Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2016 April 21

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 20 April	22 April >

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 per consensus. Draftify not adequately supported. --Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 10:55, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Restructuring of power sytem

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

No references, no evidence of any potential notability. Written like a POV essay. Fails every test for notability. PRODed but PROD removed by author Velella ^{Velella Talk} 23:14, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Velella's explanation. Prmcd16 (talk) 23:16, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as unreferenced original research. Creator states on his talk page that this is "an assignment that does not complete unless this is done ." --Finngall ^talk 23:27, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify to Draft:Restructuring of power system ~~Delete~~ [changed per Ricky81682's comment, below]. In addition to the reasons given above, the typo in the title appears to be an attempt to avoid the redirect at the properly named Restructuring of power system. Doesn't this qualify it for some sort of speedy delete? As an aside: this appears to be class-related, but I have no idea how to contact the teaching-powers-that-be at Wikipedia. --Larry/Traveling_Man (talk) 23:34, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I've left a note at WP:ENI, in case those folks can help the student along. --Larry/Traveling_Man (talk) 00:07, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom and Finngall. Wikipedia is not a hosting site for class assignments or essays. GAB^Hello! 23:51, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify to Draft:Restructuring of power system. The topic itself could be notable, there's possibly sources on it and I'd say let the editor have at least a chance to get it going. If it's actually an assignment, it was very poorly designed. While it doesn't need to have an AFC tag, we have been pretty good about checking and watching for old drafts so if this doesn't go anywhere in a few months, it can come up at MFD. The best case is that the editor learn a little more about sourcing requirements and rather than a separate article, we have a draft that can be incorporated into Electric_power_industry#Organization or somewhere. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 00:09, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- The editor indicated here that this is an assignment of sorts. Given that, it's likely the editor will just create this in their userspace or elsewhere anyways. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 00:48, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Original research editor opinion on a current affairs topic. Material must be based on sources, not editorial essays. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:25, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, reads like a short school essay; uncited "draft". Kierzek (talk) 01:36, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and no Draft unless actually needed as none of this is keeping material. SwisterTwister talk 03:59, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:TNT. We have lots of energy articles that could link into this, e.g., energy policy, energy generation, etc. What we have here is a short essay, not even a stub. Bearian (talk) 19:41, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:08, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Michig (talk) 07:39, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Southall (novel)

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

Novel with questionable notability-oddly it has been listed here as upcoming since 2009-my search results all seem to be wiki mirrors as well. Wgolf (talk) 23:13, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as not at least anything minimally better for an article. SwisterTwister talk 04:01, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 04:02, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 04:02, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, curious as to why a spa created this single sentence article on a non-notable book, would have been better to have improved the author's article as a gsearch brings up quite a few sources about him, but nothing for this book, so delete as not meeting WP:GNG. Coolabahapple (talk) 09:06, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Mhhossein (talk) 07:37, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

NB (TV show)

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

~~TV show that seems to have questionable notability. Searching for NB+TV show really does not help as you might of figured as you tend to get matches for NBC. Wgolf (talk) 23:05, 21 April 2016 (UTC)~~ withdrawn[reply]

Keep. Searching is not easy because of the title, but there's enough available that verifies this as a series of significance in Scotland, and it ran for almost a decade. A particularly substantive source is this 1990 article from the The Herald (Scotland)|The Herald. More from The Herald: [1] or [2], [3]; there's also this about one of the more prominent hosts. --Arxiloxos (talk) 00:23, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you-I'll look over this, might want to withdraw this if this does look notable (and maybe the page does need to be wikified), but yeah I had a really hard time finding anything due to the title. Wgolf (talk) 00:25, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

withdraw-thanks for finding the sources! Wgolf (talk) 00:40, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete--Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 21:23, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

John Allison (physicist)

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

Moved this discussion from Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Talk:John Allison (physicist). User:Wormcast argued for deletion based on the following: not notable. The "highly cited" status is an artifact of large projects that rely on certain software, not an indication of fundamental contributions to the field. No opinion from me about deletion. Ricky81682 (talk) 20:48, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:ACADEMIC and does not pass WP:GNG as google only turns up University profiles of him, no significant 3rd party coverage Seasider91 (talk) 22:21, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:52, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:52, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:52, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Agree with nom. GS h-index is less then 10 although the first few cites are stupendous. This case is a prime example of why h-index is a better measure of publication impact than citation count. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:05, 27 April 2016 (UTC).[reply]
Delete as still questionable for the applicable notability. SwisterTwister talk 22:20, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete--Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 21:26, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Imran Ashraf

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

Actor with questionable notability, can't find much about him either. Wgolf (talk) 20:40, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unreferenced BLP. JDDJS (talk) 20:55, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - unreferenced BLP on a non-notable subject who fails GNG. GAB^Hello! 22:27, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as nothing at all for acceptable notability. SwisterTwister talk 04:05, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 04:05, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 04:05, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 23:51, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Kronos Advisory

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

There are many very brief mentions in reliable sources, but I can't find anything that comes close to providing in-depth coverage as required to meet WP:CORP. SmartSE (talk) 20:34, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as none of this confidently suggests better for the applicable notability. SwisterTwister talk 04:12, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 04:12, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 04:12, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 04:12, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 04:12, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 04:12, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Many news hits, even one Scholar hit, but they all seem to be quotes from its staff on international issues. While this indicates their staff have some expertise in this area, it doesn't give us much information on the organisation itself. (In particular, the observation that they are frequently quoted is a kind of WP:SYNTH/WP:OR even though it is true.) Google Books turns up hits but none of them appear to be relevant. I don't think notability is established for this company. SJK (talk) 04:56, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Lots of puffery in the article, but not much evidence that the firm is notable. Some of its employees may be notable in isolation, but that's not the subject of this AfD. 06:11, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 21:00, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Youdo

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

WP:WEB Ardomlank (talk) 19:45, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as I'm also not finding anything better. SwisterTwister talk 04:18, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 04:18, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 04:18, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 04:18, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 04:18, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Cannot find any high quality sources. Most hits turn out to be errors for "you do". I do see some Russian-language sources on this (in Google News search), but due to my ignorance of the Russian language, I don't feel confident in making a judgement on them. SJK (talk) 04:52, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Redirect. Article is not notable enough for stand-alone article. (NAC) FiendYT ★ 05:11, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Gwaeron Windstrom

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

This character article only has primary sources, and there seems to be no potential for improvement that I can find. TTN (talk) 19:28, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 19:29, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge to List of Forgotten Realms deities. BOZ (talk) 21:43, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as still questionable for independent notability. SwisterTwister talk 22:20, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was move to userspace. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 07:50, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Contemporary criticism of A Doll's House

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

Essay with no references demonstrating this is a notable topic on its own. The article on A Doll's House already has a section on Criticism which could be expanded if necessary. ubiquity (talk) 19:13, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, the idea of this page is good, but it would have to be a sub-page of the page of "A Doll's House" or simply expanded on the criticism section like you said. Wyatt Hughes (talk) 19:20, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, I definitely see what you're saying. I'll go about making it a sub-page then. Thank you so much! Modern-day-minstrel (talk) 19:54, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. ubiquity (talk) 19:23, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. ubiquity (talk) 19:23, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to A Doll's House - The criticism section could do with expanding, and it seems like the most reasonable solution. GAB^Hello! 22:24, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Since the user is willing to draftify and merge, I'll just move this and close the AfD out. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 07:49, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sarahj2107 (talk) 09:08, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Readable English

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

Non-notable educational program. Previous version speedied as spam. Prod of this version contested by IP editor. --Finngall ^talk 18:40, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Found this, but it doesn't seem nearly enough. GAB^Hello! 22:20, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as nothing at all actually suggesting better for an acceptable Wikipedia article. SwisterTwister talk 04:25, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 04:25, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Absolutely no consensus to delete this article currently. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 11:08, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Maa Jhanhiri Mangala Temple

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

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

Unsourced, not found on GoogleMaps, thus fails WP:V and WP:N Philg88 ^♦talk 14:59, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Philg88 ^♦talk 14:59, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The reason it doesn't appear on google maps is that there's a typo in the title. The actual name is Jhanjirimangala [4]. Uanfala (talk) 15:16, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 17:07, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 17:07, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 17:17, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Move Draft obviously as this is imaginably acceptable but, like these subjects, better attention is needed. SwisterTwister talk 19:55, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- I have no issue with it moving to draft under the correct title. Philg88 ^♦talk 09:27, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:22, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and rename to Jhanjirimangala Temple. There isn't an enormous amount on this in English, but since there must be more in Indian language sources, it seems likely to be a notable place. Chiswick Chap (talk) 12:40, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep [and move to [[List of Hindu temples in Cuttack, per comment below -- this is my revised "Vote"]. "Keep" is the "vote" appropriate here in AFD, if you want the article kept in mainspace even though you suggest it be moved/renamed. Moving/renaming can be done outside AFD. "Moving to draftspace" is a "Delete" vote, and IMO is only valid as a vote if you really believe the topic is not notable. If you think the article needs work, put tags on it. I think it needs work, and vote Keep believing this is a significant, notable topic. --do ncr am 20:17, 15 April 2016 (UTC) --03:59, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I'm relisting because there are Keep !votes that presume sources in other languages and likely notability and if available then then those ought to be evaluated. —SpacemanSpiff 16:41, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —SpacemanSpiff 16:41, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I added the temple's coordinates from Google maps, which does cover it. I also added 2 or 3 sources, including relating to the 27 December 2015 break-in and robbery of the temple, there are 3 sources now in the article. It is an ancient temple and a landmark in the area so perhaps is notable simply by wp:GEOLAND. It is covered in numerous photos which you see if you click on AFD links above (the properly spelled version). --do ncr am 17:20, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. It seems notable on its own to me, and the article has 3 sources now (2 about recent thefts from temples in Cuttack, 1 about the numerous temples in Cuttack). But also it is still marginal, and I note it is one of numerous small ancient temples in Cuttack. I think it would also be acceptable to "Keep" it but move it to List of Hindu temples in Cuttack, corresponding to Category:Hindu temples in Cuttack, and I would develop that larger topic like List of temples in Bhubaneswar (Bhubaneswar is another city like Cuttack, also in Orissa state). Hmm, here is a top list of temples in Orissa and here is a second-level list of other important temples in Orissa (Orissa is a larger region including Cuttack). Those lists do not include this AFD subject one, or at least I am not recognizing it there. Those may well be the more important ones, as they are presented. I note there are many more temples already covered in wikipedia within Category:Hindu temples in Orissa. I am deducing that the AFD subject one, Maa Jhanhiri Mangala or whatever name applies, is a lesser temple. It would be fine to mention it in a list-article of course, and a list-article on temples in Cuttack is certainly notable/fine. So I am coming around to wanting to "Keep" but move this one to be developed as that list-article. I could wp:BOLDly go ahead to move and develop, but I hesitate to do that until there is some support. --do ncr am 19:24, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well, a list of such temples would undoubtedly be notable; if you're going to include this one within that list, you're basically !voting "delete" for this AfD's purposes; and this AfD should be no obstruction (nihil obstat) to creating a list. i.e. if you feel like it, go right ahead. If you'd like me to !vote "delete" for that purpose, I can do that; or we can keep, and then have a merge discussion, it doesn't matter. Chiswick Chap (talk) 21:15, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Chiswick Chap:, thanks! Well it's nicer to the contributors to "Keep" the AFD subject article, at least within the edit history of the list-article. If the list-article could be developed enough to be put in mainspace fast, separately, then it would be even better to close this one "Merge" and redirect it to the list (keeping the contributions in the redirect's edit history, which would get brought back if more sources emerged. But a closer might have to be willing to say "Merge" without the list-article being great yet. I'll start a draft at Draft:List of Hindu temples in Cuttack which could be used either way (by paste-in or by move). Mostly I'd prefer to avoid an outright "Delete"; avoiding that is my motivation to be willing to work on a list-article so I hope a closer will take that into account. --do ncr am 05:01, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and rename to Jhanjirimangala Temple, perChiswick Chap (talk) above.--DThomsen8 (talk) 15:21, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete per consensus.--Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 21:32, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Alfred Bernhart

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

Non-notable professor with limited academic impact. Article is entirely sourced to self-published articles about his various theories. FuriouslySerene (talk) 16:39, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. FuriouslySerene (talk) 16:39, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:ACADEMIC appears to have made a significant contribution to the field of environmental engineering, please don't assume someone's not notable just because their specialist area is only small. Seasider91 (talk) 23:08, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I find it difficult to distinguish this sort of soft science ("his theory of seven dimensions") from crankery, but that may just be my unfamiliarity with the area. Nonetheless, I don't see a lot of evidence of notability here. Google scholar gives top citation counts around 33 or so, not enough to make a case for WP:PROF#C1. The supposed "Heinemann Prize" given is not the notable one (one of the two Dannie Heineman Prizes in mathematical physics or astrophysics) nor the Gustav-Heinemann-Bürgerpreis (founded 1977), Edgar-Heinemann-Preis (from Chemnitz), Gustav-Heinemann-Friedenspreis (for children's books), or Otto Heinemann Preis (for businesses). In fact the only evidence I can find of Bernhart having such a prize is a handful of web pages such as this one. So it probably doesn't pass WP:PROF#C2. The claim of a Nobel nomination is laughable (winning is notable but anyone can be nominated and trumpeting nominations is something cranks do). So what else is there? And where is the reliably-published in-depth sourcing by people independent of the subject that we need to support an article? —David Eppstein (talk) 01:00, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Notability not established. Xxanthippe (talk) 05:22, 22 April 2016 (UTC).[reply]
Delete. The text about work that includes Bernhart's theories is basically just a list of 4 citations. Agricola44 (talk) 15:10, 22 April 2016 (UTC).[reply]
Delete as the article is still currently questionable overall. SwisterTwister talk 04:26, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete--Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 21:36, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Lucy Alexander (newsreader)

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

Non notable newsreader, The 2 cites in the article are simply mentions, and "FindMyPast" isn't a reliable source, Searched on Google & Highbeam and found nothing except this, Fails GNG,

I AFD'd the article back in 2015 and sources were found ... however at the time for whatever reason I hadn't checked them properly and just assumed they were okay but I've now just realized they're for the TV presenter Lucy Alexander not the newscaster.... So thanks to my stupidity here we are again..., Thanks, –Davey2010^Talk 16:37, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging NinjaRobotPirate and Tomwsulcer who !voted at the prev AFD. –Davey2010^Talk 16:40, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - non-notable. Electoralist (talk) 18:12, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It's confusing to have two television personalities with the same name. If I remember correctly, that was one of the reasons why I said I had to filter my results rather aggressively. I don't see significant coverage of this Lucy Alexander. Searching for "lucy alexander" "london tonight" and other variations of her credits turns up nothing but social media and promotional websites. I argued recently that a regional Emmy could satisfy WP:ANYBIO criterion #1 and that got shot down pretty quickly. So, I'm thinking that a regional award from the Royal Television Society isn't good enough, either. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 19:14, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as nothing suggests convincingly enough notability. SwisterTwister talk 04:27, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 04:27, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 04:27, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 04:27, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 23:50, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Juliar

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

Article is self-promotional and violates WP:N, WP:V, and WP:RS. All links are to the creators site, the article contains uncited claims of original research, and article touts benefits that are obvious nonsense to anyone with a passing familiarity with the subject matter (programming languages):

The language compiler got a speed boost due to the Pascal's Triangle Theory Computer Optimization Algorithm written by Andrey Mikhailovich Makhanov. Currently, the language has been shown to compile and run a program with 0n^2 complexity faster than native C and C++ when compiled and ran from source.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 170.223.221.219 (talk) 16:18, 21 April 2016‎ (UTC) Created for IP using rationale from article talk page by -- GB fan 16:26, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Although perhaps we should preserve this one outside of mainspace somewhere, so we can show people what would happen if we would stop enforcing GNG for articles about programming languages. —Ruud 08:37, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as none of this suggests better for the applicable software notability. SwisterTwister talk 04:38, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The original call for deletion lists several good reason why this page should be removed. Not the least of which it is currently seems more like an advertisement or way to pull views to their own site without citing any other sources to back up their claims, which are indeed nonsense to anyone familiar computer programming. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:6001:F04D:5F00:26FD:52FF:FE65:390A (talk) 07:30, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sarahj2107 (talk) 09:07, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Kurudhi Pookal

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

No official confirmation yet. Fails WP:NFF —Vensatry _(Talk) 15:35, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Vipinhari || talk 16:11, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Vipinhari || talk 16:11, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Clearly not in Principal photography, so fails WP:NFF. So early that it possibly goes against WP:CRYSTAL too. — crh ₂₃ (Talk) 16:40, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

let's look further:

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

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

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

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

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

WP:INDAFD: Kurudhi Pookal Kuruthi Pookkal Mani Ratnam Karthi Aditi Rao Hydari Madras Talkies Kuruthi Pookkal

Delete or Draftify per being TOO SOON. Article is improperly named, which makes searches a bit tough (chuckle). Mani Ratnam's "next" is sourcable as Kuruthi Pookkal, but is only just beginning to get coverage.[5][6][7][8][9] Since it has not yet begun filming, this ~~spourcable~~ sourcable topic fails WP:NFF... for now. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 17:04, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not related to deletion discussion at hand

What does sopurcable mean, MichaelQSchmidt? Sam Sailor ^Talk! 17:25, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It means Sam Sailor, that I should always triple-double-check my spelling. Thanks. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 15:22, 22 April 2016 (UTC) [reply]

Sorry, MichaelQSchmidt, could you by chance mean "sourceable"? That would make sense in context. Sam Sailor ^Talk! 15:41, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nothing suggesting a solidly notable article yet. SwisterTwister talk 04:41, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nomination. Fails WP:NFF. Only poster has been released. Arjann (talk) 07:36, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 23:48, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Angela Craciun

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

I'm not really seeing the notability here. For one, the sourcing is abysmal. For starters, we have two social network profiles (!) - obviously not independent sources. We then have a snippet - I checked to see just what this was about, and it begins: "My sincere thanks are due to Prof. Angela Crăciun" (by the way, that's the correct spelling of her name). I fail to see how an acknowledgment in a preface can be used to validate a claim of notability; at best, this is a classic case of synthesis. We then have the subject's biography on her own website and a press release hosted there - needless to say, not independent. Finally, there's another bit of PR, a photo-op from another of her organizations.

I looked around the Romanian press, where the subject is barely covered. There are two puff pieces where we are given exhaustive information about the subject's love of castles, her inability to buy them in Romania, her sacrifices, her grandmother, and on and on. Then there's an announcement that she's withdrawing from a project with one Joel Soler (note the red link). Finally, there's this intriguing reportage from a newspaper of her native town: "Baia Mare native Angela Crăciun bankrupted and sold SC Maralact, then used Romanians' money to buy a castle in France. The incredible story of a cardboard millionaire who robbed the Romanian state of millions of Euros."

So, in sum, I fail to see why the subject is notable. Because she owns a castle? Because she likes to found organizations? Because she dabbles in the arts? Because she bankrupted a small company? All these rationales collapse upon analysis, and while we are certainly not bound by their decision in any way, I suggest we follow the lead of ro.wiki, which agreed to delete her biography back in February 2010. - Biruitorul ^Talk 14:00, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 14:39, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 14:39, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, the Romanian wikipedia got it right in 2010. Being a competent professional in your field is not the standard for having an article, WP:LINKEDIN. This may not be first article attempt here, see User_talk:Wdscenter#Copyright_problems_with_Angela_Craciun and Wikipedia:Files_for_deletion/2009_August_22#File:Angela_Craciun_2009.jpg.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 16:20, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - non-notable, promotional. Electoralist (talk) 18:13, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - there is simply no bit of the article which would comply with wikipedia requirements; it is puff-piece for someone of encyclopedic irrelevancy. Dahn (talk) 08:16, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Expert opinion might be needed here.Pincrete (talk) 20:31, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nothing yet actually suggesting solid notability. SwisterTwister talk 04:52, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 23:45, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ghairat

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

No evidence of any notability. The single ref shows its exists - nothing more. Fails WP:GNG Velella ^{Velella Talk} 13:55, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 14:32, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 14:32, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom. GAB^Hello! 15:00, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: couldn't find any in depth coverage, so clearly fails WP:GNG and WP:NFILM. Ref is to a db site analogous to IMDb, which is clearly insufficient. — crh ₂₃ (Talk) 16:44, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as nothing suggesting better notability improvements. SwisterTwister talk 22:23, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 23:44, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Arman (pashto)

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

No evidence of any notability. The single ref shows its exists - nothing more. Fails WP:GNG Velella ^{Velella Talk} 13:54, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 14:31, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 14:31, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: couldn't find any in depth coverage, so clearly fails WP:GNG and WP:NFILM. Ref is to a db site analogous to IMDb, which is clearly insufficient.

Can I also point out that Google's pattern recognition for similar searches is a little creepy at times — crh ₂₃ (Talk) 16:48, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Same rationale as for the other movie articles created by the same user: It simply fails GNG. GAB^Hello! 22:17, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as nothing convincing for a better notable article. SwisterTwister talk 22:23, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 23:41, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Qasam (pashto)

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

No evidence of any notability. The single ref shows its exists - nothing more. Fails WP:GNG Velella ^{Velella Talk} 13:54, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 14:31, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 14:31, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - As per nom, this fails GNG... just getting a hit on a database is insufficient. GAB^Hello! 15:07, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: couldn't find any in depth coverage, so clearly fails WP:GNG and WP:NFILM. Ref is to a db site analogous to IMDb, which is clearly insufficient. — crh ₂₃ (Talk) 16:45, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as nothing suggesting better notability improvements. SwisterTwister talk 22:26, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 23:39, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ghaddar (pashto)

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

No evidence of any notability. The single ref shows its exists - nothing more. Fails WP:GNG Velella ^{Velella Talk} 13:53, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 14:31, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 14:31, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Inclusion in a database, with basically nothing else, does not notability confer. GAB^Hello! 15:02, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: couldn't find any in depth coverage, so clearly fails WP:GNG and WP:NFILM. Ref is to a db site analogous to IMDb, which is clearly insufficient. — crh ₂₃ (Talk) 16:46, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as nothing suggesting better notability improvements. SwisterTwister talk 22:25, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:42, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Asif Basra

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

PROD removed by a user who has joined a few others who have been hounding me recently so here we are at AfD; the listed sources, however number they are, are simply background characters and nothing to suggest any actual better notability. Searches also found nothing else better which is another concern. SwisterTwister talk 04:38, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 04:38, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 04:38, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: My Google searches don't turn up nearly enough to establish notability here, pretty much everything found is passing mentions at best. Fails WP:GNG. Chrisw80 (talk) 04:02, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Basra clearly passes the notability guidelines for actors. He had clearly had main roles in at least two notable films. I am sure there are more sources on him published in India. The fact that they are not easily found in English language searches on the web should not cause us to remove this article on someone who clearly is well above the notability threshold for an actor.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:07, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: But it's just not so clear. WP:ENTERTAINER states "Has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions." Yes, he's held a lot of roles, even in some notable films. However, the roles held were not significant (several were not even named characters, and the named characters appear to have been billed rather low in the cast list) in all notable films except for Outsourced (film) which is the only exception I see. I think it's simply WP:TOOSOON here. For the record, I did also search via Indian Newspapers Search. Chrisw80 (talk) 05:23, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:53, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Passes WP:GNG. DaltonCastle (talk) 01:07, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per the above. Seems to meet WP:ENTERTAINER AusLondonder (talk) 08:37, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vipinhari || talk 13:50, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect. For now I will leave the redirect unprotected, but if it gets reverted in contradiction to the consensus here without gaining any further indicators of notability I can protect it at that time. Rlendog (talk) 18:08, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Phone Booth (song)

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

This song fails all levels of notability requirements. An attempt at a redirect was reverted, but really there is no reason for this article to exist. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 22:51, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·C) 22:55, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Teairra Marí: Lacks significant coverage in independent reliable sources. — JJMC89 (T·C) 22:58, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and replace the markup linking to Phone Booth (song) on Phone Booth (disambiguation) with a link to Teairra Marí instead. --Erick Shepherd (talk) 00:38, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:44, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:57, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Subject lacks notability and the page's only reference is to an unreliable source. Meatsgains (talk) 01:41, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - not notable on its own but suitable on musician's page. DaltonCastle (talk) 00:15, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to artist's article. Not separately notable. Philafrenzy (talk) 00:24, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vipinhari || talk 13:47, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Teairra Marí: Agreed for the reasons already stated above. Aoba47 (talk) 19:55, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as not convincing for a separate article. SwisterTwister talk 22:25, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sarahj2107 (talk) 09:04, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Canadian Cyber Threat Exchange

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

Fails WP:ORG. This marks the third incarnation of an article on this fledgeling organization. CCTX has gotten limited press coverage solely on the strength of a press release they put out. Everything out there is routine coverage of a minor tech organization in the western world. Even just looking at raw ghits, 48 is a very bad sign for anything having to do with tech that was devised in the last decade. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 13:46, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 13:47, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 13:47, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 13:47, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 13:47, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 13:47, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. The available sources are insufficient to establish notability per WP:ORG or WP:GNG.--Ddcm8991 (talk) 18:48, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as nothing at all convincing for the applicable notability yet. SwisterTwister talk 22:27, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 11:07, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Gran Meliá Ghoo

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

Not existing property with a clearly promotional tone of the article. Arthistorian1977 (talk) 20:39, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:31, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:31, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:31, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as there's nothing suggesting a better notable and improvable article, still questionable. SwisterTwister talk 06:31, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – @Arthistorian1977: How does the article have a "clearly promotional tone". As written at the time it was nominated here (diff), it is quite neutrally worded, and has no promotional context or tone, peacock language, language extolling its virtues or how great it is, etc. It reads as an entirely neutrally-worded article that simply summarizes the topic. Regarding the notion of "non existing property" in the nomination, this is not a valid rationale for deletion; notable construction developments are allowed to be covered in the encyclopedia. See also: WP:DEFUNCTS. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:26, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep – Meets WP:CORPDEPTH, albeit on a weak basis, from sources that I was able to find online: ^[1], ^[2], ^[3], ^[4] It's likely that additional reliable sources are available in Iranian news media sources, which may not be readily available or easy to access in some western and other countries. Per this, also keep in the interests of countering systemic bias on Wikipedia (See Availability of sources may cause bias). North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:45, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ "Meliá anuncia el primer cinco estrellas internacional en Irán". ABC. (in Spanish)
^ "Iran to Get Luxury Hotel Along Caspian Sea as Tourism Thaws". Bloomberg News.
^ "The luxury hotels luring Western tourists to Iran". The Telegraph.
^ "Gran Meliá to open first hotel in Iran". Conference & Incentive Travel. (A paid subscriber magazine).

@Arthistorian1977: "Not existing property". The property does exist, please see this photo. The shopping mall section is open to the public, and the hotel opens in 2017.

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:12, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Omni Flames (talk contribs) 08:13, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Notable for a number of reasons and already with some independent sources. And I agree with the above comment that it does not have an overly-promotional tone. There are only going to be more sources for this in the future. DaltonCastle (talk) 23:34, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. as promotional and as TOOSOON. It may possibly be notable when actually built, but there isn o way to determine that at this time. DGG ( talk ) 23:03, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vipinhari || talk 13:42, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Userfy. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 11:05, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Social Media Affects on Suicide

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

Smells of essay. And should it not be 'effects'? TheLongTone (talk) 13:42, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 14:43, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The student who wrote this asked me for feedback after they moved it to mainspace. If it's easier, we can move it back to their user sandbox and I can work with them to re-factor it and see where it would fit in an extant article. No one aside from them has made more than a nominal edit. Adam (Wiki Ed) (talk) 14:45, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Note left. I'm happy to perform this move and cleanup if there's no objection from the student or anyone else here. Let me know on my talk page or by pinging me here if that's amenable. Thanks. (Protonk) Adam (Wiki Ed) (talk) 14:49, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Userify, could become a decent section in an article some time, but not yet. Lacks wikification, not suitable for mainspace at this point. Also has a {{dashboard.wikiedu.org sandbox}} tag at the bottom! — crh ₂₃ (Talk) 16:54, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy and let experienced folks such as Adam (Wiki Ed) guide the student. LadyofShalott 23:00, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Further comment: Social media and suicide already exists and should be considered as a possible target for merger. LadyofShalott 23:15, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy sounds alright to me. Maybe with some work, this can be merged into the existing article. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 07:39, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by nominator ~~Userfy is fine by me. as commented, I think that this content is potentially useful & belongs somewhere, alto I am not sure that the propsed article is it.~~TheLongTone (talk) 13:36, 22 April 2016 (UTC)Hadn't seen LadyofShalott's comment...this is a clear merge candidate.TheLongTone (talk) 13:38, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Social media and suicide. The student can access the article from the history tab. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:54, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 22:21, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Air Canada Express Flight 7804

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

Seems to be a pretty insignificant incident; no major injuries, no hull loss TheLongTone (talk) 13:12, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Minor and not notable aviation incident....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 13:18, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 13:20, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 13:20, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 13:20, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 13:20, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Seems to be a minor and non-notable aviation incident. - Ahunt (talk) 13:41, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Certainly doesn't meet WP:NEVENT. The fact that the author didn't think the year of the accident was worth including inadvertently testifies to the short-term thinking here. ubiquity (talk) 15:37, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
delete WP:NOTNEWS. No fatalities nor major impacts. LibStar (talk) 15:53, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I think its a bit too soon to consider this article for deletion, especially since this incident just happened last night. Also, more details are emerging about the crash now, and the crash landing did lead to some structural damages. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RehmanK786 (talk • contribs) 16:03, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: WP:TOOSOON is a reason for deletion, not a reason to keep an article in case it becomes notable in the future. - Ahunt (talk) 16:15, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, WP:NOTNEWS. New, but still needs to satisfy WP:GNG. If somthing about it becomes notable, then we can have an article on it, but right now it doesn't satisfy the necessary criteria. — crh ₂₃ (Talk) 17:05, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Why do these authors think that an encyclopaedia wants or needs an article on every little non-event? Certainly NOT NOTABLE--Petebutt (talk) 13:10, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge content into the article on Exploits Valley Air Services, the operator of the flight. For that article, this would be a significant detail, worthy of a few sentences. However, a stand-alone article is not needed. --RFBailey (talk) 15:14, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Exploits Valley Air Services; not Notable for a stand-alone article and there is nothing to merge, because the Exploits Valley Air Services article already has identical content to the article under consideration. YSSYguy (talk) 14:52, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Completely unnotable.--Jetstreamer ^Talk 21:42, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia does not keep an article about every minor aviation incident that occurs at all — if people had died in this incident, then there would probably be a case for an article about it, but if everybody survives with only minor injuries at worst then enduring notability just isn't there. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 18:06, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as nothing else convincing to suggest a solid article. SwisterTwister talk 22:40, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sarahj2107 (talk) 09:03, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Poker Copilot

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

Non-notable software. —swpb^T 13:09, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 14:41, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as searches found nothing better. SwisterTwister talk 22:20, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete while this software gets hits on poker software review websites, those are not prestigious sources. No hits found on any more prestigious sources. Google Books turns up no relevant hits. Only thing Google Scholar turned up was a Bachelor's degree thesis in Finnish. I doubt that a Bachelor's degree thesis is a reliable source, and in any event, it barely mentions this software – it includes it in a lengthy list of poker software, and beyond mentioning it in that list doesn't appear to discuss it any further. SJK (talk) 03:51, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Indian Autorickshaw Challenge. MBisanz ^talk 21:01, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Per a discussion at the closer's talk page (diff), I have added the {{Afd-merge to}} template to the article. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:11, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Travel Scientists

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

Not enough independent coverage of the company to satisfy WP:GNG. PROD turned down. An event organized by the company, Indian Autorickshaw Challenge, MIGHT satisfy GNG, but that grants notability to the event, not the company (notability is not inherited). The only major independent reliable source was an angry press release by the government of Azerbaijan, but that's hardly "in depth" coverage and should not really count. Basically, very little can be said about the company that can not be included under the Rikshaw Challenge page. No longer a penguin (talk) 11:46, 21 April 2016 (UTC) No longer a penguin (talk) 11:46, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:53, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:53, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hungary-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:53, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Selective Merge to Indian Autorickshaw Challenge, which presently has no mention of The Travel Scientists or its involvement in the event. This will improve the merge target article per WP:PRESERVE. Several source searches did not provide enough coverage to qualify a standalone article about the company. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:59, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Contesting deletion Thank you for reviewing my very first Wikipedia page. While the suggestion to merge it with Indian Autorickshaw Challenge is logical, another reason why I believe it deserves its own namespace is because of other rallies known throughout Europe that it organizes: for example, The Baltic Run and other well-known events in addition to the Indian Autorickshaw Challenge. This is similar to a page Mongol Rally (unrelated to The Travel Scientists). — Preceding unsigned comment added by WordCowboy (talk • contribs) 10:30, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and Redirect as this is not independently notable and can be mentioned briefly there. SwisterTwister talk 22:05, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect. Their events may be notable, the company itself seems to fail WP:NCOMPANY. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:35, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sarahj2107 (talk) 09:02, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Fortis Battery Care

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

Inadequately-sourced article about a company. Fails WP:ORGDEPTH for lack of reliable sources that cover the company in depth. - Mr X 11:35, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:00, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:00, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete possibly under A7. Some types of business get attention and coverage, and others don't. Same with people. Teach for 30 years as an Assistant Professor and you don't get an article. Play one game of professional football and you do. Peridon (talk) 20:15, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and I would've explored PROD for deletion because this clearly has no signs of applicable notability. SwisterTwister talk 22:06, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete Rlendog (talk) 18:02, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Set-Up! (2016 film)

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

Non-notable independent film, no secondary coverage, does not meet WP:NF BOVINEBOY2008 11:18, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:01, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:01, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non-notable film by red-linked director; principal photography has not yet begun. Sam Sailor ^Talk! 17:19, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Another possibility is to move to draft space since it has either started filming or will begin willing filming very soon. It seems unlikely to satisfy WP:NFILM any time soon, however; there are no immediately obvious, relevant Google results except for social media. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 07:51, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

in looking:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Delete or Draftify or Userfy as even though the article tells us "Filming began on April 22, 2016 in Turpentine Road, New South Wales, Australia.", we need something more to meet WP:NFF (paragraph 3) for a started film. Simply TOO SOON at this juncture. It can always be resurrected when notability criteria are met. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 15:13, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as too soon for now. SwisterTwister talk 22:45, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 21:01, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Elijah Yates

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

Non notable rapper. He lacks coverage in independent reliable sources. duffbeerforme (talk) 10:37, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Provided references are press releases, blog posts, and other evidence of existence but not notability. Nothing better found for improvement. --Finngall ^talk 16:13, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Vipinhari || talk 16:17, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Vipinhari || talk 16:17, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Don't Delete - Found a highly notable reference for the artist by AllMusic which is the most creditable reference you can get I added the link to the page as well for this of you who don't know most data on All Music is provided by Rovi which is a company that only picks up notable data if the artist was included in the database the artist is more then notable since Rovi the industry leader in music when it comes to artist notability

Side note: I thought Discog was Notable as well I guess?

Link: http://www.allmusic.com/artist/elijah-yates-mn0003423368 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:3C4:4300:5F8F:F8AA:B41B:31AB:A735 (talk) 00:58, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Link: http://www.rovicorp.com

Delete for now at best as this is still questionable for solid independent notability, currently not convincing. SwisterTwister talk 22:46, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 02:24, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ralph Uptegraft III

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

I believe this to be a hoax as searching appears to only link this name with the song here, and the song writers are given differently on a lyrics site. I also find it hard to understand how one can be shot in the immune system. Peridon (talk) 10:28, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The creator of the article has also added the claim of authorship at Never Been to Spain. Peridon (talk) 10:33, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The Hoyt Axton article says he was the author, but the claim isn't sourced there either. -- GB fan 12:10, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 14:37, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I can't even find any evidence for the existence of this R U III except the two articles here. No evidence at all for R U Jr, and very little for any other R U. Peridon (talk) 20:24, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Reference tags have been added with people's names in them. They are not proper references. Unless something changes this is an easy delete. -- GB fan 20:51, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Strong speedy delete as a blatant nonsense hoax from an SPA. I believe the Los Angeles Times is a conclusive enough source to put this to rest. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 21:01, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete entirely as nothing at all convincing. SwisterTwister talk 22:49, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 22:17, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Paul The Ball

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

Fails WP:GNG. In the custom Google WP:VG/RS search engine, "paul the ball" brings up three hits from Metacritic. References listed are app stores and the game's website. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 08:56, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 08:56, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

— Note to closing admin: Suonamor (talk • contribs) appears to have a close connection with the subject of the article being discussed.

Developer of Paul The Ball is Paul Romanous; username Suonamor spelled backwards. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 09:03, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Article topic lacks significant coverage from reliable, independent sources. (?) It had no meaningful hits in a video game reliable sources custom Google search. There are no worthwhile redirect targets. If someone finds more (non-English and offline) sources, please {{ping}} me. czar 14:46, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as nothing confirming the necessary independent notability. SwisterTwister talk 22:12, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The article does not meet the notability guideline, due to the lack of coverage from our reliable sources. AdrianGamer (talk) 15:48, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to National D-Day Memorial. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:57, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Raymond Hoback

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

CSD declined due to "credible claim of significance". Absolutely no indication of notability Gbawden (talk) 08:04, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I agree that there is no claim of significance asserted in the article (I also tagged it for speedy). However, there are sources out there writing about the "Bedford Boys", of which Hoback was part. I think the best solution would be to add a section about the Bedford Boys to the National D-Day Memorial article, then redirect this there.--Mojo Hand (talk) 14:29, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 14:36, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 14:36, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ - 160,000 troops landed on D-Day. Operation Overlord only mentions 2 below general officer rank, and no enlisted men. Category:Operation Overlord lists 3 biographies, only one of an enlisted man (himself of dubious notability). No notability beyond his death on D-Day. With regret, delete. Bazj (talk) 18:41, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect in light of Mojo's work on National D-Day Memorial. Bazj (talk) 14:47, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. This article is new and a stub. I would like to see if this article can be improved with attention from someone who is an expert. Then the issue can be revisited. Postcard Cathy (talk) 03:28, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to National D-Day Memorial. I added a section about the "Bedford Boys" to that article. Raymond Hoback is mentioned as one of two brothers from Bedford who landed at Normandy - both Hoback brother were killed.--Mojo Hand (talk) 21:32, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to National D-Day Memorial. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:30, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Soldier killed in action just like millions of others. Utterly NN. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:16, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as this is still questionable for a solid separate article. SwisterTwister talk 22:50, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sarahj2107 (talk) 09:00, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Kyle Schempp

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

fails WP:NHOCKEY Joeykai (talk) 07:47, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 14:36, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 14:36, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 14:36, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - not seeing evidence of notability. Rlendog (talk) 17:37, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as currently still questionable for solid independent notability. SwisterTwister talk 22:50, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:34, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Angela Wright

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

• Non-notable person who ran a company that went broke in 2015 without ever achieving any notice in the press that I can see, other than their filing for liquidation.
• Article is ~~entirely unsourced~~ (except for the one ref about liquidation I just added).
• Possible WP:COI: one editor has a username similar to the article subject. Mathglot (talk) 07:45, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 14:35, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 14:35, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

notifications: Notified all non-bot users with more than 1 edit: Rich Farmbrough (creator) (T, c), Tonyinman (T, c), A wright27 (T, c). Mathglot (talk) 19:06, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:ANYBIO winner of major award. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 19:12, 21 April 2016 (UTC).[reply]
Delete as aside from this apparent award, there's nothing else to suggest a better article with better improvements. SwisterTwister talk 05:26, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Per Rich F. Quality and notability are two different things. I agree article quality is weak, but that is not grounds for deletion. Queen's Award for Enterprise Promotion is a major award, and am noting that the list article has all recipients linked, with about half blue at a rough glance. This is a person of adequate notability and even though the company is now defunct, that is not an issue, many notable people have failed enterprises. Montanabw ^(talk) 23:02, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I agree with Rich F. Moscowamerican (talk) 04:59, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Farmbrough has said it all.--DThomsen8 (talk) 15:04, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

DeleteLittle or nothing to suggest notability, other than questionable 'national' award for 'local' business people which hasn't been demonstrated to confer notability on recipients. Reads more like a Linkedin resume rather than an article. Tonyinman (talk) 21:14, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. No consensus for a particular action has arisen in this discussion. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:33, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

UCLA Health System

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

Non-notable bureaucratic subunit, not much in sources about bureaucracy itself. Article creator admits that topic has received "very little independent" coverage. Regards, James(^talk/_contribs) 03:58, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:11, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:11, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:11, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as there's nothing to actually suggest solid independent notability, still questionable to keep as its own article thus delete. SwisterTwister talk 06:12, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The UCLA Health System is not a department or sub-unit of UCLA. It is associated with a medical school on campus, it is in complex ways interwoven with the campus, but it is primarily a health care company which plans, as the article states, to expand in the LA County and serve 4 million people. That is pretty notable. The expansion of UCLA Health System is in full swing, triggered by the Affordable Care Act, and will accelerate in the near future. The somewhat arcane and hard to find governance changes highlighted in the article prepare for this corporate expansion. The budget of the UCLA Health system equals that of the entire rest of the campus. http://ucop.edu/institutional-research-academic-planning/_files/workforce-profiles/workforce-profile-2012.pdf chart 25 shows that for 2012, 50 % of all FTE positions at UCLA were funded through the Health System ("Hospital/Health Science Funds"). It is notable, right?
Argument for distinctiveness: 1) they have different URLS (ucla.edu vs uclahealth.org). 2) The State of California, Employment Development Department, list of major employers in Los Angeles list UCLA and UCLA Health as distinct entities [10]. If the state keeps them apart, Wikipedia should not mix them up
Argument for notability (published sources): Joseph A Michelli: Prescription for excellence: leadership lessons for creating a world-class customer experience from UCLA Health System published by McGraw Hill in New York in 2011. The book has been translated into Chinese. This is a widely published author who has also written books about Starbucks, Ritz Hotels, Zappos (shoes), Merzedes Benz, etc. See Joseph_Michelli, that article does not mention the author's lack of independence (to address Mark viking qualms below)
Argument for consistency: Because many other campus affiliated health care centers have their own Wikipedia articles. (see Category https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Academic_health_science_centres and the list in Academic_health_science_centre where approx 40 such centers for the USA are listed with WPlinks) Velocipedus (talk) 06:50, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Velocipedus: Casting multiple !votes is not appropriate. I've modified your comments for clarity. Please review Wikipedia:Articles for deletion#Contributing to AfD discussions before contributing further. Regards, James(^talk/_contribs) 18:30, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to University of California, Los Angeles#Healthcare, where it is discussed. The UCLA Health system is notable for a massive data breach [11], [12], [13] that made the national news, but I have been unable to find independent reliable sources on the health system itself. The book mentioned by Velocipedus is about the institution, but but doesn't look to be independent. No prejudice to re-creation if multiple independent RS become available. --Mark viking (talk) 08:36, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- I would be in favor of this proposal in the alternative. Regards, James(^talk/_contribs) 00:23, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:52, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I believe it is a huge organization, and it does not merely serve students, faculty and staff of UCLA, the university. Some statistics on its size (doctors, staff, patients served, revenues, assets, square footage) would definitely help. But it includes four hospitals, listed in the article, each of which is individually notable. Ergo the larger organization is notable. --do ncr am 05:50, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Notable enough. Fairly large organization that goes far beyond the scope of UCLA. DaltonCastle (talk) 01:09, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 07:44, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Sarahj2107 (talk) 08:59, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Imfact

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

The topic of this article fails WP:GNG. Prod contested by Kvng. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 14:30, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Notability established by [14] and [15]. ~Kvng (talk) 14:33, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Random86 (talk) 18:46, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. Random86 (talk) 18:46, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Allkpop is not a reliable source. Mail Today has this sentence: "The band will also perform with the likes of Imfact, 100%, Teen Top, Bestie, Almeng and singer Hyemin Jung." Imfact may be notable, but these references do not support that. Random86 (talk) 01:05, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as too soon, not enough coverage and information to suggest solid notability. SwisterTwister talk 19:31, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:55, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:BAND criterion #2 -- debut EP Lollipop has appeared on Korean album charts per [16]. --Finngall ^talk 22:31, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete - notability is questionable. I would leave it at too early to tell. DaltonCastle (talk) 00:42, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per WP:BAND #2. They've had an album on Korean album charts. That alone establishes notability. Whether you think they're just a flash in the pan is irrelevant and is not a good argument in AfD. Smartyllama (talk) 17:43, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 07:44, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. In addition to ranking on South Korea's national album chart, the group has also been subject to coverage which assert notability: [17] [18] [19]. — ξ ^xplicit 00:13, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. This falls under "Nominations which are clearly an attempt to end an editing dispute through deletion (possibly in an attempt to game the system), when dispute resolution would be a more appropriate course." Nominator wanted page protection due to edit war following DYK appearance, and when that didn't happen and someone said it should be deleted, they responded ~~"let's test that"~~ [Edit: "If you believe the page should be deleted, we should resolve that question immediately."] Fences&Windows 23:34, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Education of the British Royal Family

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

This is a procedural RfD as per a suggestion for deletion advanced after a long community discussion at WP:RPP and is advanced on behalf of a communal segment supporting deletion and not the nominator per se. LavaBaron (talk) 07:37, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I created the article, but must now reluctantly AfD it. The article is being repeatedly, thoroughly, whitewashed through multiple and repeated blankings [20] of large sections of sourced text, in some cases invoking the argument that "it's her [the Queen's] 90th birthday" [21]. The article has attracted a large influx of editors with various userboxes indicating fandom of this celebrity family who appear intent on obliterating sourced content without discussion, even overriding active RfCs in the process. As this situation can't be remedied, WP:PROMOTIONAL demands the article be deleted; we can't host vanity articles on WP and this article only has the potential to become a vanity article. LavaBaron (talk) 07:45, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Will you stop wasting everyone's time with vague RfCs and now an AfD? It's obviously a notable subject on which there's unquestionably scholarship [22][23]. Just because you've been unable to maintain it as the hatchet job you meant it to be isn't a reason to delete. E Eng 07:50, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi EE, I'm sorry you feel that way, however, articles can be deleted for reasons other than GNG as per WP:DEL-REASON. This article should be properly deleted under criterion 3 which covers "advertising or other spam without any relevant or encyclopedic content." The repeated blankings and trimming of the article by this celebrity's highly devoted fans have rendered it an article without encyclopedic content and it should be deleted. Thanks for your kind words. My very best to you - LavaBaron (talk) 07:53, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

My words aren't kind. I wish I could say I'm sure you know that your reasoning is nonsense, but instead I must say it's quite possible you actually believe it. You're wasting everyone's time because you're unable to control the article. Now please do you have the last word -- I'm unwatching since the outcome here is a foregone conclusion. E Eng 08:01, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Despite directly telling me you are being un-WP:CIVIL, I'm going to AGF that was a typo and you meant to say "you're a good-looking guy, LavaBaron" but your fingers slipped on the keyboard. My warmest and most congenial regards to you, EE, and sincerest wishes for your prosperity and good fortune - LavaBaron (talk) 08:05, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, forgot to unwatch. I'm not telling you I'm not being civil -- I'm telling you I'm not being kind i.e. not smilingly saying how helpful your activities are, when they're not. Nonetheless as a matter of general principle it won't distress me if prosperity and good fortune stumble your way. E Eng 14:33, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Because I don't think the article has the potential to be anything other than what it is right now. Also, where does it stop? Marriages of the British Royal Family, Pregnancies of the British Royal Family, Deaths of the British Royal Family – like education these have all been covered at length in reliable sources, but at this point you are merely creating a database of things already mentioned in the royal biographies, which is one of the things Wikipedia is WP:NOT. Firebrace (talk) 08:18, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Firebrace - you mean like Finances of the British Royal Family, List of Royal Warrant holders of the British Royal Family, Military service by the members of the British Royal Family, Genealogy of the British Royal Family, Cadency labels of the British royal family, List of godchildren of members of the British Royal Family, List of honours of the British Royal Family by country, etc.? LavaBaron (talk) 08:58, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I would get rid of most of those articles, yes. Firebrace (talk) 09:13, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete While there are sources that discuss the education of individual members of the family, the "education of the royal family" as a whole is not really a topic that is covered by itself in reliable sources and so the article is largely synthesis. The article also gives a false impression because before the Second World War, people typically left school at 14 and if you go just a few decades further back many, many people did not go to school at all or had education so rudimentary that today it would be considered shameful. On that basis, the education of the family then was considerably better when comparing private tuition to what was available to everyone else. The article however is deliberately skewed to try to present the education of the family as lacking, and so it is also POV, not neutral and unrepresentative of reality. At worst, the education they received is not noticeably different from that of any suitably comparable group at the time. Celia Homeford (talk) 08:49, 21 April 2016 (UTC)— Celia Homeford (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. -- That is simply a lie. I've only made two edits to the article, one of which was to correct a typo. Celia Homeford (talk) 11:55, 21 April 2016 (UTC) -- Celia seems to have started editing 8 days ago and has mostly edited similar topics. The {{spa}} tag is appropriate in such circumstances though we should, of course, allow that her interest in the matter may be genuine and legitimate. Andrew D. (talk) 12:23, 21 April 2016 (UTC) The tag is obviously an attempt to discredit an opponent and it is simply disingenuous to pretend otherwise. Celia Homeford (talk) 12:37, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

start indenting The user Celia Homeford protests at the use of the {{spa}} tag. This account started editing on 13 April, 8 days ago. On 18 April, they made an edit with the summary "style guide has been stable for years". They should please explain how it is that a new account has such familiarity with past years. Andrew D. (talk) 12:47, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I simply clicked on the links given in the old paragraph about the style guide and saw that the discussion was years old and then examined the history of the style guide and saw that it had not been edited for years. Celia Homeford (talk) 13:53, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Responding to Celia's reasoning... You're right that the article tries hard to cast the royal family in a poor light. But that's not a reason to delete the article, but rather a reason to fix it. There are at least two serious major works specifically on the topic -- see my earlier post (and likely journal articles as well, but trying searching British royal family education -- you're inundated reports by royal commissions on education policy and so on) so notability as a standalone topic is clear. E Eng 14:33, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The topic is clearly notable as there's an entire book about it: Royal Education: Past, Present, and Future. The poor quality of the first draft is not a reason to delete per our editing policy. As the nominator created the article, the nomination seems to be a case of WP:POINT. Andrew D. (talk) 11:46, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A case in POINT, you might say. E Eng 14:33, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 14:33, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 14:33, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 14:33, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There appears to be some content dispute between editors, but the topic is notable. See, e.g., Andrzej Olechnowicz, The Monarchy and the British Nation, 1780 to the Present (Cambridge University Press, 2007, p. 19: "Historians have also assessed how well royal education has prepared monarchs for their political and ceremonial role. ..." There is also another whole book on the subject (in addition to that referenced above): Aysha Pollnitz, Princely Education in Early Modern Britain (Cambridge University Press, 2015). Neutrality^talk 15:12, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Great source Neutrality. I'm adding it now. I also sourced and added a peer-reviewed journal article earlier (I think the fanboys deleted that, too, because it was less than celebratory and "it's her [the Queen's] 90th birthday" [24]. LavaBaron (talk) 16:10, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - topic seems sufficiently notable. Article probably needs some serious rewriting though, "Assessment" section looks especially dubious at first glance.--Staberinde (talk) 15:46, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - there are more than enough reliable sources to make the topic notable. Its handling could definitely be improved, but since AfD is not for cleanup, the article's current state need not concern us here. Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:12, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - as others have said, the article is far from perfect. Editors are having difficulty achieving consensus about what it should contain, and which sources are reliable. However the topic is notable enough for an article and it's been much improved over the course of today. We shouldn't delete what could be a good article just because it's proving somewhat controversial amongst a few editors. Neiltonks (talk) 17:52, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

After repeatedly being told I'm a partisan liar and attempting to destroy the Royal Family and we need to delete any unflattering information from the article because "it's her [the Queen's] 90th birthday" [25], it's nice to get this validation that my article is a good one. Thanks,Neiltonks. LavaBaron (talk) 20:17, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Neiltonks said it "could be a good article", not that it is one. Also note Philafrenzy's comment that the article "Has a lot of problems." It needs work. Parkwells (talk) 21:51, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A most charitable way of putting it, to be sure. And to the extent it's what LavaBaron calls "his" article, here's what it looked like when he created it -- warning, prepare yourself before clicking! -- [26]. E Eng 22:44, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Easily passes WP:GNG. Edwardx (talk) 22:06, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Has a lot of problems but clearly is a notable topic. Philafrenzy (talk) 23:39, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per the above, a topic that rather a lot of ink has been spent on over the years by historians and biographers, and inherently notable and interesting (both from monarchist and republican perspectives). Smurrayinchester 11:05, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 11:04, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Timeline of video game console releases in North America

NOTE: moved to Timeline of video game console releases. R.F. 2016-04-28Z13:11

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

Redundant and does not cover the article title's topic. This list is mostly about the U.S. and Canada, probably not, you know, North America. Besides the main article History of video games (not just video game consoles), there are video game generation specific articles that mention release of video game consoles. Second generation of video game consoles#Home systems for instance, that also list other regions. For region-specific information, there are also articles on Video gaming in the United States and Video gaming in Canada, which are more than just a table of chronological console releases. As the template {{North America in topic}} shows, there isn't much written currently on countries besides these two. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 09:51, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I can't find the right way to show the "Video gaming in..." template, it can be seen here.soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 09:54, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 09:54, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:08, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:08, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not understanding how this nomination presents a deletion argument at all. If there were notable console releases in North America that aren't included in this timeline, add them. The rest of your comment actually undermines your claim that it's "redundant"; if you have to go to half a dozen different articles for the same information, none of which actually distill and compile it together in the manner this timeline presents, then it isn't very redundant. Unless you're simply against timelines generally...? postdlf (talk) 20:04, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think the topic as presented here is more notable than many other timelines, as reliable sources love compiling timelines of video game consoles as released in the united states. See [27] and [28] for examples. Whether the scope is inappropriate, I would support the idea of renaming the list to Timeline of video game console releases in the United States. ~Mable (chat) 09:36, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- But that's the thing, because video gaming and the video game industry largely originated from the United States, there's a huge overlap with History of video games and the video game console generations listed {{Video game consoles}}. List of home video game consoles and List of handheld game consoles also mention the regions where the consoles were released. I did just remove the actual timeline, because the list is about the video game console releases, not about the video game console generations or when they were commercially available. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 12:42, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:54, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

- - I see the fact that History of video games mostly presents information from an American point of view as its biggest flaw, honestly, rather than the natural result of a medium originated from the United States. Either way: Looking at List of home video game consoles, it indeed seems like that article does a better job of presenting the timeline of consoles in the United States than the article under discussion does. I think it may be proper to redirect Timeline of video game console releases in North America to that list.
  - Additionally, it may be valuable to add somekind of visual timeline to the article in this manner, but that's just a suggestion. ~Mable (chat) 06:25, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    - I did just remove the graphical timeline from Timeline of video game console releases in North America, as that shows when they were commercially available. That can also be easily explained by text, or possibly in a sidebar, instead of a huge graphical timeline. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 07:15, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      - Visualizing information can have its own advantages and could help readers understand the content better. Regardless, I don't feel particularly strongly about it – it just seemed like an obvious thing to do here. ~Mable (chat) 07:25, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I just don't see any valid reasons for deletion. It's a valid subject, including items that all have their own articles, organized in a manner that makes sense, that can be source-able. It needs better formatting and sourcing, but its a valid list. Sergecross73 msg me 13:04, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- The subject is "timeline of video game console releases in North America", right? The graphic timeline I took out was about the retail availability of consoles, not the actual releases. So a more appropriate title would be List of video game console releases in North America. But is North America actually covered? For instance, for the Xbox One it says November 22, 2013. But the source used at Xbox One says the release date of November 22, 2013 is, amongst other countries, Canada, Mexico and the United States. That's a total of three out of the 23 North American countries. The SNES was discontinued in the U.S. in 1999, but what about the other 22 countries? We could title it again as List of video game console releases in the United States, but with articles like Video gaming in the United States, List of home video game consoles and List of handheld game consoles that's already covered. Those are already properly sourced, list every region, also with technical details and units sold. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 08:44, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - The hsitory/timeline of console releases in Mexico (for example) may not even warrant the same kind of notability as the United States does. The same goes for the smaller countries. ~Mable (chat) 09:27, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    - I agree, but in that case "North America" isn't the right geographical subject. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 09:46, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      - I understand your concern in theory, but isn't this an issue affecting pretty much how WP:VG handles video game releases in general? I mean, every time we get confirmation of a Japanese game getting a "North American release", its mostly talking about US/Canada, and isn't necessarily confirming a release in every individual region in Central America, right? I mean, when Persona Qs article says that it received a North American release, its not necessarily confirming it received a specific Guatamala release, right? I guess I'm unsure how this issue is specific to this particular article? Or maybe I'm wrong, I can't say I've ever given it much thought... Sergecross73 msg me 15:33, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- I personally don't care much about the "geographical subject" argument – to me, that is simply an argument to rename the list. Soetermans convinced me that this timeline article was redundant by asking what value it adds to List of home video game consoles. Sergecross, why do you think we should keep both articles? ~Mable (chat) 17:28, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - agree with above arguments, no valid reason for deletion. DaltonCastle (talk) 00:45, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

C'mon @DaltonCastle:, I've provided several arguments. If you do not agree, you have to say more than that. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 05:51, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@DaltonCastle:, would you mind explaining why we should keep it? soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 07:14, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Have you considered a merge proposal? I think that might be a good way to solve it. DaltonCastle (talk) 07:17, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your quick reply, @DaltonCastle:. Thing is, List of home video game consoles and List of handheld game consoles show the initial release date, while the generations listed at {{Video game consoles}} show the release dates with more additional info. I'm not sure where it could be merged. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 07:23, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Just my two cents here: I'd put the one list below the other on the same page. It is helpful as a complete view of how they were developed; not just with respect to generation. You could have the section titled "Complete list of releases" at the bottom of the article. DaltonCastle (talk) 07:28, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

~~Weak Keep~~ (changed to weak delete -- see below) - Clearly this should be renamed Timeline of video game consoles in the United States, but it doesn't seem like it's necessarily redundant or needs to be merged (and certainly doesn't seem like it needs to be deleted). So we have History of video games which is all prose and broader than the US. Video gaming in the United States is likewise prose-based, though does have a major section with a chronological structure. The question there is whether it would make sense to merge a table-based or graphical timeline of video game consoles in the United States into that article? I'd weakly say it does not. That article could be seriously expanded, and if a big table or graphic were added in, it would be potentially redundant and, if it's anything like the page under discussion here, take up an undue amount of space on the page for what it offers. This timeline could thus be understood as basically a WP:SPINOUT from that article (again, once renamed to focus on the U.S.). I don't think the generational and other sub-type lists and timelines are sufficiently comparable to matter to this discussion. I will say that I think an ideal direction would be to just turn this article into a Timeline of video game consoles and include much more international detail. That's a big ask, though. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 13:35, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- @Rhododendrites: What do you think is the difference between the scope of your theoretical Timeline of video game consoles and the already existing List of home video game consoles? Both list worldwide console releases by year and generation. ~Mable (chat) 21:03, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - Oh dear, good point. Apparently I followed every link but the most important one. Yeah, so all this one adds is NA (US) release date. The other list could easily be modified to include such information without the need to duplicate all the rest of the content. I've struck my !vote above. Weak Delete as effectively duplicate content. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 21:23, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 07:32, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Identical in scope to List of home video game consoles. Redirect if necessary, but I see no reason to keep the unsourced content or use the title as a redirect. czar 15:28, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep-I actually find this pretty useful to be honest. Wgolf (talk) 03:06, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- @Wgolf: I know I'm asking this to everyone who !votes "keep", but that's because I still don't feel like I got a good answer out of it. What do you think the added value is of this list when we already have the List of home video game consoles, which is also presented in a timeline-like format? ~Mable (chat) 08:31, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - @Wgolf: Saying WP:ITSUSEFUL without explaining why it's useful doesn't help the deletion discussion. Like Mable pointed out, there's a huge overlap with List of home video game consoles. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 07:14, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Czar above. We don't need a separate page covering the same thing. AdrianGamer (talk) 16:02, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as still questionable for a solid separate article. SwisterTwister talk 22:56, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge per everyone above, having a chronology is good, but the location seems fairly irrelevant. Note: no prejudice to re-creation if sufficient information is found, we do not want a release date for all 206 states of the world on one table. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 13:08, 28 April 2016 (UTC).[reply]
- Hi @Rich Farmbrough:, even with the new title Timeline of video game console releases, there still a huge overlap with List of home video game consoles and List of handheld game consoles, both of which are chronologically ordered already. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 10:46, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 22:13, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sonichu (Comic)

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

No indication of subject's notability. The article's subject is Sonichu, a comic written by Christian Weston Chandler, who himself was the subject of several articles deleted in the past five years. The sources that can be found on the comic are generally unreliable Internet media, e.g. blogs, Youtube, wikis--the comic has never been mentioned in any reliable online or print media. 0xF8E8 (talk) 07:27, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Downright kind compared to the litany of past AfD'ed and speedied versions, but under the title alone without (Comic) appended, it has been protected for six years; clearly evasion of that block, along with a SPA editor in CwCCHANsonichu (talk · contribs) who clearly isn't here for any other manner (their two edits on the retired Falcons quarterback Chris Chandler's article to be about the comic author are clearly WP:BLP-violating). No improvement in notability except in negative terms. Nate • (chatter) 16:18, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for the reasons mentioned above. I also assume that if you went digging around the accounts that created Sonichu and Christian Weston Chandler you'd unearth over half a dozen sockpuppets. Emperor (talk) 04:43, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Emperor (talk) 04:49, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as still questionable for the necessary improvements including notability. SwisterTwister talk 22:59, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 22:11, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

International HIV Fund

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

The previous AfD didn't receive any comments, perhaps because it was not set up properly. I'm repeating it on behalf of the previous nominator, Rathfelder (talk · contribs), who wrote: "Doesn't appear to exist any more. Not clear that it was notable. No external references of any consequence". This is a procedural renomination, I am neutral. Sandstein 07:21, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:06, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:06, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:06, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:07, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I couldn't find any independent coverage of this organisation. They have been removed from the charities register, without any information having been submitted to describe their activity prior to this [29]. There are no reliable sources in the article, so doesn't pass WP:ORGDEPTH. Drchriswilliams (talk) 13:42, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - lacks coverage in reliable sources, notability not established.--Staberinde (talk) 15:29, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Available sources do not establish notability per WP:ORGDEPTH or WP:GNG.--Ddcm8991 (talk) 19:03, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as not yet convincing for the necessary better improvements, the article is not currently convincing to actually keep. SwisterTwister talk 22:27, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sarahj2107 (talk) 08:58, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Grant Jacobsen

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

fails WP:NHOCKEY Joeykai (talk) 07:13, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. Vipinhari || talk 16:24, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Vipinhari || talk 16:24, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - not seeing evidence of notability. Rlendog (talk) 17:38, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as still questionable for the notability improvements. SwisterTwister talk 23:00, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Rlendog (talk) 17:58, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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. Sarahj2107 (talk) 08:58, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sebastien LaPlante

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

fails WP:NHOCKEY Joeykai (talk) 07:12, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. Vipinhari || talk 16:25, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Vipinhari || talk 16:25, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - not seeing evidence of notability. Rlendog (talk) 17:39, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as still questionable for the applicable notability. SwisterTwister talk 23:01, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Quebec-related deletion discussions. Kyle1278 (talk) 10:49, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Rlendog (talk) 18:10, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The article is found to be a hoax, and is therefore unsuitable for inclusion. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 11:02, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Turane Jutu

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

The article is a hoax. No such person named Turane Jutu has ever existed. The sources in the article point to nowhere. Turane Jutu is not even a Turkish name. This is all just one big joke. Can't believe this article has survived for this long. But please, be my guest and correct me if I'm wrong. Étienne Dolet (talk) 07:03, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Hi @EtienneDolet: There are so many reliable sources to establish this persons notability that I can’t imagine anyone saying this is a made up article. I’m asking Checkingfax into this discussion too as I’m not exactly sure what AfD policies you’re following in nominating this article and am at a loss to understand this. Anyway, you can begin here with the book Turkish People of Armenian Descent^[1] to read more about him or the Armenians in Sweden group Armeniska^[2] you can read too about him. ^[3] Thanks. Picomtn (talk) 08:21, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ https://books.google.com/books/about/Turkish_People_of_Armenian_Descent.html?id=Jym2cQAACAAJ
^ http://www.armeniska.se/index.php/en/organisation/history
^ http://www.genocide1915.org/ogonvittnen_diplomater.html

Comment That "book" is nothing but Wikipedia content. I can't find anything about Turane Jutu in your second link. As for your third link, that website was most likely created after the Wikipedia article, so that info is probably copied from it. Also, this deletion is perfectly reasonable considering that all the sources cited in the article don't point to this "Turane Jutu" person. I have yet to have encountered a source that attests to his existence. Étienne Dolet (talk) 08:41, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Reply Hi @EtienneDolet: Yes, I do understand your concerns regarding the citing of a book relying on Wikipedia content, but that doesn’t make it unreliable. And here are two other books that cite this person.^[1]^[2] The second link was to the organization behind the third link, and I would think that if anyone was able to verify the validity of this person they would, which they did in the third link. I will admit though that there does exist a sort of circular-chain of facts regarding this subject, but is not at all unusual when dealing with controversial subject matter (Armenia genocide) and witnesses to it. I would have rather seen this article submitted for improvement rather than be nominated for deletion due to its subjects (maybe) historical importance, and would require a very extensive research effort utilizing academic papers/articles/books, etc. not available on the internet, and which I’m going to access as time permits. Thanks. Picomtn (talk) 09:51, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ http://www.betterworldbooks.com/witnesses-of-the-armenian-genocide-id-115583982X.aspx
^ http://www.amazon.com/Witnesses-Armenian-Genocide-Including-Morgenthau/dp/B007S796K8

Those two books are also simply collections of Wikipedia articles. Both Books LLC and Hephaestus Books have the business model of copying all the Wikipedia articles in a category and calling the result a book and the articles chapters, and then printing on demand if anyone is gullible enough to stump up the exhorbitant price. Of course this makes them unreliable as sources for Wikipedia, because to use them would mean that we are citing ourselves. I would also strongly suspect that the non-book links that you gave above use Wikipedia as a source. They certainly post-date our article. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 11:29, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I would change that last statement from "I would also strongly suspect" to "I am as good as certain". The text of the Armenians in Sweden source is almost identical to ours. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 12:23, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

They are not two books, they are the same book. Doug Weller talk 15:36, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

They are two books with the same title, and probably the same content, which is unsurprising because each of those publishers uses Wikipedia category names as titles. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 15:41, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note Again, I’m not disagreeing with any assertion being made, just cautioning that EXTREME prudence needs to be exercised when dealing with this articles subject, especially when viewed in the light of today’s news^[1] showing yet another major attempt by Turkish supporters to suppress knowledge of the Armenian Genocide. And, with this article being nominated for deletion, instead of improvement by WP experts, on the same day as this is happening can lead to many questions. I hope you (and others) fully understand these concerns. Thanks. Picomtn (talk) 13:19, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ https://www.rt.com/news/340446-wsj-ad-denies-armenian-genocide/

AfD withdrawal request Hi @Étienne Dolet: (cc Checkingfax Amatulic Doug Weller) I was wondering if you would consider Wikipedia:Articles for deletion#Procedure for non-administrator close (nominator withdrawal) for this article and, instead, submit it for improvement? My reason for making this request is due to information on your talk page (examples: User talk:EtienneDolet#Armenia page and User talk:EtienneDolet#Kinaliada) that could lead others to believe that you have a pro-Turkish, anti-Armenia and/or anti-Russian stance—which I’m certainly not alleging, just pointing out to you that maybe someone else should be reviewing this article. Thanks. Picomtn (talk) 14:39, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

How can a discussion in which Étienne didn't take part and was not about him, and another discussion in which he supported the position that an island had historically been mainly inhabited by Armenians rather than Turks, possibly be construed by anyone as him having a pro-Turkish or anti-Armenian stance? I'm sure that there are plenty of Turkish nationalists who would assume the reverse, for which there is also no evidence. As I have said elsewhere, you really need to learn some of the basics about the English Wikipedia, such as that it is not the American Wikipedia and that articles can't be sourced to themselves, before you start offering advice to experienced editors. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 16:03, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Question Hi @Étienne Dolet: On 27 October 2015 you edited this article adding content to it, but today you say this article is a hoax--what happened to change your mind in the past 6 months? Thanks. Picomtn (talk)

Try looking at what Étienne did 6 months ago. It certainly wasn't adding content, so there would have been no reason for him to check whether this was a hoax or not. You should be thanking him for noticing now that it is a hoax, which nobody else noticed in nearly 9 years, rather than questioning his motivation, which is obviously to improve Wikipedia. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 16:31, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per my comments above, and, in looking for other sources, I can find nothing that isn't copied from or sourced to Wikipedia. It is precisely because this general subject area is controversial that we need to be extra-careful about not hosting misinformation. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 15:29, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Armenia-related deletion discussions. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 15:38, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I tried to add this to the Turkey deletion list but for some reason couldn't save it. Could someone else please do that? 86.17.222.157 (talk) 15:38, 21 April 2016 (UTC) [reply]

Done. Doug Weller talk 15:54, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete If I had found this article prior to the AfD I might have deleted it as a hoax. The sources I can check that qualify as RS don't mention him. Jody Rosen is real but she writes about pop culture. This source[30] is about birth control, Black Americans and genocide with no evidence it mentions him (see this review[31]) Can anyone find any discussion of this name in reliable sources? Doug Weller talk 15:54, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Doug Weller: No, this name in its present form cannot be relied upon and from just the most basic of my research shows that Turane was created as a form of the word truth, while the Jutu appears to be a designation of a present day Iranian village named Jitu, and when putting these two words together (very roughly) would mean the truth teller from Jitu. This, of course, violates (extremely) WP:OR, but also points to this person maybe being a Turkish army officer named Lieutenant Sayied Ahmed Moukhtar whose statement about this genocide was documented by the British.^[1] As to if this is the person this article is about I honestly don’t know, but many weeks, maybe months, will have to be spent figuring it out which is why I’m advocating (at least for awhile) that this article remain intact. If my (or others) additional research doesn’t bear out these facts then of course this article should go, but what’s the hurry? Thanks. Picomtn (talk) 16:34, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ http://www.armenian-genocide.org/br-12-26-16_1.html

Because as it is it's a hoax, with fake sources. We shouldn't allow that. If you want to create a new article about this real person that's great. Doug Weller talk 16:41, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Doug Weller: Yes, I'm going to create a new article due to new ANI information I recieved that suggests this article is a blending (their words not mine) of various Turkish officers, not one single individual. Thanks. Picomtn (talk)

Picomtn, please take a step back and think about what you are saying. Wikipedia is based on verifiability, not ridiculous tenuous connections whose probability of being true is lower than negligible. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 16:49, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

And our article says that the subject was born in Van Province in Turkey. Jitu is a small village hundreds of miles from there in Iran south-east of Tehran. What possible connection could there be between them? 86.17.222.157 (talk) 17:21, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Reference 3 is fake - the cited page 36 in "The Armenian Genocide: History, Politics, Ethics" by Richard G Hovannisian, is about the Crimean War. Reference 6, Bloxham, 'On the Memory of the Armenian Genocide', p.98, is probably also fake, it is an article not a book and there is no page 98 in it. The article is available here [32]. I don't have access, but its page numbers are 74-86. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 19:05, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

So yes it's fairly certain its a hoax article, but I'd have left it alone since it has survived for sooooh long - 8 1/2 years! Only its creator will know its purpose - the creation of a harmless example to show Wikipedia's ability to spread misinformation into other sources perhaps. If it is deleted, I wonder how long it will take for the misinformation to vanish from the internet. I don't know anything of the Wikipedia history of Tugbaa, Zumoki, Artaxiad (and whoever else he went by - the list of names is long) but it might be interesting to explore that history. He got a year for this, his last non-sockpuppet post: [33] The other two editors are still around, though I hope not still abusing Wikilinks. I'd have said wikilink abuse like this (linking Armenian Genocide to "Libel") is far worse than calling someone a "fag" while correcting that abuse, but an administrator thought different. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 19:38, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – Tiptoethrutheminefield was canvassed here by the AfD nom EtienneDolet with this prejudicial invitation. Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 21:22, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You got to be kidding. That's hardly a WP:CANVASS. Tiptoe is welcome to vote keep or delete. I could care less. But the article is junk regardless of whether it survives or not. Étienne Dolet (talk) 21:34, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

And you, Checkingfax, were invited here by Picomtn. Pots and kettles? 86.17.222.157 (talk) 22:57, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Administrator note Please keep your focus on whether this article is able to meet Wikipedia's article policies and guidelines. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 23:00, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No focus at all is required - its hoaxyness fills the entire field of view! AfDs are a boring ten a penny a day, so more interesting would be the circumstances behind this article's creation 8 years ago (which is why I'm not voting "delete" - I don't want to contribute to the destruction of a curious relic from the past, regardless of Wikipedia's article policies and guidelines). Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 18:43, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I know that deletion discussions are supposed to last for 7 days, but can't some admin just put this one out of its misery? The case was completely clear-cut within one day of it starting. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 18:53, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete perhaps for now and Draft if needed as this is still questionable for any better improvements. SwisterTwister talk 23:02, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Why on Earth would we want to put a clear-cut hoax into draft space? And what possible "better improvements" can there be to such a clear-cut hoax? Didn't you even read the discussion above before commenting? 86.17.222.157 (talk) 07:28, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. There is a consensus that there are sufficient sources for the subject to meet WP:GNG. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 19:37, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Christina Burkenroad

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

fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. also wasn't on the Orlando Pride initial roster [34] Joeykai (talk) 06:08, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Has not played in a FPL and doesn't appear to meet GNG any other way Seasider91 (talk) 18:49, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:51, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:51, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep there seem to be sufficient sources describing the subject in some detail and it is a pity the article makes such poor use of these references. Thincat (talk) 21:24, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 23:11, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep meets WP:GNG with in-depth articles referenced in the article. Nfitz (talk) 02:32, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - sources 4,5 and 6 in the article at time of writing seem to satisfy GNG as being significant coverage from reliable sources. The article needs expanding with further sourced prose from these and more general coverage of her football career. Fenix down (talk) 13:02, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:25, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Passes WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 13:50, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep article could use expansion not deletion per WP:ATD. Current references meet WP:GNG criteria. Hmlarson (talk) 17:03, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to iKON (South Korean band). MBisanz ^talk 21:02, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Kim Jin-hwan (singer)

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

I don't think this boy band member has "individual notability for activity independent of the band" (WP:MUSBIO). The only non-band activity is a variety show he is on with a fellow band member, and I don't think that is enough to establish individual notability. Random86 (talk) 05:51, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. Random86 (talk) 05:52, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Random86 (talk) 05:52, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and Redirect to iKON (South Korean band). -- Kanghuitari (talk) 05:56, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: Here is the previous AfD: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kim Jin Hwan –Random86 (talk) 05:58, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep seems notable from sources, but if this was deleted, I would have no objection. ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 21:42, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The article currently has no third-party reliable sources (except possibly Kempire Daily), and they all relate to the band, not Kim Jin-hwan specifically. Random86 (talk) 22:03, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:24, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect Not enough individual activities to make a separate page necessary. All the information can be put on the groups main pages.Peachywink (talk) 23:49, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 21:02, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jeremy Katz Music

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

Non-notable music company with very few reliable sources. Tinton5 (talk) 05:20, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A primary reason why this article is notable: the company in question (Jeremy Katz Music) is the world's first provider of song parody-driven music videos that are utilized as corporate team-building, employee engagement, and recruitment tools. To create one of these productions, Katz employs the following approach:

company employees from any organization in the U.S. choose a popular song and write parody lyrics that emphasize the positive aspects of working for the organization
using the parody lyrics, Katz performs and produces a custom version of the song at his NJ studio
the company employees create lip sync videos of the custom version of the song at their offices (for companies with multiple offices in different locations, these contributions take place at the multiple office locations)
the participating employees upload their various videos to a shared server, and Katz downloads the raw footage
Katz edits the footage into a finished video production that includes all of the employees' contributions
the video is presented at company functions, shared online, and sent to prospective employees

As mentioned, no other production company offers a similar service, and while it is new, it's garnering attention from key media outlets (Workforce, ERE, HR.com) that cover the HR and recruiting industries. The uniqueness of the service makes it notable for inclusion on Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thewikirap (talk • contribs) 11:57, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete Note, User:Thewikirap was the main editor and primary contributor to this article. He isn't a single purpose account, so possibly COI editing? I'm not accusing you, for now WP:GOODFAITH. Still, this is not notable. ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 21:45, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ThePlatypusofDoom - Thanks for your comments. The media sources cited in the article are all credible. Workforce Magazine (which featured Jeremy Katz Music in a full-length article in its print and online editions), ERE, and HR.com have all decided that news of the company is worth sharing with their audiences. While not a major industry player, the company is on the rise and is attracting marketplace attention. That attention, IMHO, merits inclusion of the article. Thewikirap (talk)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:23, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A new and highly credible media source is in the process of creating a story about Jeremy Katz Music. An article about JKM's production of employee recruiting videos for corporations will be featured in Inside Recruiting, which is a division of Recruiter.com. This media outlet believes that Katz's work is unique and newsworthy enough to cover and feature. Thewikirap (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 15:25, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete at best as this is better restarted if at all, still questionable for the necessary improvements. SwisterTwister talk 23:02, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 22:08, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Basil Eliades

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

WP:BLP. Non-notable person (WP:N). Of the four sources used, one is a website about Eliades, one is a short review of his book, and the other two do not mention him at all. This article seems to be self-promotion. Essentially a page detailing his life. EllsworthSchmittendorf (talk) 06:11, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

When I say "one is a website about Eliades", I mean the website of his project that he has created.EllsworthSchmittendorf (talk) 06:26, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. EllsworthSchmittendorf (talk) 08:41, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

delete - One book review is not "significant coverage". Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 18:43, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There is one source that might be indepth enough to be part of multiple indepth, independent 3rd party sources, however there is only one such source, and that one is not a clear pass anyway for Eliades, so we have maybe one source where we need multiple, so delete.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:12, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as none of this suggests better notability and improvements. SwisterTwister talk 23:04, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Per WP:SKCRIT. No one is challenging that this is a university, and therefore inherently meets WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES, regardless of the state of the article (which has been improved). (non-admin closure) Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:29, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Copperstone University

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

Not enough citing, seems self promotional Flawedaddiction (talk) 05:55, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2016 April 21. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 06:14, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - as a university it is notable as per WP:UNIGUIDE. It exists - as per the Ministry of Education website. Not enough citing is not enough unfortunately to delete Gbawden (talk) 08:30, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: WP:PEACOCK is not an argument relevant to notability. You can always be bold and re-write it with sources... —Brigade Piron (talk) 09:59, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. We wouldn't dream of deleting an article about an officially recognised university in the anglophone West, so why should we do so for one in Zambia? 86.17.222.157 (talk) 12:28, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep it is a university that exists. It is recognize to exist by the government. This is way above minimum notability thresholds.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:06, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Uncontested. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 22:00, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Steele (rapper)

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

Independent rapper with no significant mentions in any reliable secondary sources. No releases that have charted anywhere. Sole claim to notability appears to be the fact that a snippet of one of his songs was used during an NBA game on ESPN. Rockypedia (talk) 20:01, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:25, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:25, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as my searches found nothing better. SwisterTwister talk 04:41, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:38, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:11, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I wasn't able to find anything beyond what was already on the page. One link is a blog of questionable reliability, the other is a trivial mention. Don't think this meets notability guidelines right now. FuriouslySerene (talk) 16:47, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 10:59, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

William Redford

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

As indicated on Talk:William Redford, the only reference that asserts Redford as the subject is a Bloomberg bio profile. Fails WP:GNG. Jppcap (talk) 19:56, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:24, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:24, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:37, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as my searches noticeably found nothing better at all and there's nothing for at least basic notability. SwisterTwister talk 05:18, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:11, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The chief executive of a former quoted company (Eligere Investments) as confirmed by reliable sources including Bloomberg and London Stock Exchange. Managing director of Mareeba Group as confirmed by the London Stock Exchange. Philafrenzy (talk) 10:02, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This is still questionable for the necessary solid independent notability improvements though and there's nothing convincing these can be made. SwisterTwister talk 23:05, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

He has recently been involved in litigation in Gibraltar in which a freezing order was granted. I am not sure if this has all been written up by RSs yet. I have tried to make it a bit clearer and added a couple of refs. Try reading Belvedere Management. Philafrenzy (talk) 00:30, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think its a lot stronger now. Please take a look. Philafrenzy (talk) 01:04, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Subscription RS's added do not contain Redford as the subject, independent of the company, to meet WP:GNG. Jppcap (talk) 21:20, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, they do, in the title and in the text. Philafrenzy (talk) 22:11, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Uncontested. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 02:21, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

S. Kandaswami

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

External Links, and no real refs TJH2018 talk 16:04, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:44, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:44, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:45, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:45, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

WP:INDAFD: S. Kandaswami Thuraivan

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:05, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as my searches seem to be finding a few links but simply nothing actually suggesting considerable improvements....which this would seriously need. SwisterTwister talk 05:23, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:04, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Couldn't find any notable reference about this person, The first name of this person in not even mentioned, seems like the content has not been well researched. Most of the .gov links were not even working.Flawedaddiction (talk) 06:16, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:28, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

West One Music Group

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

Delete: It's unfortunate that the editor originally listed this article at AfD unaware of how to rename articles. The article's subject by itself however I feel fails WP:CORPDEPTH as I failed to find more than one source covering the company - not enough for indepth coverage. NottNott talk|contrib 15:53, 7 April 2016 (UTC) NottNott talk|contrib 15:56, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:37, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:37, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:37, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (or merge) - Per [35], West One Music Group is expanding to New York & Los Angeles, has established Somos as their eighth music label, are a member of 45 collecting societies worldwide, have sup-publishing agreements in 27 countries and has an average of 900 tracks in use per day with music in films like Furious 7 and The Divergent Series: Insurgent. At a bare miminum, the article should be merged to Takeshi Furukawa. --Jax 0677 (talk) 18:41, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:00, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:04, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for now and improve if needed. SwisterTwister talk 23:06, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (or draft for the moment) The only reliable source I found is the Billboard article discussing the group's expansion to the US. Google news shows 6 more links, all of which contain trivial mentions. I'm not convinced that it passes WP:ORGDEPTH. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 04:17, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Uncontested. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 21:59, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Those Days (band)

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

Non-notable music band. Unreferenced articles since 2007. XXN, 15:50, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:11, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:11, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:59, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:04, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not able to find any coverage of this band. No claim of notability and coverage seems to be insufficient to meet the WP:GNG or WP:BAND. FuriouslySerene (talk) 16:45, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as still questionable for the necessary notability improvements. SwisterTwister talk 23:06, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:08, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Leonese wrestling

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

Non-notable sport. No claim of notability and lacks significant independent sources to show it meets WP:GNG. Existing does not make it notable.Mdtemp (talk) 15:27, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 16:28, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ This is a regional style of wrestling with no significant independent coverage to support a claim of notability. Papaursa (talk) 02:30, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep The sources found by Hydronium Hydroxide do not show overwhelming coverage, but are enough to convince me this topic has some notability. Papaursa (talk) 00:34, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:05, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Probable keep: A folk wrestling style also known as "Lucha Leonesa", it appears that there may be sufficient coverage -- mostly in Spanish language(s) -- to meet GNG, ref https://www.google.com.au/search?tbm=bks&hl=en&q=%22lucha+leonesa%22. Examples include [36], [37], [38], [39], [40], [41], and [42]. ^~Hydronium^~Hydroxide^~(Talk)~ 09:26, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nice research. I hope you'll add these sources to the article. Papaursa (talk) 00:34, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

... and there I was hoping that someone else would feel obligated... ;-) But seriously, someone who can properly read the sources would be better. ^~Hydronium^~Hydroxide^~(Talk)~ 09:36, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:57, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:03, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and and improve if needed, this will need better attention for improvements. SwisterTwister talk 23:07, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep meets WP:GNG (just). Good work User:Hydronium Hydroxide. Jschnur (talk) 00:29, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Mikhail Men. (non-admin closure) Esquivalience ^t 17:17, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Men Project

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

Non-notable musical project. Unreferenced article (from 2007). XXN, 15:26, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge - Merge to Mikhail Men, the album, or another appropriate article, but do not delete. --Jax 0677 (talk) 17:55, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:04, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:04, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge perhaps if needed as it's certainly obvious there's no independent notability here though. SwisterTwister talk 04:34, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:57, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:03, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge or redirect to Mikhail Men, no independent notability.--Staberinde (talk) 15:31, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Mikhail Men. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 10:59, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Made in Moscow

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

Non-notable album. Article is unreferenced since 2007. XXN, 15:23, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge - Merge to Mikhail Men, the artist, or another appropriate article, but do not delete. --Jax 0677 (talk) 17:54, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:03, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:03, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:57, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nothing at all to actually suggest independent notability for its own article. SwisterTwister talk 05:25, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Reply - @SwisterTwister:, if this is the case, why can we not merge to Mikhail Men? --Jax 0677 (talk) 12:30, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:02, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Update - A decision was made to merge Michael Men Project to Mikhail Men. For this reason, I stand by my decision to keep the history of Made in Moscow per WP:CHEAP. --Jax 0677 (talk) 18:11, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Mikhail Men per the decision to merge the 'project' there. No sourced content here to merge. --Michig (talk) 07:12, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 21:57, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

BOCTOK-ZAPAD

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

Non-notable Russian musical band. Probably underground only. XXN, 15:09, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:35, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:35, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:35, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as searches found nothing better. SwisterTwister talk 04:49, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:57, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:01, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete insufficient coverage to meet the GNG or band requirements. FuriouslySerene (talk) 16:43, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No suggestion that WP:NMUSIC is met, no significant coverage found. --Michig (talk) 07:16, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. (non-admin closure) SSTflyer 05:48, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Vithit Utsahajit

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

Not any references or sources or external links. Don't think it meets the notability guidelines either. Thursby16 (talk) 14:37, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:33, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:33, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Thailand-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:33, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep His Thai name is วิธิต อุตสาหจิต and is better known for his pen name บ.ก. วิติ๊ด ("บ.ก." means editor) and there is a Thai wiki article at th:วิธิต อุตสาหจิต. Google search those name instead found the following:
- [43] an article about him in a major printed magazine in marketing business.
- One more [44]. In many articles about his magazines, his wife or his daughter were interviewed instead. So I don't include those here.
- [45] talking about his work starting at 21:45, appearing as himself at 22:20 and then re-appearing as himself in cartoon form at around 22:45 mark. From a TV documentary in Thai PBS channel.
- His cartoon character is a notable character appearing in his cartoon magazine (acting the role of editor). There are some LINE stickers of him in this set: [46] According to this news [47] the cumulative download for that set was 300,000 in June 2014.
- His cartoon magazines are notable: all magazine stalls should carry them. --Lerdsuwa (talk) 17:38, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as none of what's listed is convincing enough, the Thai Wiki, listed sources here or the English Wiki. The Thai article certainly seems questionable itself but I'm of course not familiar how notability at that Wiki. At best, for this English Wiki, this would be best restarted until a better article is available. SwisterTwister talk 18:44, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- According to the news article [48] According to this news [49] the magazine has been published weekly for 41 years as of 2014. So he won't appear in public much, the role went to his wife and daughter. --Lerdsuwa (talk) 06:40, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Lerdsuwa. Satisfies GNG. --Paul_012 (talk) 14:09, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as notable for creating comics mainly as well as filmwork , the magazine articles identified by Lerdsuwal mean WP:BASIC is passed. Atlantic306 (talk) 15:41, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:56, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:01, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Notability not established. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 10:58, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Riccardo Billi (producer)

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

Seems to be some confusion about who this is. The actor is just Riccardo Billi. See it:Riccardo Billi. The screen capture too in the second reference looks like him or his brother. No evidence it is anyone else.

The other ref is a single mention in an interview talking about something else. Not enough for notability, or even to clearly establish it’s the same or a different person. Whether it is another person it is clearly not an independently notable topic. JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 11:19, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Riccardo Billi died in 1982

Riccardo Billi (producer) is not dead
image Riccardo Billi: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Riccardo_Billi
Riccardo Billi (producer) is married to Malisa Longo
Riccardo Billi (producer) as coproduced Way of the Dragon
image Riccardo Billi (producer): http://www.cityonfire.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/0021.png
Riccardo Billi (producer) played the bank teller in "Way of the Dragon"
Riccardo Billi (produce) comments on Bruce Lee Manía and sends greetings to the European Bruce Lee Club
Interview Riccardo Billi (producer),december 2011
Malisa Longo and Riccardo Billi (producer)
Riccardo Billi(producer) and Bruce Lee in Way of the Dragon
https://scontent-frt3-1.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xpf1/t31.0-8/fr/cp0/e15/q65/194642_112634882187368_2096596299_o.jpg?efg=eyJpIjoidCJ9
Billi (producer) Norris and Lee in Way of the Dragon
https://m.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10203713997107400&id=1142020881&set=p.10203713997107400&fs=0
https://scontent-frt3-1.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xfa1/v/t1.0-9/fr/cp0/e15/q65/581941_404626439558824_245766267_n.jpg?efg=eyJpIjoidCJ9&oh=b9530bd7647be6ab64537c88d7b440df&oe=57C0133A
Riccardo Billi (producer) is a PRODUCER. Riccardo Billi is an ACTOR.
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-e6FnUSNg5Yg/VBF_aIM6pvI/AAAAAAAAP7Y/P5yiDYSH2Lo/s1600/pierina1.jpg
Riccardo Billi (producer)#References Persivalpoint (talk) 13:37, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as none of the above suggests solid notability, both the above and the current article itself. SwisterTwister talk 16:19, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 16:20, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 16:20, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

But SwisterTwister why? this page is similar from this page, but is different from Riccardo Billi (actor)Persivalpoint (talk) 16:55, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

more info Persivalpoint (talk) 17:06, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

comment none of the above collection of blog + social media links and images changes anything. None is a reliable source. But to address one assertion made, that

"Riccardo Billi (producer) is a PRODUCER. Riccardo Billi is an ACTOR"

there is nothing to prevent someone being both, and is in fact quite common. Producer is one of those roles like the director of a company that very few people start out doing, but instead usually end up at after doing something else, so an actor can become a producer. In many cases their careers overlap. Also it is highly unusual for different actors to have the same name. To avoid precisely such problems actors are encouraged, or may even be required, to change their name. See e.g. Screen Actors Guild#Unique stage names.

None of that proves there is only one person, or that there is a producer but he is not an actor. But neither do any of the links above and in the article prove otherwise. And when there is not enough evidence to establish who he is then there is not enough for notability, by a long chalk.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 18:15, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I seriously doubt this person produced Way of the Dragon. He's not listed in the film's credits. I just checked the beginning and ending credits on Netflix, and he's not anywhere in them that I can see. He might have done some production work on the film, but I doubt he's a producer. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 01:07, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment for NinjaRobotPirate: Can you see

it:Way of The Dragon ( […] Il service che aiutò Lee nelle riprese romane era fornito dal produttore Riccardo Billi[…]).

Magazine CINEMATOGRAFO, March 2008

Poster film by Riccardo Billi (producer)

Comment for JohnBlackburne Can you see:

This is a screenshot Way of the Dragon with Bruce Lee, Nora Miao and Riccardo Billi (producer) because Way of the Dragon a film 1973 and Riccardo Billi is born 1906 ... This man (1 2 3 4 5…) has not 66 years old.

This is a screenshot film Way of The Dragon + screenshot documentary Bruce Lee: In Pursuit of the Dragon 2009 and Riccardo Billi is died 1982

Comment for JohnBlackburne, NinjaRobotPirate, SwisterTwister ......:

http://www.davinotti.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=356 = INTERVIEW […]GEPPO: Il produttore del film è Riccardo Billi che non era però l'attore che lavorava in coppia con Mario Riva. MARINA: Bravo Giacomo, è un omonimo. Riccardo Billi, cioè il produttore del film, è il marito di Malisa Longo. […]Persivalpoint (talk) 09:36, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Riccardo Billi (disambiguation) Persivalpoint (talk) 10:42, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Persivalpoint (talk) 16:49, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed the {{help me}} template. It does not belong here, and the request is premature. Wait for the discussion to end.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 17:27, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

OK excuse me Persivalpoint (talk) 18:21, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, Billi the producer is actually a different person than Billi the actor. While I have not (re)found the specific sources, I read about him, quite trivially, in Italian cinema magazines such as Cine 70 and Nocturno, in articles which basically focused on his wife Malisa Longo and on a film produced by him, Le Amazzoni, which is a mockbuster of War Goddess and which achieved some minor cult status. That said, I don't see enough notability nor enough contents for an article. Outside his marginal involvment in Way of The Dragon, Billi's career as a producer was very thin, he basically just produced a couple of low-budget exploitation films. Maybe a brief mention and a redirect to his wife's article? Cavarrone 12:24, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

yes, but for me, maybe a brief mention and a redirect in Riccardo Billi (disambiguation) and a link to his wife's article (Malisa Longo#Riccardo Billi), ok? Persivalpoint (talk) 14:21, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:51, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@NorthAmerica for me this page is ok Persivalpoint (talk) 11:36, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:55, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - page created by a sockpuppet of Charliewolf79, a cross-wiki lta. It is probably not accurate, as the nominator pointed out here, and could honestly be speedy deleted. Ajraddatz (talk) 18:50, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 10:58, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Intelligent UK Holdings Limited

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

Probably a very commendable company but I see no evidence of notability here. The Telegraph article appears to make no mention of the company and many of the rest are the company's own web-site. The Gloucester Citizen piece reads like a press release and is a very local source. The Practacysis article is also very niche and reads like a press release. Fails WP:GNG Velella ^{Velella Talk} 11:17, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Intelligent (UK Holdings) Limited page is well written and very constructive. The company is notable in the it owns and controls these Subsidiary companies, International Intelligence Limited has a very constructive page of its own.

The citation with regards to the Telegraph article is citing that Mr Bomberg worked for the Royal family in the UK and makes mention of one of the companies within the group structure. It is a fair and correct citation. The citation for the Citizen article is indeed a County publication, it is clearly written as an "interest story" and not a press release. I disagree with you on this. The Practacysis article is a constructive article by an industry specific on-line blog. Intelligent Armour is mentioned in many locations but always within military, industry specific sites as would be expected. such as this article where is also mentions Intelligent UK Holdings Limited and Intelligent Armour Limited. https://everydaytactical.wordpress.com/2011/07/02/interview-with-alex-bomberg-ceo-intelligent-limited/

Intelligent Armour Limited is also listed in thise Export Controls Freedom of information act release https://www.caat.org.uk/resources/foi-responses/pdf/2013-04-24.bis-eco.foi-13-0402-companies-applying-for-ml-licences-in-2011.pdf but is the relevant to cite??

Intelligent Protection International Limited, for this BBC etc. news clips (videos) could have been cited, these are available on the companies website, for example: https://www.intelligent-holdings.co.uk/bbc-news-channel-december-2010.html

The company clearly owns registered Trademarks and like many "Holding or Parent" companies you would not expect much if any thing to be written about them.

I was under the impression that external links to "about us" pages were permitted under guidelines.

If you took for example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lauritzen_Corporation the Intelligent (UK Holdings) Limited rates better as this example clearly ONLY has links to its Subsidiary companies "About Pages". Mokaroux (talk) 16:31, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:55, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:55, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:55, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:55, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as this is all still questionable and I'm not seeing any convincing signs of satisfying any applicable notability. SwisterTwister talk 04:35, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:51, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Of course it could be improved upon by the Wiki community in time but it is better written and more informative than many other 'Holdings' or 'Parent' company pages including for example:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sinofert_Holdings
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lauritzen_Corporation
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Merchants_Corporation
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natixis
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BOC_Hong_Kong_(Holdings)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Power_Assets_Holdings
The ownership of five companies, one of which has a listing on Wiki (International Intelligence) and the ownership of Registered Trademarks is notable, more so than some of the holdings/parent companies listed in the examples above. Mokaroux (talk) 16:40, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the links above to other articles, see WP:OTHERSTUFF. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:54, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:55, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I take that point on board and can understand. However, this article is very well written by myself and exceeds many others on the same subject, it was the quality of the article and citing etc that i was getting at, not the fact that these other articles exist. Any external links are kept to the six companies in question "About us" pages as per the guidelines. I do not understand how this article cannot be worthy when it is accepted that we will have 2-3 line (ill written) entries on other Companies in the same category. This entry is only going to get better with Wiki community support, it would be zealous to disallow this entry and on very weak grounds. Mokaroux (talk) 07:21, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Not an overwhelming case for keep, but it squeaks by. Mojo Hand (talk) 15:43, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Association of Maldivian Engineers

AfDs for this article:

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

This engineering association stub was a stale user space draft that user:Legacypac (but not in his/her user space) moved into article space with the claim that it is a notable professional association. This is not substantiated with any coverage in independent reliable sources. The article has no references. The external link in the article is simply a directory listing in the World Federation of Engineering Associations and is obviously provided by the Association of Maldivian Engineers themselves. The organisation is not actually a member of the World Federation. See this page and search for the Maldivian entry. Expanding the item shows details shows "WFEO Member: No". A search for sources turns up no coverage at all. According to the WFEO, the website for the organisation is http://www.a-me.org/ but that's a dead link for me. Either delete, or restore back to user space from where it was moved. Whpq (talk) 05:53, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep i was not aware of the previous AfD. The Maldives are the smallest country in Asia by area and population, and English is their second language, so I think the standard for sources should be set accordingly. Professional associations don't get tons of coverage even in big English speaking countries but they are inherently notable, especially if all engineers must be a member or licensing is tied to them (not sure if that is true here). I did confirm the association exists so felt it a good stub on the basis that the Association of Engineers in any country should be notable at least to people in that country. The stub is factual and not promotional. It may never grow beyond a dtub but that is ok. I don't see it as harmful. Legacypac (talk) 06:11, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Move back to userspace, and delete it there, as a copy of deleted material, a SNOW delete reason at the lower threshold of MfD. Legacypac is presumably unaware of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Association of Maldivian Engineers, and that this copy fails to overcome the reasons for deletion. Ask Legacypac to keep at refining his reading for pages meeting WP:STUB. "Not harmful" is not a reason to keep a mainspace article against a challenge to notability. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:16, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Legacypac below. That's two reliable sources, it is not a promotional article, and agree with his points. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:43, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A decent ref http://www.commonwealthofnations.org/sectors-maldives/business/construction_and_engineering/ that describes the association as " professional bodies are the Maldives Association of Construction Industries (MACI), which was founded by the nine major construction companies in 2001; and the Association of Maldivian Engineers is the corresponding body for the engineering profession.". Remember this is a country with maybe 400,000 people and not a lot of engineers but this is their professional association and therefore a topic you would expect to find in an encyclopedia. Legacypac (talk) 06:26, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've found a third good ref - they joined the World Council of Civil Engineers (which should be an article) where they are listed as a current member http://www.wcce.biz/index.php/membership/current-members I also found an airport manager that shows membership on his professional profile and a proposed association of environmental engineers and allied professionals that was discussing how they would interface with AME. Clearly this is the Association and the only issue is that online coverage is thin because it is a small poor remote country. We can safely assume there are off line sources too. Legacypac (talk) 06:49, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 14:43, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 14:43, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 14:43, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:48, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:51, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Still "keep". --SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:32, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) SSTflyer 05:48, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Tweed theaterworks

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

Does not meet WP:GNG. Three references are to their website; the fourth is a review of Lypsinka which barely mentions tweed. ubiquity (talk) 02:34, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, probably. The criterion for notability is not (to state the basics) how well cited the article is, but whether it could be well cited from the existing literature. The New York Times Theater Reviews 1997-1998 lists 5 Tweed Theaterworks productions; the 1999-2000 issue lists one of the same productions, Lypsinka! As you'd expect the company gets many passing mentions for specific productions, as also for people who have worked with it; some of these are reliable sources that can be used to establish specific facts in the article. We should note that many sources from the period may not be online, and recall that "once notable, always notable" - the criterion is not temporary. What we need to show is whether TWEED was notable, once. I've added a couple of refs; here's another review we could use. I might add that a review of a production by a theatre company is ipso facto a review of that company; the mention is all the way through, not just the line at the end where the company is named. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:19, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Although were still looking for a source directly about the subject, there has been good progress in the 10 days since this article was created. We do need to allow some leeway for young article by a new editor on a subject that predates the internet. ~Kvng (talk) 23:52, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:43, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:43, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:43, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:46, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:51, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Barely notable, but they pass notability as they are mentioned in multiple reliable sources, such as the New York Times and the city's volunteering website NYCService.org. I wish another source could be added to the history paragraph. Prhartcom (talk) 20:24, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Consensus is for deletion. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:23, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Erdal Kinaci

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

Not sure how notable this guy is, most of the google search results I get are either Wikipedia mirrors or stuff for other people (such as a doctor) The only ref was to National Geographic, which had nothing to do with him! Wgolf (talk) 01:14, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Here are the applicable references:

References

^ http://press.nationalgeographic.com/2006/08/15/announceswinnersoffirstinternationalphotographycontest/
^ http://www.dailyartfixx.com/2009/07/27/erdal-kinaci-photography/
^ http://erdalkinaci.daportfolio.com/about/

-- RM 01:37, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment-Thanks, I didn't et any of those when I tried to find info about the guy for some reason about 30 minutes ago oddly. I'll look over these to see if this guy is notable or not. Wgolf (talk) 01:42, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Google search with +"Erdal Kinaci" +"National Geographic" -- RM 01:45, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. As a photographer myself, being featured by NatGeo is a dream. It's clearly a highly notable event, but it's just that, an event. As per WP:BIO1E, it does not prove the notability of the photographer. An article on the contest might be more appropriate. The arrest would normally fail to WP:ROUTINE. However, the arrest was related to his photography. Combine the two, and suddenly you have a guy who is notable for photography from multiple independent sources for multiple events, and the 1E policies no longer apply. The fact that he is from another country that speaks another language and we still have multiple sources also works in his favor. My only concern is that there is very little material for a full article. -- RM 02:24, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as my searches are simply not finding anything noticeably convincing enough to suggest actually keeping and improving. SwisterTwister talk 05:37, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:37, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:16, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:16, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The photo may be notable, he is not.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:36, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, he's not notable per WP:ARTIST and WP:GNG. I din't find any reliable sources confirming the notability. It's Delete. Arthistorian1977 (talk) 08:00, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. One of several self-penned pages by Feruccio promoting himself, no sources or evidence of notability Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:02, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Diamonds to Dust

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

Might not be notable as per WP:NF. TOW 05:25, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sarahj2107 (talk) 08:52, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Fredo Luna

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

Person with questionable notability. All the refs I can find are either stuff like Myspace or Wikipedia mirrors as well. Wgolf (talk) 01:10, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as simply nothing for actual notability including WP:ENTERTAINER. SwisterTwister talk 05:39, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 05:39, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 05:39, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 05:39, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:22, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete article has no sources at all.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:18, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was deleted by User:RHaworth. (Non-admin closure) "Pepper" @ 15:30, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Rika Kishida

AfDs for this article:

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

This was deleted through an AfD in July 2015 as a non-notable actress. It was recreated recently and I marked it for speedy deletion, but that was declined by the user who recreated it. This actress has not been active for 20 years, so I doubt anything new could be added to an account of what was a career that doesn't pass WP:NACTOR in the first place. Michitaro (talk) 04:32, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Michitaro (talk) 04:35, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - few and limited sources on actress. Has a Japanese page, but again look limited, but I can't read Japanese. Short entry on IMDb. Only credited work seems to be a TV show in the early 1990s. EllsworthSchmittendorf (talk) 05:22, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 23:01, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Klara Buda

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

Fails Wikipedia:GNG. Search comes up with nothing but her own blog and and a Linkedin page. Will211 |Chatter 04:11, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - has a good French page. More sources in French than in English. Need to search in French not English. However, her work in the French wiki and on Google is still not very substantial. So delete may be necessary. If this article is kept needs to be cleaned up as translation from French is poor.EllsworthSchmittendorf (talk) 05:31, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I was able to do a little bit of cleanup and added some references. She does seem to be well covered in both French and Albanian. I would love to have someone with database access look at French or Albanian news from the time of the Kosovo war and see what we can dig up. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 00:23, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:39, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albania-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:39, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A more constructive use of time might involve improving the entry. A minute of googling throws up plenty of online sources. Some are more useful than others, but taken together they certainly give enough ammunition for a reasonable "start class entry".[50][51][52][53]. Ten minutes of googling looks likely to throw up more. And they're not ALL in those nasty foreign languages. Success Charles01 (talk) 06:34, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Charles01. For some reason, I was only getting non-English sources, and I'm not proficient (though I wish I was). I did see Pink and the Klarabudapost that you mention, but I didn't think they would help show notability. At any rate, thanks for looking. :) Megalibrarygirl (talk) 15:52, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I was told by Susun - and on reflection I'm sure it's true - that google gives each of us our own tailored set of search results according to what it has decided we are likely to appreciate (or...) so I guess some cunning google algorithm has figured out that you like to look up stuff in French. Do you share a computer-id with a linguist? But I'm drifting off topic. As one does. Best Charles01 (talk) 16:00, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I live in a border town, Charles01, and my IP is a shared one. :) Megalibrarygirl (talk) 20:20, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Now that Megalibrarygirl and I have tidied it up and added sources, it looks as if it meets requirements.--Ipigott (talk) 07:20, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I feel better that Ipigott was able to take a look at my sources, since my language skills aren't up to snuff. Passes GNG. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 15:54, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Sufficient independent sources to satisfy GNG. There is no requirement that sourcing be in English. (By the by, the google search has to do with your IP address. I get different information in my location than do people across the pond or in the US.) SusunW (talk) 19:31, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Uncontested. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 23:54, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

List of 1510 English incumbents

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

This seems to be an entirely unnecessary split from List of rulers of the United Kingdom and predecessor states and the various sublists. Given that leaders don't change a huge amount year-to-year, a complete creation of all of the years of English "incumbents" would result in a bunch of nearly identical and fairly useless lists. There are a couple other articles along these lines located at Category:Lists of English leaders by year. If this closes as delete, I intend to nominate the rest. Also, see a related TfD: Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2016_April_13#Template:English_Incumbents ~ Rob^Talk 03:37, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor ^Talk! 17:29, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

On the one hand, I think that this information is useful to have - maybe just not in this format. It's good to have good visualization of data, but a year-by-year breakdown in different articles isn't particularly useful and I'm not sure that it would be considered notable by the year. As such, delete from me, with the hopes that the data could be included better on other list pages. Ajraddatz (talk) 18:59, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. If someone does want a list of rulers of a country in a given year, then they should be able to extract that from Wikidata whatever the country and whatever the year. It's not something that Wikipedia can do better. Thryduulf (talk) 21:28, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as still questionable for its own article. SwisterTwister talk 23:10, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. A redirect can be placed as part of the normal editing process, if desired. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 21:55, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Signed, Sealed & Delivered (mixtape)

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

Non-notable album: Lacks significant coverage in reliable sources. — JJMC89 (T·C) 03:31, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·C) 03:32, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Mixtape with simply zero notability. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 21:50, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
'Delete Agreed for the above reasons. The topic simply does not have enough notability to warrant its own article. Aoba47 (talk) 02:43, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as nothing currently suggesting its own notable article. SwisterTwister talk 23:11, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to K. Michelle discography. SSTflyer 05:46, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect to K. Michelle discography#Mixtapes. Doesn't merit a standalone article. --Michig (talk) 08:12, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. A redirect can be placed as part of the normal editing process, if desired. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 21:54, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

For Colored Girls / Pre-Pain Medicine

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

Non-notable album: Lacks significant coverage in reliable sources. — JJMC89 (T·C) 03:31, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·C) 03:32, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete None of the sources used in the article even mention this album. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 21:56, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable enough to have its own page. Aoba47 (talk) 20:21, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as nothing currently suggesting its own notable article. SwisterTwister talk 23:11, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to K. Michelle discography. SSTflyer 05:47, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect to K. Michelle discography#Mixtapes. Nowhere near enough coverage to justify an article. --Michig (talk) 08:10, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to K. Michelle discography#Mixtapes. MBisanz ^talk 21:04, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What's the 901?

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

Non-notable album: Lacks significant coverage in reliable sources. — JJMC89 (T·C) 03:31, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·C) 03:32, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as still questionable for solid independent notability. SwisterTwister talk 23:12, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to K. Michelle. SSTflyer 05:45, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Nowhere near enough coverage to justify an article. Redirect to K. Michelle discography#Mixtapes (where it is at least mentioned) if you must. --Michig (talk) 08:07, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to K. Michelle discography. Lacks significant coverage in reliable sources and is not notable enough for its own article, but should be redirected to the artist's discography page for anyone who searches for this. Aoba47 (talk) 20:15, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to K. Michelle discography#Mixtapes. MBisanz ^talk 21:04, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I Just Can't Do This

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

Non-notable song: Lacks significant coverage in reliable sources. — JJMC89 (T·C) 03:30, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·C) 03:31, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as still questionable for solid independent notability. SwisterTwister talk 23:12, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to K. Michelle. SSTflyer 05:46, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Just an album track that had a lowly placing in a minor Billboard chart. The chart placing is already present in the discography article. Not significant to be worth a redirect, nothing worth merging anywhere, so delete. --Michig (talk) 08:00, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to K. Michelle discography. While this track may not be notable enough for its own page, it should be redirected to the page dealing with the discography of the artist for anyone who is looking for this specific song. Aoba47 (talk) 20:11, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to K. Michelle discography#Mixtapes. MBisanz ^talk 21:04, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Fallin' (K. Michelle song)

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

Non-notable song: Lacks significant coverage in reliable sources. — JJMC89 (T·C) 03:30, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·C) 03:31, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as still questionable for solid independent notability. SwisterTwister talk 23:13, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to K. Michelle. SSTflyer 05:44, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Just an album track that had a lowly placing in a minor Billboard chart. The chart placing is already present in the discography article. This title is no use as a redirect, nothing worth merging anywhere, so delete. --Michig (talk) 07:58, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to K. Michelle discography. Agreed with the reasons above, but I think that it should be redirected to the discography page in case anyone is looking for this song in particular. Aoba47 (talk) 20:17, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Teairra Marí. MBisanz ^talk 21:04, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sincerely Yours (Teairra Marí EP)

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

Non-notable album: Lacks significant coverage in reliable sources. — JJMC89 (T·C) 03:29, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·C) 03:31, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as still questionable for solid independent notability. SwisterTwister talk 23:13, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Teairra Marí. SSTflyer 05:44, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Poorly sourced, and without decent sources available, isn't notable enough for a standalone article, useless as a redirect (the entry on the Sincerely Yours disambiguation page will deal with anyone who may be searching for this). --Michig (talk) 07:54, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Poorly sourced and not enough credible/reliable sources to make a decent page out of the subject. I agree with the above commenter that it should be deleted instead of redirected as its entry on the Sincerely Yours disambiguation page will inform anyone who is searching for this particular EP. Aoba47 (talk) 20:20, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Teairra Marí (album). (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 23:03, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No Daddy

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

Non-notable song: Lacks significant coverage in reliable sources. — JJMC89 (T·C) 03:29, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·C) 03:31, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Teairra Marí: Lacks significant coverage in independent reliable sources. Not enough for a separate article. Can be briefly summarized in parent album article. Aoba47 (talk) 19:58, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Teairra Marí (album). The song charted, so notability is not the issue. Instead, this is a case where WP:NOPAGE applies. NewYorkActuary (talk) 21:17, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Teairra Marí (album). (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 23:02, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Make Her Feel Good

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

Non-notable song: Lacks significant coverage in reliable sources. — JJMC89 (T·C) 03:29, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·C) 03:31, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Teairra Marí (album). Top 40 hit but no significant coverage about the song itself. The chart info is in the album article so redirecting seems appropriate. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 16:41, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Teairra Marí (album): Agreed for the reasons stated above. Aoba47 (talk) 20:00, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. A7, Advertising, take your pick. kelapstick^(bainuu) 04:06, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jacob(Jake) Griffin

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

Non-notable individual. Article is an advertisement and lacks non-trivial support. AfD appears to have been removed by sock. reddogsix (talk) 03:22, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. —SpacemanSpiff 03:58, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Scars Do Heal

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

Non-notable book published by a vanity press. One review, could not find others. See this page for a publisher's description of the book, then click on "packages" to see how much it costs to get your own book published there. HappyValleyEditor (talk) 03:08, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

*Abstain. I abstain. Pikachu is my homeboy (talk) 03:11, 21 April 2016 (UTC) Sockpuppet of Incorrigible Troll (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). GAB^Hello! 14:26, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is an article about a non-notable, self-published vanity press novel, with just a single brief published review in a possibly reliable source. In rare cases, such a book gains notability, through extensive coverage in multiple reliable sources. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:07, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

AM, the links you gave show that you still do not understand WP:RS. They are all bad sources: they are not reliable. This is because those sites allow anyone to review a book.If you have an Amazon account you can review the book. This is all covered in WP:RS. Please read it. HappyValleyEditor (talk) 07:33, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for letting me know about WP:RS. Point taken regarding Goodreads. However, my point of view is that most of the reviews on Amazon for this article contains a legend Verfied Purchase and on that premise, it is my opinion that the reviews on Amazon that carry a legend Verified Purchase shouldn't be classified as bad sources.AM (talk) 10:22, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, reviews on Amazon are SPS and not reliable here in WP. I will talk you through all this. Wikipedia has been around 15 years and there are clear policies and guidelines and norms/traditions - it is community consensus that things like Amazon reviews are not RS. There is very little new under the sun here, as you will learn. I will show you how to figure that stuff out and where to check, back at your Talk page. Jytdog (talk) 10:29, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Uanfala (talk) 09:12, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mauritius-related deletion discussions. Uanfala (talk) 09:12, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Uanfala (talk) 09:12, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The relevant notability guidelines are at WP:BKCRIT. From what I see in the article, the book appears to have been the subject of one independent and reliable newspaper article (reviews at amazon and the like don't count I'm afraid), so it doesn't seem to meet them at present. I haven't had the time to look for more sources. Uanfala (talk) 09:17, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Point of View Would these be considered as a reliable news sources ? One news source reference (that got lost during other user edit) was from a newspaper called Dina Thanthi also featured on Wikipedia as a newspaper - This article is from [DT next] and DTNext is the English edition of this newspaper.. Another few news source in support of WP:BKCRIT The NewIndian Express and The BetterIndian AM (talk) 11:55, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The BetterIndian article was written in the first person by the author of the book, and is therefore utterly worthless for establishing notability for a Wikipedia article. It is not independent, and independent sources are required. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:27, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Dina Thanthi source is an interview with the author and therefore not an independent source which does not establish notability. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:32, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as there's not enough coverage to suggest a solid independent article. SwisterTwister talk 04:01, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Sources are presently not found that would suggest the work meets any criteria in WP:NBOOK. Sam Sailor ^Talk! 04:53, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
delete fails WP:BOOK; should have gone through AfC; would not have passed. Jytdog (talk) 11:49, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: publisher is Notion Press, a self-publishing company. Enough said. No evidence of any notability. PamD 13:01, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, does not meet WP:NBOOK or WP:GNG, no reliable reviews found. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:28, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sarahj2107 (talk) 08:51, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Pedro Ticas

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

Notability per WP:ACADEMIC more than dubious, unclear whether he ever worked at a research university. "Official website" (WBM) is dead. Article creator Tiks~enwiki is a single-purpose account, most likely the subject himself. bender235 (talk) 03:03, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain. I abstain. Pikachu is my homeboy (talk) 03:11, 21 April 2016 (UTC) Sockpuppet of Incorrigible Troll (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). GAB^Hello! 14:28, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as nothing for the applicable notability. SwisterTwister talk 23:16, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Nothing in the article is convincing regarding notability. The one source gives the briefest of mentions, and not in a context that suggests notability. Nothing much shows on Google Scholar. --Michig (talk) 07:37, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete--Ymblanter (talk) 07:47, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Untouchable Tour

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

Does not meet WP:NTOUR at this time, as there is currently insufficient information/reliable sources regarding this tour. This is the exact same WP:TOOSOON case that happened with the articles for her other two tours; they were both created at times when it was inappropriate to do so, just like this one. Interlude 65 (Push to talk) 02:58, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain. I abstain. Pikachu is my homeboy (talk) 03:12, 21 April 2016 (UTC) Sockpuppet of Incorrigible Troll (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). GAB^Hello! 14:28, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Also, I do not get the abstain joke, but I like it.HappyValleyEditor (talk) 03:19, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Although it does seem notable, there is no venerability within the article at all. NinthTail (talk) 03:24, 21 April 2016 (UTC) Sockpuppet of Taokaka (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). GAB^Hello! 14:28, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not notable now.--MaranoFan (talk) 16:20, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as too soon for now. SwisterTwister talk 23:16, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy Keep as secondary schools are notable (NAC). SwisterTwister talk 23:14, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Köksal Ersayın Anatolian High School

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

Shameless first-person advertisement, without sources, for an institution that my or may not even exist, created by an SPA; not, in my opinion, even salvageable. Orange Mike | Talk 02:31, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 14:44, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 14:44, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as a secondary school per longstanding precedent and consensus. Certainly appears to exist. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:10, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Its a pain in the butt but as with almost all conceivable high schools in developed countries, its notable. Who wants to write about their recent art exhibition [54] or basketball game [55], some of the regular coverage I am seeing on local Turkish press coverage.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 20:47, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I don't read Turkish, but as per Milowent, there appears to be enough coverage to meet WP:GNG. Cordless Larry (talk) 21:45, 27 April 2016‎ (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Michig (talk) 07:27, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

William Hereford

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

Fails WP:BIO. Adam9007 (talk) 01:30, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 02:56, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as sources don't come up with notability. Will211 |Chatter 04:05, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I was only able to turn up primary sources and passing mentions of the subject. --Erick Shepherd (talk) 02:26, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as nothing suggesting the necessary notability improvements. SwisterTwister talk 23:18, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete--Ymblanter (talk) 07:41, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Charlie Merrow

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

Non-notable CEO of a sewing machine company. Someone has gone to a lot of trouble to make this person seem important. Article is very promotional in current state. HappyValleyEditor (talk) 00:59, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 01:08, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nothing at all actually suggesting solid notability. SwisterTwister talk 05:43, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I am not seeing clear evidence that the company he is CEO of is notable, but he clearly is not.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:55, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Redirect to Merrow Sewing Machine Company. There are sources available that discuss his role in the company, but certainly not enough to justify a separate article. --Michig (talk) 07:25, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. There certainly is no agreement on keeping or deleting, and the discussion is generally lacking in convincing arguments either way regarding notability. Michig (talk) 06:54, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas Chan Tin Chi

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

Could not find anything on him through a Google search. The sources in the article are in Chinese, and even with a translator app, I cannot understand them. JDDJS (talk) 20:25, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ECrent (talk) 17:43, 7 April 2016 (UTC)Please search on google with Chinese name of Thomas Chan Tin Chi which is 陳天賜[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:13, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:13, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - unclear notability. Article created by single-purpose account with clear COI. Citobun (talk) 14:12, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This person has received persistent coverage over multiple life events:
- 1995: Received the award of Ten Outstanding Young Persons of the year in Hong Kong, verifiable by this page on the award website. He would have received mainstream media coverage (as this award does every year). The Singtao/Yahoo source below said he broke the record of the youngest recipient of the award (probably a good thing for a "Young Person" award!).
- 2001: He was declared bankrupt. Singtao 2001-07-31 via Google archive
- 2015 March: He received some coverage for an attempted bid of the now-defunct ATV. (Apple Daily) This article also gave biographical details of his early life and career.
- 2015 December: He was on the news for fighting off burglars in his mansion. The articles also gave biographical coverage. Oriental Daily Singtao Daily via Yahoo
These would add up to pass WP:GNG's requirement for persistent coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. Der yck C. 16:23, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep.- Please kindly access the youtube newsreel https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3br0aigiKCI that states thas Thomas Chan Tin Chi is notable philanthopist, having donated in 1998 among others over 10 000 000 Chinese Yuan (over 5 million USD 2016 terms) in Tsinghua Univeristy enterprenurship fund to help students to create their own enterprises. He is a notable Hong Kong philanthopist. ECrent (talk) 16:32, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

— Note to closing admin: ECrent (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this AfD.

Delete as my searches have found nothing convincingly better and this would likely be best restarted for better improvements, current article is still noticeably questionable. SwisterTwister talk 05:44, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Omni Flames (talk contribs) 00:32, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Vanity page. Olivier (talk) 18:24, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SSTflyer 00:28, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per the reasons mentioned by SwisterTwister and Citobun. Will211 |Chatter 04:02, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The article needs to be rewritten to remove its puffery and promotional aspects, but notability has been established. SSTflyer 04:50, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

We can't actually keep this as someone simply hopes to improve it, and the current article actually has nothing to suggest these necessary improvements, and thus this is actually best deleted for now and then restarted whenever it's better. SwisterTwister talk 23:18, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Deryck. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 23:36, 27 April 2016 (UTC).[reply]

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

[1] "Meliá anuncia el primer cinco estrellas internacional en Irán". ABC. (in Spanish)

[2] "Iran to Get Luxury Hotel Along Caspian Sea as Tourism Thaws". Bloomberg News.

[3] "The luxury hotels luring Western tourists to Iran". The Telegraph.

[4] "Gran Meliá to open first hotel in Iran". Conference & Incentive Travel. (A paid subscriber magazine).

[5] ttps://books.google.com/books/about/Turkish_People_of_Armenian_Descent.html?id=Jym2cQAACAAJ

[6] ttp://www.armeniska.se/index.php/en/organisation/history

[7] ttp://www.genocide1915.org/ogonvittnen_diplomater.html

[8] ttp://www.betterworldbooks.com/witnesses-of-the-armenian-genocide-id-115583982X.aspx

[9] ttp://www.amazon.com/Witnesses-Armenian-Genocide-Including-Morgenthau/dp/B007S796K8

[10] ttps://www.rt.com/news/340446-wsj-ad-denies-armenian-genocide/

[11] ttp://www.armenian-genocide.org/br-12-26-16_1.html

[12] ttp://press.nationalgeographic.com/2006/08/15/announceswinnersoffirstinternationalphotographycontest/

[13] ttp://www.dailyartfixx.com/2009/07/27/erdal-kinaci-photography/

[14] ttp://erdalkinaci.daportfolio.com/about/

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[1]

[2]

[3]

[1]

[2]

[1]

[1]