met. SmartSE (talk) 16:35, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, obviously. Le petit fromage (talk) 12:46, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Commended for Exporting http://thiis.co.uk/news-snippets/acorn-lifts-two-uk-export-awards-in-one-week.aspx Bretthuk72 (talk) 08:53, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Note this is yet another promotional SPA. SmartSE (talk) 09:57, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 00:28, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Bartlit Beck Herman Palenchar & Scott[edit]

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

fails WP:CORP. gets passing mentions in the press but nothing where the firm is the subject LibStar (talk) 07:08, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:05, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Colorado-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:05, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:05, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:05, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Bartlit Beck is a very well-known elite litigation boutique firm, considered one of the top boutique firms in the United States. I've updated the article to include [40] from American Lawyer. A few more articles and mentions from a quick search: [41], [42], [43]. Agtx (talk) 17:58, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Atgx. James500 (talk) 20:24, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. postdlf (talk) 16:56, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Louis Asmo[edit]

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

Not notable. Winning one side-event at the WSOP does not meet the Wikipedia criteria for notability, despite what the essay at WikiProjectPoker says. Handpolk ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 00:30, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2015 July 1. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 00:41, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:36, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:36, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to 1997 World Series of Poker#Preliminary events per WP:ONEEVENT. Clarityfiend (talk) 01:46, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Davewild (talk) 07:05, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not significant enough to justify notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:45, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. postdlf (talk) 16:56, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dao Bac[edit]

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

Not notable. Winning a side-event at the WSOP does not make one notable per Wikipedia guidelines, despite what the essay at WikiProjectPoker claims. Handpolk ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 00:36, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2015 July 1. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 00:57, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:36, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:36, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to either 2007 World Series of Poker results#Event 51: $1,000 S.H.O.E. or 2007 World Series of Poker#Event schedule per WP:ONEEVENT. He does have a win in the Five-Diamond World Poker Classic, but that's not considered a major enough tournament. Clarityfiend (talk) 01:41, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Davewild (talk) 07:04, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails notability.Sattar91 (talk) 15:09, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete side event winners are not notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:32, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. postdlf (talk) 16:56, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dave Alizadeth[edit]

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

In no way notable. This article is the poster child for why the essay at WikiProjectPoker should be ignored. Winning $20,000 in a casino employees tournament 15 years ago does not make one notable per Wikipedia requirements. Handpolk ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 00:32, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2015 July 1. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 00:57, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:35, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nevada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:59, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Davewild (talk) 06:54, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no where even close to being notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:35, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. postdlf (talk) 16:56, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Don Baruch[edit]

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

Not notable. Despite what the essay at WikiProjectPoker says, everybody that wins a WSOP side event does not meet the Wikipedia notability requirement. Handpolk ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 00:43, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2015 July 1. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 00:57, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:33, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:33, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:34, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to either 2007 World Series of Poker results#Event 21: $1,500 No-Limit Hold'em Shootout or 2007 World Series of Poker#Event schedule per WP:ONEEVENT. Clarityfiend (talk) 01:39, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Davewild (talk) 06:54, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete far too little winnings to be notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:00, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was procedural closure. Nomination by blocked sock, two disagreeing !votes. May speedily be renominated, provided nominator checks out, and follows, WP:BEFORE. (non-admin closure) Kraxler (talk) 15:50, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ernest Bennett (poker player)[edit]

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

Not notable. A perfect example of why the essay at WikiProjectPoker should be ignored. Winning a $1,000 seniors event does not meet the Wikipedia criteria for notability. Handpolk ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 00:45, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2015 July 1. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 00:57, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:42, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:42, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to either 2007 World Series of Poker results#Event 41: $1,000 World Championship Seniors No-Limit Hold'em or 2007 World Series of Poker#Event schedule per WP:ONEEVENT. Clarityfiend (talk) 01:31, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Davewild (talk) 06:54, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Winning such low level poker events does not make one notable. The essay on poker notability probably needs to be updated to reflect the more stringent guildeines for notability on Wikipedia in the 2010s as opposed to the 2000s, caused by a realization that when articles on people who did in 1846 could sit for years in the living people category because no one even bothered to give a remote sense of time to the person, we needed to shore up the expanse of biographical articles.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:26, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"Low level"? The WSOP is the pinnacle of poker tournaments. How many "low level" events have 1882 in-person entries and a $348K first prize? Clarityfiend (talk) 10:39, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was procedural closure. Nomination by blocked sock, two disagreeing votes. May be speedily renominated, provided WP:BEFORE is observed. (non-admin closure) Kraxler (talk) 18:46, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Alexander Borteh[edit]

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

Not notable. Despite what the essay at WikiProjectPoker claims, winning a side-event at the WSOP does not meet the Wikipedia notability requirement. Handpolk ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 00:56, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2015 July 1. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 01:14, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:40, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:40, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Davewild (talk) 06:53, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete won a minor side event in poker, not enough to be notable on that alone and not enough sources otherwise.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:17, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to 2007 World Series of Poker#Event schedule or 2007 World Series of Poker results#Event 34 per WP:ONEEVENT (sort of). This is neither minor nor a side event; winning a World Series of Poker bracelet is considered one of the crowning achievements in poker (as noted in the very first sentence of that article; also see the Prestige section, with quotes from top players). Clarityfiend (talk) 11:00, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep. Nomintion withdrawn per WP:POLOUTCOMES. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikicology (talk • contribs) 07:02, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Onimim Jacks[edit]

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

Subject of the articles fails WP:GNG and WP:POLITICIAN. He is an unelected candidate for political office that fails the primary notability criterion of "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject of the article". All the sources I found with a quick google search are only an evidence that he is an unelected candidate for political office and does not established his notability. In addition, he also fails WP:ACADEMIC. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 06:37, 8 July 2015 (UTC) Nomination withdrawn and Keep per WP:POLOUTCOMES — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikicology (talk • contribs) 07:02, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. postdlf (talk) 16:56, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nelson Asoh[edit]

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

Subject of the article fails WP:GNG and WP:ACADEMIC. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 06:08, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Fails WP:PEOPLE and WP:GNG the only reference in the article seems to be broken, but it still would not be enough to pass either one of guidelines. I was not able to find any additional reliable sources on the internet. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 17:24, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:07, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:07, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:07, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:ANYBIO as well. Non-notable media entrepreneur. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:34, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete - even if everything was true, and sourcable, he is not an academic as we define it, and he appears to be a run of the mill local media person. Bearian (talk) 19:26, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Microsoft Surface. Sandstein 07:46, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Surface Pro 4[edit]

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

As per WP:NOT#Wikipedia_is_not_a_crystal_ball Ians18 (talk) 07:03, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Three different tech/news websites are already provided that demonstrate notability for this upcoming device. WP:CRYSTAL states "Wikipedia is not a collection of unverifiable speculation." This article is not unverifiable speculation; rather, it is verifiable speculation. Point number 1 states "Individual scheduled or expected future events should be included only if the event is notable and almost certain to take place." The three different sources are sufficient to demonstrate that the device and its future release are notable. Given that this is a Microsoft product that is provisionally scheduled to take place later this year, I believe that the device is indeed almost certain to be released. Actually, given the high profile of Microsoft and the potential interest in this device, I am inclined to think that even if the device is cancelled, its cancellation should be included in the article and the device would remain notable. Axl ¤ [Talk] 11:11, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:40, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:40, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Please see "Wikipedia is not a collection of product announcements and rumors" and it clearly states "Speculation and rumor, even from reliable sources, are not appropriate encyclopedic content." Ians18 (talk) 01:15, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete For goodness sakes... Clearly this is pure rumor. Not to mention the content is almost entirely pointless technically. For example, "Surface Pro 4 will be run on Intel x86 Broadwell or Skylake i5 or i7 CPU." That just about the entire list of realistically possible CPUs for ANY Intel-based system announced in the next year. So, not only is this entry entirely rumor, it's not even useful rumor. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.128.213.208 (talk) 14:42, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Possibly keep it as a redirect (to Microsoft Surface), but for now this article stands baseless, and even when the Microsoft Surface Hub was officially announced the article was deleted because there wasn't sufficient reporting on it, personally I want this page to stay, but it simply isn't accurate and is based on pure speculation. --LyThienDao1984 (talk) 06:14, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Though User:Axl makes a few very good points, so I think I'd go with keep if the sources are verified enough, but I'd remove the rumours on the specifications as that does fall under WP:CRYSTAL. --LyThienDao1984 (talk) 06:17, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 04:08, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and redirect to Microsoft Surface. I believe it is logical that another version of the Surface Pro line is in the works, but as of now, this is pure speculation, which doesn't belong on Wikipedia. It would be profitable to maintain the history of this page for future recreation, in the event that it is officially announced and released. Otherwise, an article on the subject is not yet fully warranted. Thank you, --ceradon (talk • contribs) 07:01, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Microsoft Surface. There is undoubtedly a good deal of media coverage on this, but certain information does not seem to be available. For instance, if you check the second page of results, there are articles stating that this product may never be released at all. Although, as Ceradon said above, it would be good to preserve the page's history in the event that the product is actually released, as of now it does not justify a separate article. --Biblioworm 16:57, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Microsoft Surface for now. It almost certainly will be notable at some point, but not right now. Joseph2302 (talk) 23:09, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. postdlf (talk) 16:56, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Happytime Murders[edit]

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

The film was announced, but never entered production. Koala15 (talk) 02:38, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Koala15 (talk) 02:49, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Koala15 (talk) 02:49, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as being TOO SOON and failing WP:NFF. This project is still alive and, while available sourcing suggests that this might be spoken of in related articles, it does not yet merit a separate article. Allow undeletion or recreation when filming is confirmed. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 04:06, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NFF since production hasn't begun. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 18:47, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete--Ymblanter (talk) 09:04, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Snake (slang)[edit]

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

Non-notable slang term, with no sources other than Urban Dictionary. —C.Fred (talk) 02:00, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:28, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:28, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTDICTIONARY: just the definition of a word, with little likelihood of being expanded into an encyclopedic article. Only source is Urban Dictionary, so there's no evidence this is even a notable or widely used term (although "snake" is widely used as a term for a treacherous person, there's nothing unique about "snakes" in this context). Colapeninsula (talk) 09:18, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:DICDEF. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 22:47, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- RoySmith (talk) 00:49, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Rock Hill Police Department (South Carolina)[edit]

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

fails WP:ORG. police departments are not inherently notable, and there is insufficient third party coverage to suggest this meets WP:ORG. LibStar (talk) 00:19, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, fails GNG —Мандичка^YO 😜 07:10, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm waiting for the long winded convoluted responses to come... LibStar (talk) 07:25, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

→→ [44] ←← —Мандичка^YO 😜 09:12, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Snow keep right? LibStar (talk) 09:19, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As a plausible redirect, article is not eligible to be proposed for deletion by procedures I just made up and shall extrapolate on in my forthcoming essay which should be followed as policy. Let it snow, let it snow, let it snow. —Мандичка^YO 😜 09:34, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

through long winded obfuscating I can show that AfD is an invalid process with my 500 character plus mobile edit! LibStar (talk) 10:09, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:12, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:12, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Carolina-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:12, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Selective Merge to Rock Hill, South Carolina, which presently only has a passing mention in it consisting of a link to this article. This will serve to enhance the merge target article. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:13, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Satisfies GNG due to coverage in the hundreds of sources in GNews, GBooks and elsewhere. First unionised police department in South Carolina: [45]. Involved in an incident with the freedom riders: [46]. Failure to provide a traffic safety program before 1946: [47]. Ineligible for deletion as a plausible redirect to the area in which it is located (WP:R). Should not have been nominated. AfD is not for merger proposals. James500 (talk) 13:15, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

it is not ineligible for deletion, that's a ludicrous statement. But now you're going to respond with a long winded reply. LibStar (talk) 13:29, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure there's anything worth merging here (certainly not a list of its units), but it should be covered to some extent in Rock Hill, South Carolina, and the title is also a plausible redirect. No preference on whether that's done here by simple redirection, or deleting and then creating a redirect. On the argument that it merits a standalone article, it might be better to develop it as a subtopic within Rock Hill, South Carolina and then argue for a WP:SPLIT if there is enough stable, verifiable, and substantive content. postdlf (talk) 17:05, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no sources (only ref in article is the subject's own website), no coverage, size and shape of the department or the city are irrelevant to determine notability, it fails WP:ORGDEPTH and WP:GNG. We all know that every ~~city~~ populated American place amended, see below has some sort of law enforcement agency, if being a city then it's usually amended, see below a police department, nothing to mention or to merge, there being no info. Kraxler (talk) 16:44, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(1) No coverage? It is blindingly obvious to anyone who can use a search engine that there is coverage. Perhaps you meant to argue that the coverage, whose mere existence cannot be denied, is not 'significant'. (2) The size of a department can be grounds for keeping it. (3) Many cities do not have police departments. Paramilitary police forces of this type were invented in the nineteenth century and could potentially be regarded as a historical anomaly. Cities that existed before then will not have had one. Even today, English cities, with the exception of London, do not have police departments. English police forces are generally county-wide organisations. City-wide departments could be a purely American institution. James500 (talk) 02:12, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I amended my rationale, although I think it was clear that I was talking about present day American cities. If there's any coverage of the subject anywhere, then just add a source/ref/link here. I used the search engines and it became blindingly bviously that there was no coverage. Remember that WP:ORGDEPTH requires in-depth coverage of the police department itself, not a trivial, passing mention of it. And the size (180+ employees) is in this case rather indicating insignificance. Kraxler (talk) 13:42, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and Redirect (perhaps a very selective Merge per Northamerican1000) - not enough significant non-routine coverage to justify a stand-alone article. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 19:04, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

[1] ttp://spectacles.premiere.fr/Salle-de-Spectacle/Spectacle/Les-Jumeaux-Drole-De-Magie-1530656

[2] ttp://www.cinelinx.com/indie-beat/item/5448-reviewed-the-tsarevich-a-film-to-keep-an-eye-on-this-festival-season.html

[3] ttp://editions.flammarion.com/Search_Result.cfm?keywords=faugerolas

[4] ttp://www.editions-harmattan.fr/index.asp?navig=catalogue&obj=result&ntable=0&andor=OR&artiste=faugerolas&motExact=1&orderby=titre&ordermode=ASC

[5] ttp://www.editions-harmattan.fr/index.asp?navig=catalogue&obj=result&ntable=0&andor=OR&artiste=faugerolas&motExact=1&orderby=titre&ordermode=ASC

[6] ttps://bnccatalist.ca/ViewTitle.aspx?id=2127323

[7] ttps://www.dropbox.com/s/b2om9xhxgd4pydz/Journal%20Des%20Femmes.png?dl=0

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]