Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2016 April 6

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 5 April	7 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 no consensus. The debate has already been relisted twice and the votes are fairly even, I doubt we're going to reach a consensus here. (non-admin closure) — Omni Flames (talk contribs) 00:31, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Monster High: Escape from Skull Shores[edit]

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

Not notable. TheLongTone (talk) 15:32, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect or delete Yet another unnecessary article about a Monster High subject. None of the TV specials are notable and I'm pretty sure a lot of them were created by the same user. Total fancruft.*Treker (talk) 15:41, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:31, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:31, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There's no encyclopedic value in what is essentially just a plot summary. Tpdwkouaa (talk) 16:54, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and Improve: Let this page stay. It was created to store the information about the TV specials like the the others that were listed. If kept, I also ask that the page be improved to Wikipedia standards. --Rtkat3 (talk) 23:26, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Rtkat3 - I don't think I understand your argument. Aren't all articles created to store (or convey, rather) information? You should be establishing that the subject has standalone notability, i.e. that the special itself meets the general notability guideline or some more specific criteria. Surely you've read the GNG by now. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 00:04, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Merge - No stand-alone notability was established by Rtkat3 when he created the article, nor by anyone else who has contributed to the article since. Not sure if I can think of a logical place to merge this. Monster High (web series) for lack of any better place? Cyphoidbomb (talk) 00:04, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Monster High (web series)#TV specials. That seems to serve the same purpose in a much more succinct manner. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 00:54, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

Reluctant Keep Sorry to disagree and the thing does need a lot of work, but as unhappy as I am to state this, sourcing for improvement does exist to meet WP:GNG and thus WP:NF: Cinemagazine (Dutch), DVD Verdict, Common Sense Media , High-Def Digest (1), Variety, Blu-ray.com (1) "Broadway World", High-Def Digest (2), TVQC (1) (French), "Reporter-Times" TVQC (2) (French), Deseret News, Blu-ray.com (2), and some others. Won't be me to fix it, but perhaps the article creator can be prevailed upon to do so to meet MOS:FILM? Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 01:43, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It would require some collaborations to find good sources and improve the plot. I already handled the cast and external links. --Rtkat3 (talk) 01:54, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I found and offered sources above, which is why I opined a keep. The current plot section is far too long, it needs a sourced reception section, and needs to be cited. Read MOS:FILM and look at other film articles to gain clue. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 05:25, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as reliable sources detailed by Michael QSchmidt have been presented and the article can be improved through those sources, so that WP:GNG is pased. Atlantic306 (talk) 00:32, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes it is mentioned in reliable sources, but is the coverage of any substance...ie does it do more than simply establish that this sorry lump of dreck exists??TheLongTone (talk) 14:30, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@TheLongTone: Yes, as I offered above... in English, French, and Dutch. I have added some sources to the article and while I still have no love for this film topic, notability standards are met. Plot is still way too long, but notability is shown. And note: while WP:SIGCOV is the accepted guideline and most of those I offered (and used) are substantive, the requested WP:SUBSTANTIAL is not part of guideline of policy. Just sayin' Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 05:16, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- RoySmith (talk) 14:47, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:44, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:44, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Onel5969 ^{TT me} 23:39, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Per the coverage found above, the subject has got significant coverage in reliable sources, meets WP:GNG—UY Scuti ^Talk 10:08, 13 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 discussion. --Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 09:39, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Geedhu Daniel[edit]

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

Unremarkable junior researcher... does not satisfy WP:ACADEMIC Catfish Jim and the soapdish 23:04, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:21, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No pass of WP:Prof. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:35, 8 April 2016 (UTC).[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:45, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:45, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:PROF. Entire article is just non-notable education and membership information. The closest thing towards notability is journal publications, and that utterly fails with only four journal publications. Nothing close to notable for a BLP. Kingofaces43 (talk) 20:40, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as I also concur this is questionable for any better signs of the applicable notability. SwisterTwister talk 04:57, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The only possible claim of notability is the "Francis Crick research award" which I could find no trace of; there is the Crick Lecture but no Daniel Guudhu won that one. So, this looks like another CV page, and potentially a lying one. Tigraan (talk) 08:09, 12 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. Lack of significant coverage in a reliable source, and despite all efforts, it has not been resolved at the time of this writing. Feel free to recreate this article if this could be addressed in the future. Yamamoto Ichiro (talk) 17:50, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Corey Mills[edit]

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

There are many sportsmen and one accused named Corey Mills, who appear in search results. Greek Legend (talk) 08:46, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
There was a complaint of copyvio with http://www.cdbaby.com/Artist/CoreyMills and http://festivalnet.com/See-M_Records , but the author of the article says that he has edit control over these 2 webpages. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 22:21, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting due to closure and re-opening. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 22:53, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Onel5969 ^{TT me} 22:53, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Sure there are many people with this name but only one Corey Mills has an article. So what is the proposed reason to delete here cause the nom did not provide one and it looks decent to me. Legacypac (talk) 23:27, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Someone alleged the above 2 copyvios, but one of the article's authors sent me a "Wikipedia email" saying that he or his firm set up both of the 2 named webpages. See Template:Reversecopyvio. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 08:01, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:28, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:28, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Alabama-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:28, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Tennessee-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:28, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not notable. Lacks coverage in independent reliable sources. duffbeerforme (talk) 11:34, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as my searches simply found nothing better and the article is not entirely convincing. SwisterTwister talk 17:31, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no WP:RS from what I could find online to establish notability of the subject. Kansiime (talk) 05:01, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Here is information to consider! ^[1]. This is an event where more than 500 people came to see him. Also, here is a picture of an article recently posted on the web- it was posted by a news company title Mullet Wrapper in March 2016: ^[2] This article mentions both- Corey Mills and See-M Records. Here is a page found in Who's Who Registry of Mills: ^[3]Cbrad25 (talk) 05:19, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ http://www.familyfunfestpensacola.com/free-concerts.html
^ https://www.facebook.com/CollegeBones/photos/a.382141271944012.1073741829.283794971778643/585511461606991/?type=3&theater
^ http://www.worldwidebranding.com/Corey-Mills

Delete Note to user Cbrad25 The 3 new references you provided to justify keep are, in order: 1) an advertisement for an event; 2) a trivial mention in a non-notable community newspaper that solicits content; 3) an entry from a user generated content webpage. ShelbyMarion (talk) 13:24, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Note to user ShelbyMarion: I will respond to your assumptions in order. Although site one is an advertisement for an event, it shows the credibility of the mention artist- that he is sought and an influential figure. 2) Though this article is not the Commercial Appeal, this, in fact, is a notable and reliable source of information for a huge portion of the Gulf Coast- including states Florida, Alabama, and Mississippi and the coastal communities therein. Additionally, Mills resides in the exact town where the largest music festivals are held every year. 3) Worldwide Branding is notable company in itself. This company is over Worldwide Who's Who and administers authentic information. The mentioned site is not a user-generated webpage. Cbrad25 (talk) 16:56, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: If this is kept, it needs a lot of editing. Bearian (talk) 20:36, 11 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 discography. (non-admin closure) Mz7 (talk) 03:38, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Point of No Return (mixtape)[edit]

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

Non-notable album: Lacks significant coverage in independent reliable sources. — JJMC89 (T·C) 22:41, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·C) 22:41, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to artist discography. Typical article from this editor.TheLongTone (talk) 23:01, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per above. Coverage is minimal and not significant enough to warrant independent article. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 23:03, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:43, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect as not independently notable. SwisterTwister talk 04:59, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 11:25, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Old Boys' Association of Sri Sumangala College[edit]

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

The article fails to comply with WP:NCORP or WP:GNG. It relies on WP:Primary sources (i.e. the organisation's website), with its earliest version being a direct copy and paste from that website. Dan arndt (talk) 22:37, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletion discussions. Dan arndt (talk) 22:41, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Dan arndt (talk) 22:41, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:36, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Non-notable.--obi2canibe^{talk contr} 18:11, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as I myself patrolled this at NPP and certainly noticed the troubles, nothing suggests any better applicable notability. SwisterTwister talk 05:00, 12 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" 17:23, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

County Highways in the Traverse City Area[edit]

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

As noted in the PROD, there are two foundational issues with this and a third additional issue.

First, the scope is poorly defined. If such an article were created, it should have been confined to a single county (Grand Traverse) and should then be a comprehensive list of that single county's county roads. Supposedly based on the first sentence, this is supposed to correspond to the Traverse City micropolitan area, yet that µSA only has four counties and this list has entries for nine counties. Also, what is the metric for "most traveled" in use?
Second, the terminology is completely wrong. The only "county highways" Michigan has are in the List of County-Designated Highways in Michigan, what this article erroneously calls the "Michigan Letter-Number System". The older numbered county road system, where still in use, the CR numbers were initially assigned in a repeating grid scheme that assigned certain numbers to certain areas, much like the concept that the Interstate Highways or the U.S. Highways in Michigan fall into certain numerical ranges. That is why CR 612 can cross county lines and retain its number.
Third, this list is completely unsourced. I feel that because it wasn't based on sources to start, that's why we have the two issues above, along with abbreviation formats that are not consistent with the rest of Wikipedia's coverage of major roadways in Michigan. As noted above, we have no source for defining these as the "most traveled" roads in these counties, so we don't even know if this listing is correct. Imzadi 1979 → 22:31, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this specific list because its scope is poorly defined. However, the coverage of non-CDH county highways in Michigan in by-county lists is perfectly valid and it is hoped the lists can be made in the future. It may help to sandbox this list or put in on a talk page somewhere so the information can be available to editors who want to make the proper lists in the future. Dough4872 00:49, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Lists for freeways and signed highways in a major metro area are bad enough, let's not make it worse by adding even less notable highways in even less notable areas. Sounder Bruce 03:11, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. --Rs chen 7754
Delete. County highways are better suited to lists by county (See County routes in New York,) not by metropolitan or micropolitan area. Vcap36 (talk) 02:27, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:35, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:35, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:35, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - badly sorted list - per WP:TNT. Bearian (talk) 20:37, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as not convincing for its own article. SwisterTwister talk 04:58, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete non-notable, autobiog, no valid sources. --Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 09:48, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jim Greeninger[edit]

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

This is an apparently autobiographical article on a non-notable guitar teacher, produced by the editor Jimsgreeninger (talk · contribs), who seems to be Jim Greeninger himself, the subject of the article.

The article is unsourced, other than non-specific references to Greeninger's personal web site and to Greeninger's web site for the "American School of Music", the school Greeninger runs.

I can find no basis for notability. The closest ones are Greeninger's claim that he was offered a post at Julliard (which he claims he turned down), which cannot be verified; and the claim that he "is presently listed as one of the top five living acoustic guitarist in the world at WorldGuitarRankings.com", a site that appears not to actually exist.

I proposed it for deletion in February, but Jimsgreeninger removed the prod with the edit summary "The information is valid and true. We will discuss it on the Talk page". No discussion was ever started. TJRC (talk) 22:02, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:10, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:10, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:10, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Lacks significant coverage by independent reliable sources. No reliably sourced evidence of passing any of the criteria at WP:MUSICBIO. I didn't find much when I did a basic clean up of the article. A new search brings up passing mentions, concert announcements and press releases. Claims of notability are not supported. • Gene93k (talk) 02:45, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as nothing at all for the applicable notability. SwisterTwister talk 19:28, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No references to verify notability. Sole reference is the subjects own website. ShelbyMarion (talk) 12:54, 11 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 discussion. --Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 17:26, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

AEK London F.C.[edit]

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

Non-notable, fails WP:GNG JMHamo (talk) 21:10, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. JMHamo (talk) 21:11, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 07:22, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Club plays below tier 10 on the national football pyramid, therefore is not eligible for a national competition per WP:FOOTYN. No indication of any other achievements garnering sufficient significant, reliable coverage to satisfy GNG. Fenix down (talk) 07:47, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:36, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:36, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:36, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - There don't appear to be any reliable sources, not associated with the club itself, that we can go with here. Spiderone 15:52, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:FOOTYN and WP:GNG, as no independent sources seem to exist about them. Joseph2302 (talk) 21:16, 12 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 no valid references, no notability. --Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 17:33, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Armaan Kirmani[edit]

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

No references, has not starred in any significant films, incorrect data regarding his role in the 2010 film 'Shortkut', Davidlofgren1996 (talk) 20:45, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 20:50, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nothing better at all for WP:ENTERTAINER, not even minimal notability. SwisterTwister talk 18:49, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:40, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:40, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:40, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Clearly fails WP:NACTOR. Safiel (talk) 18:42, 11 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 15:05, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Maulana Sheikh Waheed Ahmad Masood, Sheikhupur[edit]

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

Article contains no references, notability of subject appears to be in doubt. Had nominated it for a PROD but the tag was removed so am moving it here. KDS4444^Talk 11:46, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:51, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:51, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:51, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 19:38, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as questionable. Legacypac (talk) 22:54, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless better local sources and information can be found as this is noticeably unsourced thus is best restarted if needed. SwisterTwister talk 19:54, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It's very difficult to look for sources when the subject's name is surrounded by honorifics and other qualifiers to such an extent that it's difficult for those unfamilar with the language and culture involved to even identify what the subject's name is. I'm guessing that it's "Waheed Ahmad Masood", but it would be good to get confirmation of that from someone more knowledgeable than me. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 14:32, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I can tell you that "Sheikhupur" appears to be a village in India, which suggests it is being used in the title of this article to designate a place of association rather than a name or a title. I can also tell you that "Maulana" is a variant of "Mullah", which is an honorific for a respected Muslim priest in parts of Central and South Asia. And I can tell you that "Sheikh" is another honorific Muslim title. "Waheed", "Ahmad", and "Masood", however, are all personal identifiers. Although I am a little rusty, I studied Urdu for two years back in the late 1980s, which makes me no expert, but I doubt you will find anyone who disagrees with my conclusions here. Also, the name is used as "Waheed Ahmad Masood" without honorifics several times in the article, mister.... IP address. KDS4444^Talk 02:45, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Article's notability is questionable and no sources. — Omni Flames (talk contribs) 00:33, 14 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 cannot be inherited. --Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 17:37, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Eden Sassoon[edit]

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

Spam of a non-notable person by a series of COI editors. Joseph2302 (talk) 19:17, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Does not assert notability whatsoever other than her famous father. Donnie Park (talk) 01:39, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete May become notable in the future, but I'm not seeing it at this point. I can find some articles about charity work this, but it's basically "society pages" stuff, nothing in depth about her. LaMona (talk) 15:35, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete She only recieves any notice because her father was a major hair stylist. Notability is not inherited.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:13, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:45, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:45, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:45, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:45, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as no independent notability yet, nothing convincing to suggest improvements. SwisterTwister talk 05:41, 10 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 as defined in WP:N states that:

those that have gained sufficiently significant attention by the world at large and over a period of time, and are not outside the scope of Wikipedia. We consider evidence from reliable independent sources to gauge this attention.

There is no assertion of notability anywhere in this article as per WP:N or WP:BIO, hence the consensus is delete. Yamamoto Ichiro (talk) 10:21, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

John E. Michel[edit]

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

Working in the United States Air Force does not make you notable. CV of a non-notable person Joseph2302 (talk) 19:16, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - An ordinary officer, one of perhaps 20,000 who have been in the U.S. military. We applaud their service, but not every one of these 20,000 or more officers rates an encyclopedia entry. --Tenebrae (talk) 21:24, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Most of those 20,000 are not generals! -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:16, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as failing WP:AUTHOR and WP:SOLDIER, as well as WP:GNG. Book may be notable, maybe not, but not sufficient anyway to give him notability. — crh ₂₃ (Talk) 21:28, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Does not appears to have dome anything to assert notability. Donnie Park (talk) 01:36, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Book is self-published via Morgan James Publishing which calls itself "the first hybrid publisher to blend the strength of traditional publishing with the flexibility of self-publishing." There is nothing else notable about the person. LaMona (talk) 05:17, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:00, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:00, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per OP etc. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 19:19, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:36, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:36, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as simply nothing suggesting a better Wikipedia article, delete for now at best. SwisterTwister talk 05:01, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Obviously those who have said he fails WP:SOLDIER haven't actually read it. He's a general officer so clearly meets criterion #3. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:14, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Perhaps I am misreading it (I am no expert on military rank) but WP:SOLDIER would seem to cover this Brigadier General. JohnInDC (talk) 14:47, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- No, you're not misreading it. WP:SOLDIER has always been held to cover brigadier generals (and indeed also brigadiers in Commonwealth armies). -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:38, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - The policy reads like this: "In general, an individual is presumed to be notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple verifiable independent, reliable sources. In particular, individuals will almost always have sufficient coverage to qualify if they: 3)Held a rank considered to be a flag, general or air officer, or their historical equivalents;"

It doesn't say that any general qualifies, it says that they will "almost always have sufficient coverage" to qualify, (my emphasis) which is a rather odd way to say it. Are we to conclude that the coverage is there even if we haven't found it? It seems that is how many are interpreting it. It also says: "Conversely, any person who is only mentioned in genealogical records or family histories, or is traceable only through primary documents, is not notable." The only viable reference we have here is his bio at af.mil, which means that we have to determine if that is a primary document. For most BLPs, a bio at the employer's site is considered a primary document. LaMona (talk) 23:39, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't look to me as though anyone commenting here has really looked for sources - I was quickly able to find interviews at National Geographic, Huffingtonpost and ZDNet, along with articles published under his byline at Military Times and Harvard Business Review. It's not like the guy is invisible - or entirely self-published. JohnInDC (talk) 02:10, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I am tempted to delete per consensus, but would like to see further admin input. WP:SOLDIER is slightly imprecise; a brigadier-general is of sufficiently high rank, but he appears never to have commanded significant forces in combat, which the policy stipulates; commanding a training formation in Afghanistan may or may not qualify. He does not appear to satisfy WP:SOLDIER under any other criterion, given that the mere fact of his rank is not sufficient. --Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 17:53, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I read WP:SOLDIER to confer notability if any of the criteria are met, not all of them; and #3 ("Held a rank considered to be a flag, general or air officer, or their historical equivalents") would appear to apply without anything further required. But as I said, I could be wrong; and so welcome further input too. JohnInDC (talk) 18:11, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

From my reading of that, the crucial part is before the numbered points: "individuals will almost always have sufficient coverage..." i.e. the essay is pointing out that high-ranking officers tend to have had significant coverage in RS such that WP:BIO is met, but it is not an automatic rule that those with a certain rank are notable. So the question is whether the sources provided by JohnInDC above are sufficient to confer notability. It's tricky because the subject of those sources is more his book rather than himself. SmartSE (talk) 12:10, 14 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 discussion. --Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 17:56, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Rajesh Lakhan[edit]

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

Non-notable individual, infobox name-checks "Gold Medal in Table Tennis at the Intercampus Games of The University of the West Indies (2011)" under Notable work. The user who created the article appears to have a COI, their other article the closely related My Study Community is currently pending deletion. Antrocent (♫♬) 19:16, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete-Per nom, apparently has been deleted before also (not as a AFD though) Wgolf (talk) 20:02, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:09, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Trinidad and Tobago-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:09, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Notability deficient due to inadequate sources. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:05, 7 April 2016 (UTC).[reply]
Delete: The author appears to be a single-purpose account. Per RickinBaltimore's comment on the AfD for the company article created by the same author, the intent behind this article appears to have been promotional. The subject fails WP:BIO and arguably WP:A7, as the article does not seem to contain a credible claim of significance --Erick Shepherd (talk) 21:12, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as nothing suggesting independent notability. SwisterTwister talk 05:01, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete non-notable. --Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 18:01, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Amy Andersen[edit]

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

CEO of a non-notable company, created by a series of COI editors. Joseph2302 (talk) 19:14, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Nothing notable about this company. --Tenebrae (talk) 21:22, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Nothing to indicate why she is notable, could be merged to her company but that also have been AfD, so best deleted. Donnie Park (talk) 01:03, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Article on the founder of a local dating service, nothing of note here.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:49, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:47, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:47, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as none of this suggests any applicable independent notability. SwisterTwister talk 05:41, 10 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 not notable. --Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 18:04, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Linx Dating[edit]

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

Spam of a non-notable company by a series of COI editors. Joseph2302 (talk) 19:13, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Ordinary, non-notable company, one of countless like it. --Tenebrae (talk) 21:51, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Another run-of-the-mill dating agency. Nothing to indicate why this is notable. Donnie Park (talk) 01:02, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - this should be speedied for sheer promotion. The article gives a glowing account of the business ("her continued success" "clients at Linx have achieved great success in their lives"), yet leaves off a number of salient features (like the $25K fee to join). LaMona (talk) 05:09, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:35, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:35, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as searches noticeably found nothing better. SwisterTwister talk 05:03, 8 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" 18:08, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Legal controversy between Answers in Genesis and Creation Ministries International[edit]

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

Lawsuits and disputes and not generally notable, and the fact that two fringe organisations had a falling out is not in itself worthy of an article. This topic does not have the independent notability needed for a standalone article. Relevant, well-sourced content can be (and is) included in the articles on the respective organisations. St Anselm (talk) 18:52, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:25, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bible-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:25, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:25, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I agree, I don't think it worthy of an article. I generally don't think legal disputes and lawsuits are notable, otherwise we would be swimming in them, unless they have an massive and widespread effect of the general populace, e.g. Apple Inc. v. Samsung Electronics Co, which had the effect of driving up the cost of smartphones for million's of people across the world. scope_creep (talk) 13:29, 7 April 2016 (UTC
Delete per nom and WP:EVENTCRITERIA. Selective merge if desired/required (though I've no interest doing it, that's for sure). The title name is sensationalist and POV, too: it's not a "controversy" that most of us would care a fig about, merely a legal battle between two fringe groups. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:30, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. I agree with previous comments, really just two fringe groups in a legal battle, not noteable. ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 21:39, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as lacking notability. Rebb ing 14:19, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete agree with previous arguments - there are a couple of paragraphs on these events in each of the articles on the respective organizations, with references, and that's plenty. No need for this article. Make sure when this is deleted the "Main article: ...." references leading here are deleted too, of course. --Krelnik (talk) 14:55, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - NN lawsuit. Bearian (talk) 20:39, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as not independently notable. SwisterTwister talk 05:01, 12 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 is no convincing arguments for keep or delete in this debate. Debut is not a reliable way of gauging notability, nor it's a reliable way to rule out notability. Yamamoto Ichiro (talk) 10:32, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

NCT (band)[edit]

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

Non-notable boy band that has yet to debut. —teb728 t c 18:51, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Random86 (talk) 18:58, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. Random86 (talk) 18:58, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and then Redirect if needed to the agency as this is too soon at best and is not yet solidly acceptable. SwisterTwister talk 19:31, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per nomination. Too soon, and this is just a very minor boy band. ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 21:43, 7 April 2016 (UTC) 7 April 2016[reply]
Keep now it debuted. FudgeFury^{(talk|sign|contribs)} 15:47, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – I predict this AfD will be very similar to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Red Velvet (band). There is almost no chance of this group not being notable in a week or two. Random86 (talk) 21:12, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It debuted with several music videos under one of the biggest labels in that country. They may be new but they'll be big fast. ₪RicknAsia₪
Keep Debut in Korea is scheduled for April 15th. The members all come from a popular show in Korea entitled SM Rookies, where you follow the journey of trainees from SM Entertainment--this means they already have considerable notoriety pre-debut. Also, their music videos have already garnered (as of 4/13/2016 @14:42) 3,129,654 for "The 7th Sense", 1,326,347 for "Without You", and 937,610 for "The 7th Sense--Performance Video", and they were all released within the last 4 days. The group is also part of a major content reorganization for one of the largest music entertainment companies in South Korea, SM Entertainment: NCT U is just one of many planned groups debuting under the "NCT brand", and they are expected to perform very well in the South Korean charts as well as in major overseas Korean music markets because of aforementioned pre-debut activities and other marketing strategies by SM Entertainment. Navarrocortez (talk) 18:49, 13 April 2016 (UTC) 14:49, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not that it matters but SM Rookies was never a show. It's just what SM calls their rookies and they put a few of them on some programs when they can but most of them aren't well known to the public the way the girls of produce 101 are.Peachywink (talk) 05:40, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Whatever might be said of this group at the beginning of the nomination, notability is now firmly established. DavidLeighEllis (talk) 21:51, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep They're going to be famous so soon that I don't see the practicality in deleting the page. But it does need revision as some of the facts on the page are wrong, such as the members list.Peachywink (talk) 05:44, 14 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) 00:41, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Bain[edit]

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

Non-notable football player, fails WP:NGRIDIRON and WP:GNG. Prod contested by article creator. --Finngall ^talk 18:27, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:28, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Tennessee-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:28, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:28, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:28, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:NGRIDIRON (no pro games), WP:NCOLLATH (no awards, etc.), and WP:GNG (not finding significant coverage in multiple, reliable sources). Cbl62 (talk) 03:17, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Very premature. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NCOLLATH. ~ Rob^Talk 04:32, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as nothing at all for any notability yet. SwisterTwister talk 05:07, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or incubate or userfy. Subject has not passed any notability measure I can find, but may do so in the future.--Paul McDonald (talk) 13:43, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 11:26, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

KOI-5806.01[edit]

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

Unconfirmed candidate of a possible planet at another star. No indication of notability. Google returns 15 hits for "KOI-5806" which consists of false matches such as license plates, Wikipedia + Wikipedia clone pages, and two indiscriminate astronomical-catalog-listings. Indiscriminate catalogs or lists are not evidence of notability (see Wikipedia:Notability#cite_note-5). (Edit: a Google search on "KOI 5806.01" gave 13 hits, with basically the same outcome.) The two refs in the article are catalog/list type.

Consider that over the years actually-discovered-planets will grow into the thousands and eventually millions. We should not have bare catalog-listings of statistics on millions of non-notable planets, much less hypothetical planets. We could not even have indiscriminate "list of" articles containing millions of planets. Wikipedia is not a catalog. Someone looking for bare statistics on non-notable astronomical bodies should check an astronomical catalog. Alsee (talk) 18:17, 6 April 2016 (UTC) Alsee (talk) 18:17, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Astronomy-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:51, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I think articles about individual KOIs probably should be deleted in general unless there is something particularly unique about them which has been noticed in numerous papers. jps (talk) 22:53, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I was looking at nominating other KOIs for deletion, but let's let this AFD run as a trial balloon. Assuming this is deleted then maybe I'll group the other KOIs in one AFD listing. People are invited to comment on the advisability (or inadvisability) of grouping the other KOI's into a future AFD. Alsee (talk) 23:33, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have tagged 7 KOI- articles for notability. None of those articles have refs supporting notability, and I spent a lot of time searching sources on them. Non-notable. Maybe I'll list those as a batch. There's also over a hundred exoplanet articles listed in Category:Exoplanets_discovered_by_Kepler_(spacecraft). Checking some of the others in the category at random, most are are non-notable but it looks like there there are exceptions. It's going to take take quite a while to properly check them. Alsee (talk) 05:37, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I consider both these sources [1] and [2] reliable. This falls under "Data of Potentially Habitable Worlds" so there is some confirmation they exist. Valoem ^talk ^contrib 02:40, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Um, that's just wrong. Candidates by definition have not been confirmed. jps (talk) 12:17, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment (leaning delete) In this AfD and similar others I see comments across the board to the effect that proven existence of a planet/moon/etc. is a prerequisite or at least a big plus to keep the article. Can someone explain why (WP:CBALL is not enough)? I mean, if there is WP:GNG or WP:NASTCRIT #3 coverage it does not matter if the object eventually is proven not to exist (the subject is notable, even though it is about a speculative topic), and if there is not then it does not matter either (since then it is not notable, at least yet). Tigraan (talk) 09:11, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please do see WP:NASTRO. I didn't see anyone else link to it? Shawn in Montreal (talk) 12:01, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure this is a reply to my question, but if so, the closest I can find in all of WP:NASTRO is "the fact that an astronomical object exists in space is by itself not enough to support notability" - which says that existence is not a sufficient condition, but it does not say it is necessary. (And I do not think it should be, per above.) Tigraan (talk) 09:46, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Existence isn't necessary, but non-existing is a definite negative in cases with borderline coverage. A non-existing object has zero likelyhood of having on-going relevance or accumulating additional notability. And it's particularly bad to have an article on a non-notable non-existing object. Here, someone created a batch of articles on real objects, unconfirmed objects, and purely hypothetical objects, that have little or no coverage. The articles are backed up by indiscriminate catalog listings - basically the equivalent of citing phone book listings to support a batch of biographical articles. The fact that my name, address, and phone number were published in a "Reliable Source" phone book does not establish notability. The article creator has also been spamming "Earth Similarity Index" everywhere which has negligible accepted scientific acceptance, they have been hyping the habitability&alien-life angle everwhere including purely hypothetical moons, they have been blocked for using sock accounts to multiple-vote in AFD's and RFC's (it looks like 5 or more votes in some cases), and they also used the sock account to do a bogus Good Article review and promote they own work to Good Article status. Alsee (talk) 09:46, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I concur with the nominator's formulation of the issues. This exoplanet candidate should be subject to WP:GNG and WP:NASTCRIT, and it does not fulfill either. Regarding NASTCRIT #3 (as pointed out by Tigraan), there were no results when I did a full-text search for this candidate exoplanet in NASA's ADS search engine. More broadly, I agree that the KOIs shouldn't have their own articles unless they fulfill either WP:GNG or WP:NASTCRIT. Otherwise, there would be a flood of articles which needlessly duplicate basic catalog information. Astro4686 (talk) 19:27, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete reference consist mostly of listings databases of preliminary/potential candidates. While the databases themselves are notable, the objects contained therein are not. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 14:31, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:27, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. WP:NOTCATALOGUE applies here. As others have mentioned, the threshold for notability under WP:NASTRO could be considered confirmation as an exoplanet rather than just candidate status. Kingofaces43 (talk) 20:44, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Kingofaces43, recheck WP:NASTRO. It says The fact that an astronomical object exists in space is by itself not enough to support notability. Confirmation of existence definitely doesn't pass the threshold for notability. Advancing technology is going to find millions of exoplanets in the coming years. We should not be a catalog listing raw physical data on millions of non-notable objects. Anyone looking for that sort of indiscriminate raw scientific data is better off going to a dedicated scientific astronomical catalog. Alsee (talk) 23:17, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The point of my citing NASTRO was that we aren't even to the point where we have a confirmed instanced where we'd begin considering notability. I'm far from proposing a catalogue of even confirmed exoplanets, which hopefully should be clear from my mention of NOTCATALOGUE. Kingofaces43 (talk) 23:27, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as there's nothing to suggest a solid notable article for Wikipedia, delete as there's nothing solid to suggest better improvements. SwisterTwister talk 05:08, 12 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, or {{db-band}} kelapstick^(bainuu) 06:50, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Call of Nature (band)[edit]

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

Fails WP:BAND - no secondary sources, highest award seems to have been a high school "battle of the bands", band has apparently never released an album. McGeddon (talk) 16:19, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 16:43, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

DELETE because there is no usable content in the article. Dkendr (talk) 17:11, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. So many things this could be, including WP:G11 spam, or WP:G3 hoax. And I say hoax because the 2015 "collaborated with a John Lennon Christmas song "Happy Christmas". Maybe it's someone not good with English, but they surely were not collaborators on the long-deceased Lennon's original 1971 Happy Xmas (War Is Over). They don't even have the name of the song correct. Maybe they mean "collaborate" to be the band collaborated with itself to sing on the radio. Who knows. I could even guess that it's a case of WP:PNT, liner notes or other promotional material originally in the Filipino language and poorly translated. In any event, there is no sourcing whatsoever, and nothing comes up in an internet search for this band. — Maile (talk) 19:52, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete Clearly not a notable band. JDDJS (talk) 20:51, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete. The subject is not notable and the article has no references and is promotinal in tone. Sixth o f March 22:54, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as nothing at all including at least minimal notability. SwisterTwister talk 19:32, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete Looks like the model of what NOT to do for a band article. ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 21:46, 7 April 2016 (UTC) 7 April 2016[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:26, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedily deleted by JzG per WP:G11. (non-admin closure) —Nizolan ^(talk) 22:47, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Classical Music America[edit]

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

Non notable online radio station being self promoted by Ottaway, fails WP:GNG Theroadislong (talk) 16:15, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:48, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:48, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:49, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete 100% agree with the above. Joseph2302 (talk) 17:01, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedily deleted by JzG per WP:G11. (non-admin closure) —Nizolan ^(talk) 22:49, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Stevens Worldwide Van Lines[edit]

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

Non notable moving company not at all clear that it passes WP:CORP Theroadislong (talk) 16:06, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:51, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:51, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:CORP and WP:GNG. Joseph2302 (talk) 17:00, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - This article was apparently created by an internet marketing agency working on behalf of the subject, see http://stevensworldwide.com/News/Category/Stevens/Stevens-Worldwide-Van-Lines-Launches-New-Regional-Website.aspx. As far as I can see there has been no declaration of paid editing by this author, despite having been warned about COI. --David Biddulph (talk) 17:27, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Agree, there's also an ANI discussion about it. I'd also support a speedy delete for undisclosed paid editing in violation of Wikimedia's Terms of Use. Joseph2302 (talk) 17:37, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:39, 6 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) 00:40, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Munni Sanchez[edit]

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

Prod removed by article creator without comment. Concern was that she is not notable and fails GNG Gbawden (talk) 13:25, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:42, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:42, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as not at all entirely satisfying the applicable notability. SwisterTwister talk 16:47, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete due to lack of significant coverage from reliable publications. Regards, Yamaguchi先生 (talk) 18:25, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete due to lack of notability. ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 21:51, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 11:27, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

List of Evolution-Data Optimized service providers[edit]

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

I consider it necessary to have a new discussion based on the fact that this page is actually a duplicate of List of CDMA2000 networks where all information seems to be available with sources already. The latter page is already linked from the main article Evolution-Data Optimized. Nightwalker-87 (talk) 21:00, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 17:00, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 17:00, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:33, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as I question whether this can be better improved and the article could still use better work thus Delete at best for now. SwisterTwister talk 22:32, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:40, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, postdlf (talk) 13:23, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of CDMA2000 networks. While in principle there is nothing wrong with having a list-class article like this, in practice the EVDO status of providers is already indicated in List of CDMA2000 networks and it is more informative and better referenced. Hence I recommend redirect because List of Evolution-Data Optimized service providers is redundant with List of CDMA2000 networks and it would be good to provide a pointer to the better list. --Mark viking (talk) 18:36, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think that a #REDIRECT is not even necessary here, as this page does not seem to be widely linked from other pages. The wiki-links in Evolution-Data Optimized have already been replaced. Nightwalker-87 (talk) 08:51, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, the article should be deleted and a #REDIRECT is not needed. Drahtlos (talk) 13:35, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Please note that the article is basically simply a list of a tossed number of companies and it's unsourced not to mention with nothing else suggesting it stay a separate article itself. SwisterTwister talk 05:07, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as duplicated and unncessary. Chrisw80 (talk) 06:59, 12 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 discussion. --Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 13:26, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Chucky 7[edit]

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

Delete as per WP:HAMMER and WP:NCRYSTAL Gbawden (talk) 13:20, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:41, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NFF as having no sources showing it has entered principle photography. Seems like it may have stalled? I can find no recent mention on the official site. — crh ₂₃ (Talk) 14:33, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now per being TOO SOON and, as plans are sourcable,redirect and mention over at Chucky (franchise). While there are many recent sources speaking toward its plans "being in the works",[3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], et al so it does at least merit a sourced mention in the Chucky (franchise) article, even if failing WP:NFF (paragaph 3) means a not yet as a separate article. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 04:14, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:43, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as too soon at best. SwisterTwister talk 05:12, 12 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 (NAC). SwisterTwister talk 14:51, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Inga Verbeeck[edit]

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

No substantial coverage of the subject in RS so a considerable way off meeting WP:BIO. SmartSE (talk) 12:34, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:BIO and WP:GNG. Joseph2302 (talk) 19:19, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Has nothing to indicate why this subject should be notable. Donnie Park (talk) 02:18, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I did find some other sources, although essentially they don't add a great deal to the content of the article. CNBC, Yahoo Spain. Most sources I find are interviews, and here is her PR company's strategy on obtaining those: PHA. This doesn't diminish the sources, but I tend to forget that publicity is a business. LaMona (talk) 22:38, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:20, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:20, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Belgium-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:20, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as simply nothing yet for solid independent notability. SwisterTwister talk 05:39, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - searches did not turn up enough in-depth coverage to show that they pass WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:13, 14 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 International Air Transport Association airport code. Editorial consensus can determine whether to merge anything. Sandstein 20:21, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Origin of airport IATA codes[edit]

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

This article only contains trivia about IATA airport codes, and should be deleted per WP:IINFO. Not a notable topic, and cannot be objectively and reliably sourced. SSTflyer 12:18, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. SSTflyer 12:20, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. SSTflyer 12:20, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a collection of non-notable information. Could maybe be included as a parameter in {{Infobox airport}} (in the same way that {{Infobox radio station}} has call sign meaning) but I can't see much of a need for that. — crh ₂₃ (Talk) 14:45, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:53, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to International Air Transport Association airport code, which has better history and info on these codes. A simple WP:BEFORE search shows interest in origins and publication about these in reliable sources. I am not sure that there is enough for notability of the etymology in particular, but verifiable information is out there. There is better information about origins and IATA naming conventions, however, in the International Air Transport Association airport code article. The main reason to blank this article is that it is redundant with a better article. I consider the topic a reasonable search term, so a redirect is warranted. --Mark viking (talk) 18:51, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There is enough in the main IATA codes article and leaving this wordy title as a redirect is pointless. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 19:22, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as nothing to actually suggest keeping or redirecting at all. SwisterTwister talk 05:10, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge this is only partially covered in the main article. I think it's clearer as a list like the present one than incorporated into paragraphs, but at any rate it certainly shouldn't be a separate article. DGG ( talk ) 04:56, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - While a simple redirect would be okay, I agree with DGG that this current article is not enough for a standalone, but does contain information which could improve the main article, International Air Transport Association airport code. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:12, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In the interest of consensus, I would be happy with a merge as well. --Mark viking (talk) 17:40, 14 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. sufficient consensus DGG ( talk ) 04:55, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Airport Management Professional Accreditation Programme[edit]

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

No evidence of notability. This article has previously been deleted (previous AfD nomination), and there is no evidence that its notability has increased. SSTflyer 12:02, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. SSTflyer 12:05, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. SSTflyer 12:05, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. SSTflyer 12:05, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The cited Aviation Week piece talks about "my story". There remains a smell of promotionalism as well as insufficient reliable third-party evidence of notability. The right editor might be able to create a useful article - so let it wait until then. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 19:29, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Management-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:24, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as there's nothing to convince solid independent notability can be achieved and the article improved. SwisterTwister talk 05:12, 12 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 15:03, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Vidhi Mehta[edit]

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

reference cited does not confer to wp:RS , other sources seems to original Shrikanthv (talk) 10:44, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk) 10:58, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk) 10:59, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk) 10:59, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

sources link of her songs and links is here take a look

https://www.myswar.com/artist/vidhi-mehta
^ https://www.mtv.com/artists/vidhi-mehta
^ http://www.hungama.com/artists/vidhi-mehta/8095

^ http://gaana.com/artist/vidhi-mehta

^ https://www.songdew.com/vidhimehta
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TzL_LqPJoNI

^ https://www.musixmatch.com/lyrics/Papon-Angaraag-Smita-Jain-Vidhi-Mehta/Khamma-Ghani-From-Happy-Ending ^ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YLwZN74Fqrk

^ https://itunes.apple.com/in/album/happy-ending-original-motion/id1069794260

devilisback 17:30, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Delete: as per the article she has sung one song in Happy Ending. That fails WP:MUSICBIO. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 10:56, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as extensive searches only found a few local news. SwisterTwister talk 18:54, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - clearly doesn't pass WP:MUSICBIO, and searches did not turn up enough to warrant passing by WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:09, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 11:24, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ചക്കളത്തിപ്പോരാട്ടം[edit]

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

A non-English article that was created 15 days ago with no attempts made to translate it. It was prodded almost a week ago but the Prod template has been removed. Google translation suggests it is about a phrase used in movies, so is of dubious notability anyway. AtHomeIn神戸 (talk) 09:59, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

~~Speedy~~ Delete ~~- A1~~ - ~~Tagged as such~~ as obviously not in English, ~~Technically A1 does't apply but then technically I cannot identify the subject of the article.... 'cos it's not English .... Anyway Delete.~~ –Davey2010^Talk 19:47, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Davey2010, unfortunately WP:A1 explicitly excludes coherent non-English material. We have to assume it was coherent to the author in their language, since they even provided a link to what looks like a dictionary definition of the term. I checked throughly to see if any speedy criteria could be applied before bringing it here. AtHomeIn神戸 (talk) 22:33, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Athomeinkobe - Damnit I had a feeling it wouldn't work

, For some reason I thought me being all technical would've helped lol, Ah well normal delete it is ... or was I suppose

, –Davey2010^Talk 22:46, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

An IP left this comment on the article talk page a few days ago: To User:Eventhorizon51, It describes about oil millstone and deceitful tact used to takeover portions of oil when the millstone is used by multiple persons at the same time. It further signifies the use of word in reference to the tact used in political games in current times and describes them as shows. I don't know the global importance it has in Wikipedia English. But moving the article to Malayalam portal of Wikipedia(ml.wikipedia.org) would be good decision for the time. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 01:53, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural Delete, per WP:PNT standard practice--Jac16888 ^Talk 16:40, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as this is another case of an article started and no one noticing they should put at least basic English. SwisterTwister talk 05:14, 12 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. WP:CSD#A7 -- Ed (Edgar181) 13:51, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Abdullah Al Jubayer[edit]

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

Fictious Xx C00l G$Y x#^t@lk 05:33, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete A7. Already tagged. Whether Al Jubayer is real is irrelevant in this case - Bugs Bunny, for instance, is a fictitious character. What is relevant is that the person in question is not at all notable and qualifies for CSD A7. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 05:47, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:10, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:10, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:10, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Procedural close. Article already deleted at 09:54 on 6 April 2016 by RHaworth (talk · contribs) "A7: Article about a website, blog, web forum, webcomic, podcast, browser game, or similar web content, which does not credibly indicate the importance or significance of the subject" (non-admin closure) | Uncle Milty | talk | 11:04, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Korea in arabic[edit]

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

Unsourced, notability not established, contested prod. WWGB (talk) 04:25, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 05:03, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedily delete due to a lack of any claim of notability and as promotional. (I have deleted the other incarnation of the same article, Korea in Arabic channel.) - Mike Rosoft (talk) 05:08, 6 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) 00:38, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mano Thutão[edit]

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

~~news search result is not showing anything. Greek Legend (talk) 01:48, 30 March 2016 (UTC)~~ blocked sockpuppet Atlantic306 (talk) 16:42, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 09:05, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 09:05, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete ~~Comment~~- There is very little, but there is some information available in Portuguese. This announcement about his death in the local newspaper of Araçatuba, São Paulo is the best that I found. A deceased Brazilian Christian rapper with ~~only one~~ three albums will likely not have many editors digging around to establish notability on enwiki—the article has been deleted a couple times on ptwiki. giso6150 (talk) 12:52, 30 March 2016 (UTC) — I changed this comment to a vote. giso6150 (talk) 12:10, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ptwiki means Portuguese wiki?. Do you have the links? --Greek Legend (talk) 05:16, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, sorry to abbreviate without linking… the red link on Portuguese Wikipedia for Mano Thutão shows (me) three prior deletions. Administrators may see more information than I do. giso6150 (talk) 12:34, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mz7 (talk) 04:15, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete at best as this is still not satisfying any applicable notability and there will not be anything else considering his death. SwisterTwister talk 05:58, 6 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" 13:36, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Catherine Khiangte[edit]

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

Singer with questionable notability with no sources to be found outside of Facebook, Twitter and Instagram (if Instagram can even be called one-at least FB has some stuff on it) Anyway I can't seem to find anything about her at all looking around for her. Wgolf (talk) 03:32, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as clearly nothing for at least minimal notability. SwisterTwister talk 06:12, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:12, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:12, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Total lack of anything remotely close to being a reliable source.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:14, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I can find no evidence of substantive coverage in a reliable source, nor is there any other claim to notability. Vanamonde93 (talk) 21:27, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - searches returned absolutely zero coverage from independent reliable sources. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:53, 14 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) 18:52, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Aimee Challenor[edit]

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

WP:BLP, based half on primary sources and half on glancing namechecks of her existence in media coverage which isn't about her, of a person whose only substantive claims of notability are as an LGBT issues spokesperson for a minor political party and as a non-winning candidate for election to a local city council. Neither of these confer an WP:NPOL pass -- but she doesn't pass WP:GNG either as the media coverage here is not about her. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 02:51, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 02:53, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:15, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:15, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nothing actually suggesting solid independent notability. SwisterTwister talk 06:15, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as being an unelected candidate in a local election and being a spokesperson for a political party is not enough to pass WP:NPOL. veganfishcake (talk) 01:45, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete She ran for and lost a run for a city council position. It is not clear if she would have been notable if she had won, but she lost so she is clearly not notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:39, 9 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 15:03, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

List of microfluidics related companies[edit]

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

WP:NOT DIRECTORY. A few of of these companies are notable major firms with appropriate WP articles, though I doubt they would be notable for the microfluidics work alone; a few smaller ones may even be notable primarily for microfluidics. A few others without an article might be individually notable also. Butthat doesn't mean a list is justified. See also: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of microfluidics research groups (3rd nomination) DGG ( talk ) 02:37, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:15, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as this is another case of having this type of list and it's actually unnecessary, no actual improvements imaginable at all. SwisterTwister talk 06:16, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Another case of NOTADIRECTORY. --Randykitty (talk) 06:39, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:54, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:54, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 11:28, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Angel De-Mar[edit]

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

Non-notable singer: Lacks significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. — JJMC89 (T·C) 02:27, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·C) 02:28, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Delaware-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·C) 02:28, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nothing confidently better for the applicable notability, article is certainly not convincing. SwisterTwister talk 06:16, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Her claim to fame seems to be she performed with Nicki Manaj, but that does not make one notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:56, 9 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. ignoring the SPAs, as we're supposed to do, , clear consensus DGG ( talk ) 04:54, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Slenke[edit]

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

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

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

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

Non-notable company. Google news returns one result: PRnewswire. Article has sources but they are mostly low-quality PR pages. The only solid ref is from the Globe and mail. Without diverse sources the company fails WP:GNG and is distinctly promotiional in nature as well. HappyValleyEditor (talk) 02:04, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:18, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:18, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:18, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a somewhat newly founded company with nothing else for actual solid notability. SwisterTwister talk 06:18, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Got some good sources, including a interview i.e. Globe and Mail, Interview with Startup Ottawa and Virtual Strategy Magazine Aeronaut225 (talk) 15:46, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Note that Aeronaut225 is a SPA.HappyValleyEditor (talk) 17:05, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's a good start, it has some good references and it will improve further in due time. Fwb tc (talk) 18:14, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Note to closing admin That makes two keeps from accounts less than a day old. Just keeping track.HappyValleyEditor (talk) 20:36, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:58, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:58, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The reliable and verifiable sources clearly about the subject meet the notability standard.Rollingtwister (talk) 16:43, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Note to Closing admin that makes three keeps from new accounts-- oldest is two days or so. It's amazing how these new poeple are so comitted to AfD's! HappyValleyEditor (talk) 19:42, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete - Clearly this is a non-notable article given the coverage available as of now. Moreover, the SPA cases above that @HappyValleyEditor: has pointed out compound the reason for a speedy delete since they are out here to break Wikipedia policy. DarthVader (talk) 00:58, 12 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. Yamamoto Ichiro (talk) 10:33, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Infatuated[edit]

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

Unreleased album with no significant coverage in reliable sources. Fails all notability requirements. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 01:15, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Lacks significant coverage in reliable sources. — JJMC89 (T·C) 01:58, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·C) 01:58, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:53, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nothing imaginably better for the applicable notability. SwisterTwister talk 06:18, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Selective Merge to Janelle Monáe, which presently has no mention of this unofficial studio album. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:52, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No significant coverage.*Treker (talk) 10:08, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as per NA to Janelle Monáe#2007–11: Beginnings and The ArchAndroid. Not enough coverage to warrant a standalone article. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:52, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as not enough significant independent coverage to have an article. Omni Flames ^{let's talk about it} 04:50, 15 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" 13:40, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sweetcron[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

The results of the first AfD notwithstanding, this defunct software fails WP:NSOFT. Article has been tagged for notability since 2011 and all links are dead. This is just another failed software project, no indication it was ever notable. Safiel (talk) 14:45, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:53, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no reliable sources to satisfy WP:GNG and WP:PRODUCT. If this was very important then there would be results from web archives but none exists. Mwenzangu (talk) 01:52, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - The last afd included mention of this arstechnica review: http://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2008/09/hands-on-sweetcron-a-self-hosted-lifestream-service/ Dialectric (talk) 15:24, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SSTflyer 01:05, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as searches found nothing noticeably better. SwisterTwister talk 05:58, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Searches did not turn up enough in-depth coverage to show it passes WP:GNG, and doesn't meet WP:NSOFT. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:47, 14 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 14:59, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

FirstCom[edit]

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

Article about a non-notable company, largely penned by representatives of the company and written like an advertisement. I can find no evidence the subject meets the WP:GNG or WP:ORG. In fact, I can find no secondary sources on this company, so there would be nothing to build a better article out of. Cited sources are either from the company's website or that of its parent company. -- Rrburke (talk) 14:21, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Found no relevant secondary sources (many were talking about an Irish marketing agency). Article is almost entirely written by a single editor, the majority of whose contributions have been to that article. Fails WP:ORG and probably WP:PLUG too. -crh23 (talk) 15:53, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:00, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:00, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:00, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:00, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Page is actively being improved over time. Secondary sources are available, and being added. Would appreciate editorial assistance to improve page over deletion of page. - ReceptFC — Preceding unsigned comment added by Receptfc (talk • contribs) 21:24, 1 April 2016‎

Comment:This account is an SPA associated with the subject of the article. -- Rrburke (talk) 12:54, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SSTflyer 01:05, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as this is obvious enough, simply not convincing enough for solid notability. SwisterTwister talk 06:19, 6 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) 18:48, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jamey Eisenberg[edit]

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

WP:BLP of a journalist, which is sourced nowhere but his "our staff" profile on the website of his own employer and his own Twitter feed. A journalist does not get a Wikipedia article just because primary and directly affiliated sources verify that he exists; he gets an article when he's substantively the subject of enough coverage in independent sources to satisfy WP:GNG. But nothing like that has been shown here, and nothing like that is locatable on the Google either -- all I get is hits where he's the bylined author of the content, or hits where he's namechecked as a soundbite provider in an article about something else, but I'm not finding hits where he's the subject of the coverage. Delete, without prejudice against recreation in the future if real reliable source coverage, about him rather than just verifying his existence, can be located. Bearcat (talk) 05:03, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:34, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:34, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:34, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:34, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The profile from his employer is not enough to establish notability. Especially since it does not seem to be a profile at all, just a listing of all his articles.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:22, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SSTflyer 01:03, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as his information is not convincing for any applicable notability. SwisterTwister talk 06:21, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no third-party sources seem to exist. Bishonen | talk 21:42, 6 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) 18:29, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

NUSMods[edit]

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

Article is about an app used by the National University of Singapore. Fails WP:ORGDEPTH, WP:AUD, WP:ORGIND. I cannot see the notability of an application used by the students of only one university. Lemongirl942 (talk) 04:46, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:40, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:40, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - There is not much coverage about the subject in reliable sources as per WP:RS. In addition this is something used locally at at just one university thus fails WP:AUD. Kagundu^{Wanna Chat?} 18:00, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SSTflyer 01:02, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a somewhat newly founded company with still questionability for solid independent notability and the sources listed are also noticeably not solid for anything better. SwisterTwister talk 06:04, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, only sources are self-promotion. Bishonen | talk 21:36, 6 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 14:58, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Gregory Malyuga[edit]

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

~~Non-notable. Can't find anything. Greek Legend (talk) 02:25, 29 March 2016 (UTC)~~ blocked sockpuppet Atlantic306 (talk) 16:44, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 22:34, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 22:34, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 22:35, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Provisional Keep. If the information is accurate then clearly he is notable as a general officer per WP:SOLDIER, but we do obviously need some sort of evidence of his existence and career, even if it's in Russian. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:44, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

At Least one RS source.Greek Legend (talk) 05:14, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SSTflyer 01:00, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now at best as this is noticeably not sourced at all and my searches found nothing better at all thus nothing else convincing. SwisterTwister talk 06:23, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, unsourced and apparently unsourcable. Bishonen | talk 21:34, 6 April 2016 (UTC).[reply]
For what it's worth, I think that the name in Cyrillic would be, including patronymic, "Григорий Васильевич Малюга". A better transliteration of the first name into the Latin alphabet would be "Grigori" - it seems that the article creater translated rather than transliterated. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 15:17, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. WP:NPASR by a non-sock user. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:27, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ayala (musical artist)[edit]

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

~~Fails WP:GNG and WP:ENTERTAINER. No RS source. Greek Legend (talk) 04:43, 21 March 2016 (UTC)~~ blocked sockpuppet Atlantic306 (talk) 19:02, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Vipinhari || talk 06:02, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Vipinhari || talk 06:02, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as the current article is simply not enough to convincingly keep yet thus, since not convincing yet, delete until better is available. SwisterTwister talk 04:54, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Malcolmxl5 (talk) 02:05, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, nice sources out there for Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL and Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL. — Cirt (talk) 20:25, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SSTflyer 01:00, 6 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) 18:26, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Davao Catholic Herald[edit]

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

The subject lacks significant coverage; reliable sources can't be found. Tagged for PROD but it was contested by a newly-registered user whose edits involve removal of PRODs. Sixth o f March 00:35, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:23, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:23, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:42, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as questionably better for a better notable and improvable article, delete for now until better is available. SwisterTwister talk 05:29, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Malcolmxl5 (talk) 02:01, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SSTflyer 00:59, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No sources offered and none to be found. Bishonen | talk 21:31, 6 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) 18:23, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Etihad Liberal Press[edit]

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

~~Not-Notable. can't find sources. Greek Legend (talk) 01:58, 29 March 2016 (UTC)~~ Blocked sockpuppet Atlantic306 (talk) 18:24, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lebanon-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 22:33, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 22:33, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as it is newly founded with no better convincing signs of solid notability thus questionable. SwisterTwister talk 01:34, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 11:46, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 11:46, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SSTflyer 00:59, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The entirety of the references are to Etihad's own "blogspot". All of them. Bishonen | talk 21:28, 6 April 2016 (UTC).[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG. No 3rd part reliable sources. Edwardx (talk) 13:46, 13 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 14:58, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jack Schofield (journalist)[edit]

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

Article topic lacks significant coverage from reliable, independent sources. (?) Only primary sources from where he wrote (The Guardian)—no secondary sources. Doesn't meet any point of the journalist notability guideline as it is. czar 01:06, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Passes WP:JOURNALIST. Andrew D. (talk) 06:33, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
As indicated how? czar 06:57, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Clearly notable. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:44, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 22:29, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 22:29, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 22:29, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 11:44, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Doesn't meet notability requirements. Just having a column isn't enough. Little in the way of independent references here.VanEman (talk) 17:53, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SSTflyer 00:58, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as the overall article is still questionable and searches found nothing better than a few links. SwisterTwister talk 06:24, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 15:38, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- @86.17.222.157:, the "find sources" bar automatically appears on top of this deletion page. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 13:07, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That one is useless, being a search for the exact phrase "Jack Schofield (journalist)". My search looks for sources containing the exact phrase "Jack Schofield" and, separately, the word "Guardian". 86.17.222.157 (talk) 13:51, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That's actually pretty smart. Thanks! Sorry for removing it before. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 06:11, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, does not meet WP:GNG. We need several, reliable sources, not primary sources like The Guardian. Schofield is not mentioned in other WP:VG/RS media. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 09:42, 12 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 (NAC). SwisterTwister talk 14:44, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Arcade City[edit]

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

Apparently an attempt to promote the company and their mobile application. No indicators of high usage/download rank or any popularity (<800 users daily activity). No distinction from hundreds of thousands of other similar applications shown either. Finally, no citations in any majorly circulated media. Free.enchant (talk) 00:56, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, blatant advertisement. Bishonen | talk 21:24, 6 April 2016 (UTC).[reply]
Delete per above. — Music1201 ^talk 04:24, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Delaware-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:55, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:55, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:55, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:55, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:55, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:55, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, this looks like a professional stub, but about a rather new company. Please consolidate the four cleanup templates into one "multiple issues" if possible. I'd do it, but all my experiments with "multiple issues" failed. COI info added. –Be..anyone (talk) 20:19, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, obvious advertising, no notability whatsoever. Nearly all content is copied straight from their website. Free.enchant (talk) 23:15, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedily deleted by Bishonen (procedural close). (non-admin closure) —Nizolan ^(talk) 22:51, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Get schwifty[edit]

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

Vandalism. See entry creation. ^Knowledge_Battle | ^Talk_Page | ^Godless_Infidel ┌┬╫┴┼╤╪╬╜ 02:11, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Closure comment - I closed as Delete assuming it would be deleted ....however... it's still up so I've reverted the close, I don't see the point in keeping the AFD open unnecessary but whatever reverted. –Davey2010^Talk 03:27, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete. The article is still there with an A7 tag, but I'm willing to see that ride out. Davey2010, I'm gonna revert the removal of the template since the article is not yet gone for procedural reasons. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 05:43, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dennisthe2 - Sorry I'd forgotten to readd the tag, Thanks for readding it back for me :) –Davey2010^Talk 14:26, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete - but want to point out to Knowledgebattle that those words were not vandalism in the original creation. Those are lyrics to a song from an episode of Rick and Morty. Completely not notable by itself and should be deleted, but not vandalism. For transparency, I was the one who changed the {{delete}} to {{csd-a7}} if that matters for my !vote at all. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 06:04, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@EvergreenFir: Okay, thanks. When I saw the page (which you say are lyrics), I was under the impression that it was a bunch of gibberish, posted by the author. It's been a long time since I've read anything so stupid.

^Knowledge_Battle | ^Talk_Page | ^Godless_Infidel ┌┬╫┴┼╤╪╬╜ 08:39, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedied. I've speedied it as a non-notable song and a non-notable phrase. Bishonen | talk 21:18, 6 April 2016 (UTC).[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:13, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:13, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:13, 6 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] ttp://www.familyfunfestpensacola.com/free-concerts.html

[2] ttps://www.facebook.com/CollegeBones/photos/a.382141271944012.1073741829.283794971778643/585511461606991/?type=3&theater

[3] ttp://www.worldwidebranding.com/Corey-Mills

[1]

[2]

[3]