Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2016 August 2

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 1 August	3 August >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. Mkdw ^talk 03:17, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Timothy Robinson (macro fiscal advisor)[edit]

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

No sources conform WP:RS, creative sourcing, fails WP:GNG, selfpromo The Banner talk 23:49, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The one source is linked in, which is not considered a reliable source, any by its very nature is not third party or secondary but primary and meant to be as promotional as possible. People create linked-in profile to get jobs or attract clients. The titles he has just shout "this guy is not notable."John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:25, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Literally the only sourced content is a wild claim from LinkedIn. Please, we are not a web host for resumes. Bearian (talk) 18:09, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete--Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 11:43, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Alex Manos[edit]

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

Completing this AfD for several IPs, whose rationales are available on the talk page. I also would suggest delete, fails WP:BIO and WP:GNG. ansh 666 23:52, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable car buyer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:35, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: notability not established by any means. Quis separabit? 19:56, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 05:55, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. In theory, because of his luxury goods business, he could be notable. However, none of the sources are reliable. All that I found online were a lot of directories, ads, and blogs. I'm willing to be convinced otherwise. Ping me if you all can find anything and bring this up to snuff. Bearian (talk) 18:07, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) FITINDIA (talk) 18:46, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Shri Krishna Janmabhoomi[edit]

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

This article reads like an advertisment, and has sources that are disputed. Was tagged as a possible hoax, but it's clear after a Google search that it isn't. This all comes down to serious reference issues. U S A 23:19, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:27, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:27, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:27, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Abundant references establish notability, e.g. one, two, three. JohnInDC (talk) 02:34, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect or delete. See Talk:Shri Krishna Janmabhoomi.--Nizil (talk) 06:40, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Dharmadhyaksha:, please share your opinion.--Nizil (talk) 06:40, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for pointing me there. I briefly commented. Merger may be appropriate, but (to my eyes) under the name of this structure rather than another. JohnInDC (talk) 11:25, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ as nominator. U S A 12:11, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Struck out nominator's "delete" vote. Its assumed that nominator means to delete while they have raised the nomination. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 04:46, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I agree with @JohnInDC: that Kesava Deo Temple might be merged into Shri Krishna Janmabhoomi. Pinging other editors who might know more on these topics. @Redtigerxyz and Nvvchar:. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 04:29, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think Shri Krishna Janmabhoomi is a part of Kesava Deo Temple. So it should merged and redirected to it. Check my detailed comment on Talk:Shri Krishna Janmabhoomi.--Nizil (talk) 07:12, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

After cleanup, the article is in good shape. I think both articles should be merged and renamed as Krishna Janmasthan Temple (as on UP Tourism website).--Nizil (talk) 07:21, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Kesava Deo Temple was established in 1958 due to the efforts of politicians and journalists who launched the Krishnajanbhhomi movement [1]. It is now a complex of temples built around the Janmasthan of Krishna and has become very popular in recent times. The temple article is well covered with lots of references and incorporates all the information contained in the Shri Krishna Janmabhoomi article. Hence the two articles need to be merged. However, as there are many temples by the name Kesava Deo Temple in Mathura, the merged article should be named as "Krishna Janmasthan Temple Complex". @JohnInDC, Dharmadhyaksha, Nizil Shah, and Redtigerxyz: Nvvchar. 02:11, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keepas per Nvvchar's comment.--Redtigerxyz ^Talk 15:58, 5 August 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. Mkdw ^talk 03:18, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Felipe Santos (singer)[edit]

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

Can't find much evidence of notability. Adam9007 (talk) 21:55, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:23, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Colombia-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:23, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I live in Colombia and he's not exactly a household name in his home country either... it doesn't help matters that he has the same name as the brother of the Colombian president, which complicates any search for sources. I believe he lives in Spain now: his one hit there is the "Olvidarte" single he made with Cali & El Dandee (no. 20 in 2013, it didn't chart in any other major market), so his notability is somewhat WP:INHERITED. The article is a direct translation from the Spanish Wikipedia, without the necessary attribution – although it did give me a good laugh to see Carlos Vives translated as "Carlos Live" and Juan Luis Guerra as "Juan Luis War". The Sevilla Magazine article does NOT say those people are his musical influences... he is asked what he most admires about them and their success. There are a few recent articles regarding his most recent single [2], [3], [4], but mostly they're just short promotional pieces advertising the new record and what it's about. Richard3120 (talk) 22:54, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as still nothing convincing for his own notability. SwisterTwister talk 06:08, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete--Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 12:00, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Bowling Music Network[edit]

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

This obscure operation does not appear to meet Wikipedia's requirements for Internet or broadcast notability. And Adoil Descended (talk) 21:41, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:24, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:24, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Unreferenced page and subject lacks notability and significant coverage in reliable sources. Meatsgains (talk) 23:42, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Interesting article, but does not meet WP:GNG. Source searches are only providing passing mentions, such as this. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:00, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- does not have sufficient RS to meet GNG and CORPDEPTH. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:58, 7 August 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. Mkdw ^talk 03:18, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Intuo[edit]

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

Blatant advertising Rathfelder (talk) 21:35, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:25, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Northamerica1000 removed text that was copied from the company's LinkedIn page, which was the majority of the promotional content. Notability is still an issue, though (see WP:NCORP). clpo13_(talk) 23:07, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Software company article of unclear notability. The only refs are a directory listing and a routine announcement of fundraising from http://tech.eu. Neither establish notability, and a search turned up no significant WP:RS coverage. Article was created by an SPA as possibly promotional. Dialectric (talk) 14:37, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Dialectric (talk) 19:04, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- insufficient sources to establish notability. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:33, 7 August 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. Nomination withdrawn and page redirected. (non-admin closure) • Gene93k (talk) 01:24, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Kentucky Newsmakers[edit]

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

An effort to discuss merging this article with the article on WKYT-TV was raised three years ago, but went nowhere. A merge or redirect might make more sense than an outright deletion, but I will welcome input from the editors on this question. And Adoil Descended (talk) 21:08, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination Withdrawn The concerns raised with the article have been addressed. And Adoil Descended (talk) 19:31, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:12, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Kentucky-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:12, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:01, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong forum AfD is not for content disputes, and even for the exceptions allowed since 2009, the result is not binding. As per WP:Deletion Policy, any editor may close this discussion and move it to an appropriate forum (presumably the talk page of an article). Unscintillating (talk) 00:06, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Wrong forum Concur with Unscintillating. Given the old merge tag at WKYT-TV and no objections on the talk page, I would suggest doing a bold merge. I doubt anyone would bat an eye. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 13:09, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have no problems with a bold merge - if User:Stevietheman or any other boldly proactive editor wants to handle that, be my guest and I will gladly withdraw the nomination. And Adoil Descended (talk) 14:37, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, I will. It's just changing the Kentucky Newsmakers article into a redirect and maybe adding a bit of info to WKYT-TV. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 14:44, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Done @And Adoil Descended: - sorry I took so long on this. On first reading, I was under the impression this would be closed before I made the changes. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 15:16, 7 August 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. Mkdw ^talk 03:19, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wargrave House[edit]

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

This is an individual house within one school, there are no sources cited, and a web search reveals only three websites related to this topic; this Wikipedia page, the school website and a Facebook page. Fails WP:GNG. School houses don't come under the criteria in WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES, and the section just below about parts of schools says that things like classes and clubs are generally deleted and that departments within a school "are generally not considered notable unless they have made significant contributions to their field". Some of the article also contains peacock terms and almost promotional text, such as "The overriding atmosphere provides a real sense of community where everyone is encouraged as an individual" and "Every boy has a tutor who comes into the house to see boys about their eRc grades." It doesn't explain what "eRc grades" even are. Seagull123 Φ 19:56, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Seagull123 Φ 20:10, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Seagull123 Φ 20:10, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Seagull123 Φ 20:10, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per WP:BRANCH. A subsection of a secondary school is very unlikely to be notable, and this doesn't get there. Blythwood (talk) 20:36, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Single part of a school and not a notable building. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:34, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Single parts of schools and universities do nit get Wkipedia pages. Furthermore, take out all the blatant BLP violations and there's hardy anything left. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 16:40, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Clearly not notable on its own. I am also avoiding a redirect as the title seems to be commonly used for other institutions. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 13:28, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have salvaged the images in the article. See here. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 13:29, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. A redirect to Reply is an editorial choice and can be done by anyone subsequent to this closure. Mkdw ^talk 03:20, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

RE:[edit]

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

Still no credible claims to notability. The one possible notable reference (the V&A museum) fails to mention RE:.

Note that a previous speedy deletion tag was removed by a newly-created user three minutes after I added it. Lithopsian (talk) 19:49, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The speedy deletion tag was removed by this user, as the article clearly demonstrates notability, both in terms of being a 'well known' design practice in the UK and France, and their work in Cyprus. I would suggest that the article requires considerable improvement and that some references are not relevant.HBM75018 (talk) 21:48, 2 August 2016 (UTC)HBM75018[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:16, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:16, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and redirect to Reply as a reasonable search term (particularly for non-English speakers). KaisaL (talk) 02:44, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No evidence of significant coverage in independent reliable sources sufficient to meet the Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies) guideline. Qwfp (talk) 13:09, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- typical advertorial; does not have sufficient RS to meet GNG and CORPDEPTH. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:57, 7 August 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. Mkdw ^talk 03:20, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Cassidy Banks[edit]

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

Nominated for speedy deletion but makes a claim of notability. Black Kite (talk) 19:16, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails both PORNBIO and GNG. The creator of this article has also recently created several other porn star articles (and drafts of articles) that don't meet notability requirements. Wikiuser20102011 (talk) 19:42, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:54, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:54, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:54, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails PORNBIO and the GNG, and entirely bereft of reliable sources. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by administrators since 2006. (talk) 03:03, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Wikiuser20102011 and Hullaballoo Wolfowitz. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 03:06, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note to the closer: If this AfD results in delete, please delete this copy as well. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 03:12, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails the very low notability bar set for pornographic actresses.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:07, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Lacking in reliable sources as Hullaballoo Wolfowitz states. The claimed award nominations that prevented an A7 speedy may not be true. The IAFD citation is bogus. Subject is not mentioned in the 2016 AVN Nominations,[5] and this not the first porn star by this creator with this problem. The other nominations do not specify year, and searches of AVN and XBIZ can't confirm them. Fails GNG without reliable sources and PORNBIO without award wins. • Gene93k (talk) 20:43, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- does not suggest notability. K.e.coffman (talk) 07:15, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Unfortunately looks don't count towards notability which is a shame ..... Anyway fails PORNBIO & GNG. –Davey2010^Talk 12:01, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Snow delete. Per nom. Montanabw ^(talk) 18:47, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Having not won any awards, nor having any other media exposure, she clearly doesn’t meet WP:PORNBIO - - - fdewaele, 7 August 2016, 15:20 CET.

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. Mkdw ^talk 03:20, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Gregory A. Brady[edit]

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

I was actually PRODing again when I noticed my first PROD which was removed, I still confirm both as all of this simply suggests PR; I'll note none of these "improvements" have actually been convincing. Notifying DGG for his analysis of advertising articles. SwisterTwister talk 18:32, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. the reason for deletion here is not primarily promotionalism , but rather, that there does not seem to be any evidence for notability, besides one press release type article in a business journal and areport of a settlement with the SEC. DGG ( talk ) 18:49, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nothing in this article suggest Brady is more than a run of the mill businessman.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:58, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all of the above -- this is a really badly sourced BLP about a totally run of the mill business person. Bearian (talk) 18:02, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As stated above, this article does not come close to show how the subject is notable. Also, this is not the Greg Brady you are looking for. RickinBaltimore (talk) 18:06, 8 August 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. Mkdw ^talk 03:21, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nai Harn Gym[edit]

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

Subject does not appear to pass the WP:General notability guideline. Of the five currently listed references, only the Phuket Magazine one actually concerns the subject, and it's a local review rather than in-depth coverage in an independent source. Paul_012 (talk) 18:17, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Subject lacks significant coverage n reliable sources. Meatsgains (talk) 18:31, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:35, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bodybuilding-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:35, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Thailand-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:35, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

- Delete -- does not have sufficient RS to meet GNG. K.e.coffman (talk) 07:00, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. WP:SNOW NeilN ^{talk to me} 03:15, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Graham McCann[edit]

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

SECOND DELETE REQUEST: I've been asked to post this in connection with the delete nomination dated 2 August.

I am the subject of the article and I do not believe that I am any kind of public figure, or at least not one who is of anything like sufficient prominence to justify an article about me.

This article has infringed on my privacy. I am not a current writer, I am not seeking publicity of any kind, I want to live my life in private. Perhaps this is a culture in which such a desire has come to be seen as unusual, but I can assure you that it is sincere. I find this article an unnecessary and profoundly hurtful and distressing invasion of my privacy, actively creating or increasing my public profile against my wishes.

Second: It is a poorly researched article that provides only a partial, imbalanced and in places, in my view, strangely misleading impression of my past work. The list of my published output, for example, is strikingly incomplete. What is mentioned is questionably imbalanced: for example, two of my oldest books lead to negative critical quotes about my research and judgement; the vast majority of reviews I've ever had make a point of praising my research and most have been admiring of my judgement, and yet none of these quotes have been included even as balance, even though the one book that IS acknowledged as being 'praised,' and attracted many of such positive critical comments, is accompanied by no such quotes. That's unrepresentative. After dwelling, for some peculiar reason, on my four earliest books from the last century, the author covers the rest in the most superficial way, again providing an extremely dubious and skewed impression of a career. He also mentions that, for my book on Dad's Army, I 'conducted numerous interviews with cast members' - well, yes I did, but this implies that I didn't 'conduct numerous interviews' for my other books, which I did. That's an odd thing to do, and it's misleading, too. You can't claim my work deserves inclusion and then treat it in such a capricious manner.

There are many other signs of ignorance and poor research. I have not, for example, written 'numerous articles' on any subject for the Daily Mail. As far as I recall I've written about a couple for that paper in my entire life. I've written numerous ones for certain other papers - which are not noted. That's misleading. The author appears not to know the period in which I wrote for the Financial Times - these are all things that one is supposed to ascertain and double check BEFORE publishing something on someone - you don'y just go clodhopping over a living person's past career.

Then there's my academic work. Because the only detail the author appears to know about (apart from my - unspecified - period as a Lecturer) is my past work for the University of Cambridge's 'summer extension programme' (not that I've ever heard it referred to as that), that's all he's included. It's even wrong to claim that this particular work is ongoing - it isn't. It's something I consider as an offer from time to time. It's wrong to describe it as current. Then there's absolutely no further detail on a long academic career - no positions other than a fellowship (there were many), no research details, no academic output. This, again, is a strikingly incomplete, misleading and potentially damaging section.

I could go on, but I'm really tired at how long this has already run as a dispute. Surely, in a cool hour, you can sit back, reflect, and appreciate that any claim to my supposed 'relevance' is so contentious that, considered on its own and also in relation to the great distress it's causing me, and will continue to cause me, it's not worth keeping it. I haven't seen any sign of anyone at Wikipedia who is able or willing to imagine the issue from an outsider's point of view. My point of view. I hope someone will now do this. This has caused me so much hurt, so needlessly, for such a trivial, insubstantial and patently unimpressive article. Please drop it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.23.93.50 (talk) 17:14, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. I forgot to that dash-dash signature thing, so here you are. 92.23.93.50 (talk) 17:16, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The statement above was copied from the article talk page where it was placed by the IP after adding the AFD tag to the article. -- GB fan 18:13, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
~~Weak Delete~~ ~~per WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE~~. While I do think the subject of the article meets WP:NAUTHOR I don't believe he is an especially prominent figure where the project really needs an article on the subject. I can see where this could go either way, but given the subject's strongly expressed desire not to be covered here I am inclined to respect his wishes. Most of the more concrete issues cited in the nominating statement are however, fixable, and not grounds for deletion. -Ad Orientem (talk) 18:24, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral Striking my pro-delete out of deference to the clear consensus in favor of keeping the article. It doesn't look like there is much sympathy on here for Mr. McCann and there is a clear consensus that the notability of the subject is so strong that it precludes consideration of BLPREQUESTDELETE. -Ad Orientem (talk) 20:11, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notable author, regardless. He is one of Britain's most notable biographers, and poorly researched it isn't, based on what actually exists. "profoundly hurtful and distressing invasion of my privacy" is poppycock, all the article does is replicate what has been reported elsewhere.♦ Dr. Blofeld 18:28, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I am highly suspicious at this nomination. I am rather doubtful that this is really Graham himself, and not somebody associated with the original desire for deletion. If it is Graham, it's the I've been asked to post this and I could go on, but I'm really tired at how long this has already run as a dispute part I don't like, I would guess that Collect or somebody emailed him or is putting him up to this to try to force a deletion. Either way he needs to prove who he is and dial down the abusive comments on the talk page. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 18:28, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

And how pray do I prove I'm me? I presume you think the 'real me' would be so grateful to have this rubbish inflicted on him he'd thank you. This is extraordinary. You don't even for a moment seem to appreciate how bizarre it is to be so dismissive of the subject of an article. And no apparent anger or irritation or even mild concern over how shoddily this article has been 'researched'. You do your research thoroughly, check it again and again, make sure it's comprehensive, and then and only then should you publish. You all should care about the quality of your own site. Instead some of you seem so blithely unconcerned it's astonishing to me. I very much doubt if this was happening to YOU you'd be so cavalier about the matter.92.23.93.50 (talk) 20:20, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't presume that the real you would be overjoyed with the article. I agree also that there isn't a massive amount of biographical material covered about you and that the article is pretty sketchy and far from ideal. But essentially all we do is really mention your lecturing work and your publications, replicating largely what is written in the back of books and summary websites about you anyway. You've also mentioned a major concern about privacy, but we give very little detail about you or your private life, and cover nothing which isn't already written about you in your books and related sites anyway. So I don't see how this wikipedia article could be massively detrimental. And you even confess that you were put up to this by somebody else. If it is you Graham then I'd guess that User:Collect contacted you and got you to see this as something really negative.♦ Dr. Blofeld 21:01, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per Blofeld, there are a load of reliable secondary sources to back this up. He definitely seems like a prestigious biographer, so it passes WP:GNG. JAGUAR 18:37, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, per Jaguar, and the arguments made in the first nomination. The quality of an article should not be the determining factor in providing an article, the notability of the subject is. I think McCann is notable enough, given the work he's produced. I'm sure the article possibly doesn't get the balance right in places, but that's an argument for fixing it, not for deletion. – SchroCat (talk) 18:47, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Unfortunately, whether Mr. McCann wants the article's existence or not is irrelevant, since it easily meets the criteria for notability regardless of his desire. The information is properly sourced. κατάστασ η 18:53, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. If the IP is indeed the subject of the article, I sympathise with his desire for privacy and would love him to provide corrective or simply additional references to enable the article to give a fuller picture of his career, but the article is not a hit piece and in my opinion the widespread and detailed coverage of his work amply satisfies the general notability guideline or if one prefers, WP:NAUTHOR. I've made one change based on those talkpage comments. IP, if you are reading this, please try OTRS again. Yngvadottir (talk) 18:59, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Dr. Blofeld. No legitimate reason for deletion, several for improvement. Krimuk|90 (talk) 19:02, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Dr. Blofeld. The subject might want to read about the Streisand effect if they want be anonymous. I never would have come across this article if it had not been brought to AFD. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 19:22, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If McCann was really serious about wanting to be private he'd not have gone on national television at numerous times!♦ Dr. Blofeld 19:43, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Dr. Blofeld and Jaguar. Article displays a clear merit for notability. MWright96 (talk) 20:03, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Passes WP:GNG and WP:AUTHOR. We have only this WP:IP's word as to who he says he is. Ipse dixit applies. Moreover, so what if he is who he says he is? No Liberum veto for the subjects of articles here. Article has plenty of sources. Subject is "encyclopedic" enough to warrant an article. he is a "public figure" who has voluntarily positioned himself as such. All this brouhaha reminds me of Barbara Streisand's house. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 20:11, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, me and Barbra Streisand, that's a typically measured comparison. Well done. And as for 'voluntarily positioning' - that's just simplistic and insulting.92.23.93.50 (talk) 20:43, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If you wanted privacy, why did you agree to appear on national television numerous times? Why did you write books about some of the most famous people and shows in the world and put your name out there if you wanted to keep a low profile. You're not just some minor college lecturer, but your name is right up there with some of the most reputable British biographers. And what's all this about I've been asked to post this ? Who asked you to post this, User:Collect?♦ Dr. Blofeld 20:53, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

My god you're a smug one. The only times I've been on television - it seems it's an obsession of yours - has been very reluctantly to give information drawn from my books which would otherwise have been passed on to a substitute who'd probably get it wrong. I expected a thoughtful consideration of my request, not a series of self-admiring put-downs. Is this typical of how Wikipedia volunteers behave, or are just some lone egomaniac?92.23.93.50 (talk) 21:07, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

And you're an arrogant, rude, supercilious know-it-all who can't possibly consider the views of others. People who want to keep a low profile don't write about super famous people like Marilyn Monroe, Cary Grant and Woody Allen. You exploited the public for years in making money from these celebrities. And now you want to try to hide mention of your existence on what you clearly consider to be an amateurish junk website anyway? ♦ Dr. Blofeld 21:28, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dr. Blofeld, that may be a reference to my comment on the IP's user page after he had placed an AFD template on the page without completing the process. clpo13_(talk) 21:00, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Serial conversations and requests to delete are simply a waste of editor's valuable time. The IP has said nothing that was not already fairly considered and rejected in the first nomination. Moreover, the previous WP:Legal threats are no reason to kowtow to the IP now. If there is a policy that let's someone rewrite history and voluntarily disappear himself from the encyclopedia, I'd like to see it. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 20:52, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Absolute slam-dunk keep. Well-referenced, notability is clearly established and easily passes WP:GNG. To the IP, if you are indeed the subject of the article, I'm sorry you are upset that the article exists here, however as stated earlier, we don't know if you are who you say you are, because On the Internet, nobody knows you're a dog. If you truly are the subject, have you sent a correspondence to WP:OTRS regarding this and your concerns with the article? Also, I checked and I have never seen a comment at WP:BLP/N, which is an avenue to try, have you looked into reaching out there? RickinBaltimore (talk) 20:59, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That's the trouble. It's assumed any of these terms make any sense to outsiders. These abbreviations all look more or less the same to someone unfamiliar with this place. I did email someone, if that's what you mean, and he/she merely sympathised and said 'I'm just a volunteer'. As for this page, had I known this was going to be the kind of tone I'd have pursued other means straight away. 92.23.93.50 (talk) 21:12, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support Speedy Close if any uninvolved editors happen to be wandering by. I think the consensus is so clear that there is no point in dragging this out. -Ad Orientem (talk) 21:47, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The person is not notable as a person, and, indeed, he states so himself in his request for deletion. The "biography" is a list of books - and would only justify List of books by Graham McCann at most. Collect (talk) 21:58, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have to respectfully, but strongly disagree. The subject clearly passes WP:NAUTHOR. -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:10, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I also disagree, but not respectfully... In fact I wouldn't be surprised if Collect was behind this AFD. He's notable as a writer. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 06:46, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The result of the very recent previous AFD discussion should be respected. Exemplo347 (talk) 00:14, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep IMDb lists 23 television apparances. This probably does not in any way make a person notable, but it does make later claims that they want "privacy" unconvincing. Especially his earliest biographies were well reviewed. His later works were also widely reviewed. This article does not even say how old he is, so I find it very hard to see it as any sort of invasion of privacy. He is without question a notable writer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:56, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I am less swayed by claims that the IP (who has still yet to go through the OTRS team to verify their identity) "is not seeking publicity of any kind" and and wants "to live my life in private", when they have their own website, complete with a potted biography of themselves that's 2/3rds the size of our article. - SchroCat (talk) 07:12, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Putting aside the legitimate false flag question involving this WP:IP, the whole request and "privacy" issue is a red herring. At bottom it is a garden variety WP:Content dispute masquerading as a WP:AFD. They don't like what the article says. The IP wants to control the content and distributors of information. And maintain its own exclusivity, if not monopoly, on messages and publicized information.
Indeed, Policy offers clear guidance on how this all should be resolved. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 14:48, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed - and as there's a clear consensus to Keep I see no reason for the (at times) immature debate that's currently running across two Talk pages.Exemplo347 (talk) 20:22, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There would be no "immature" debate if McCann was respectful towards editors here in the first place. He turned up with "What you COULD do is just remove this appalling badly researched, almost non-researched, article. 92.23.93.50 (talk) 14:08, 2 August 2016 (UTC) Funny how you don't have the decency to discuss this with the very person who is the undeserved subject of your ill-informed article. I guess, in your astonishing arrogance, you think you know better than I do about myself. What a disgrace you are.92.23.93.50 (talk) 14:15, 2 August 2016 (UTC)" When you have that level of obnoxiousness and people calling you a "lone egomaniac" it's not easy to ignore. I wonder if he treated his students in the same way.♦ Dr. Blofeld 20:31, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

SPEEDY CLOSE Anyone? I suggested it a while ago. The sole Delete vote does not even come close to casting doubt on how this AfD is going to end. Nothing of substance is being added to the discussion at this point. In all honesty this AfD was probably WP:Dead on arrival. -Ad Orientem (talk) 20:57, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
SPEEDY CLOSE Seconded. WP:Snowball! 7&6=thirteen (☎) 21:04, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
SPEEDY CLOSE I don't even know why this second nomination was entertained in the first place. Exemplo347 (talk) 21:18, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Closing a few hours early but that shouldn't be controversial due to there being obvious consensus to keep. AfD is not cleanup and therefore the promotional tone can be fixed by copy editing. The references that have been uncovered throughout this discussion will help the future writers of this article. (non-admin closure) Anarchyte (work | talk) 12:15, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Big Ass Solutions[edit]

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

At best, still advertorial and the listed sources are simply advertorial, press releases and other trivial and unconvincing coverage; The Economist article itself is only about the company's funding and finances. SwisterTwister talk 18:12, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:36, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Kentucky-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:14, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:15, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I have found some non-trivial coverage in the Lexington Herald-Leader archives in Newsbank. Those will be paywalled, unfortunately. I have access through my local library. Seems like they've won several awards and understandably, generated some controversy with their name. I may not be able to add this information soon, but I'll try. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 15:07, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Promotional tone can be addressed by copy editing the article, such as, for example, by reducing the length of the Awards and recognition section. Passes WP:CORPDEPTH per a review of available sources. Source examples include, but are not limited to, those listed below. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:07, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

References

CNN
Bloomberg
Fortune
Lexington Herald-Leader
Lexington Herald-Leader
UnSelling: The New Customer Experience. Chapter 24. pp. 95-98.
Forbes
Forbes (The first half of the article discusses the company)
CNET
CNET
CNET
Rural Builders Buyers' Guide. American Farm Building Services. (subscription required)
Lexington Herald-Leader
Forbes

Comment -- there's something to be said about the name and the story of small tenacious entrepreneur building a successful company, but the tone is advertorial: "worked on the fans with his father"; "refused to lay off workers during the Great Recession" (with link); etc. I believe the article should be significantly pruned and I'm not sure what would be left. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:46, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The question is notability of the subject, not whether the article is written in an encyclopedic tone (if it has to be whittled down to a stub, so be it). Links provided by Northamerica1000 (although some are broken) indicate pretty clearly that the subject is notable per WP:GNG and WP:CORPDEPTH. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 11:05, 9 August 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 03:52, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Homoracial[edit]

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

Just a defintion of a word that badly violates WP:NOTADICTIONARY. I'm proposing them to be transwikied into wikitionary. KGirlTrucker81^{talk what I'm been doing} 17:58, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Poor sources and WP:NOTADICTIONARY. Meatsgains (talk) 18:37, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:37, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:37, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:37, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No usable content here. Cannot imagine worse source material than Urban Dictionary, Twitter, and Yahoo Answers. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 21:21, 2 August 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. Mkdw ^talk 03:22, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Marc D Grossman[edit]

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

PROD removed with the apparent basis he's notable because of his cases and status as an attorney; I still confirm my PROD as this is still advertorial and questionable for his own convincing notability. Notifying DGG for his subject analysis. SwisterTwister talk 17:35, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete. pure advertisement. I consider this a G11. Even the infobox contributes : Known for "Top 10 Largest Volume of Mass Tort Clients in the United States," " Among the Top 5 Attorneys Currently Appointed and Working on the most Plaintiffs' Steering Committees in the United State" Just what he would say in an advertisement. DGG ( talk ) 17:46, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
For historical notations, I'll also note Draft:Marc D. Grossman. SwisterTwister talk 17:55, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable personal injury attorney. These are the type of attorneys who most agressively market themselves, and thus also the ones where we are most likely to see such occur on Wikipedia.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:05, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:50, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:50, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, WP:NOTRESUME; I agree this could have been speedied as WP:G11, but may as well let the afd run its course to nail it down. TJRC (talk) 04:01, 6 August 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. Mkdw ^talk 03:22, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ibrachy Law Firm[edit]

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

Relisting AfD and providing rationale not given in first nomination.WP:NOTPROMO, WP:ENN, fails WP:CORPDEPTH. This is a firm that's been around for all of ten years, has one office, and eight employees. Its coverage is entirely limited to this IFLR trade publication; and their about us indicates "IFLR is the market-leading financial law publication for lawyers..." Their awards are therefore self-selected and non-notable. The fact that the magazine printed a partner hire doesn't create notability for the firm - that's a legal requirement for termination of agency, on the same level as a press release. A Martindale listing also doesn't show notability; it proves existence to the extent that someone paid for a listing. The external sources that point to their deals are 404s (including the IFLR source), so the only place to find the info at present is on Ibrachy's website, as I don't believe either site webarchives because they're paid sub sites. So we have no WP:RS for something that doesn't really make them notable anyway. Also, the subject created the page - look at the history. MSJapan (talk) 17:19, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:16, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:16, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Egypt-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:16, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- typical advertorial; does not have sufficient RS to meet GNG and CORPDEPTH. This content can probably be found on the firm's web site and does not need to be replicated here. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:59, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does not meet wp:corp, not even near it. two of the references are dead links, but it looks like they were no more than directory entries. I don't find any sources, but then I'm searching in US Google. LaMona (talk) 22:20, 8 August 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 03:52, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dallas Carroll Abee Sr.[edit]

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

Delete. Fails GNG. Person non-notable. Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 16:34, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Person is notable - an important figure in architecture. Dallas Carroll Campbell is an architect of many works. He is the architect of 25 notable projects in North Carolina modernist tradition. His work has had a major influence on the modernism movement all over the country. -NC Modernist Houses (talk) 16:57, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Couldn't find any news worthy articles about this person. Fails WP:GNG — JudeccaXIII (talk) 17:33, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: No coverage in RS. KGirlTrucker81^{talk what I'm been doing} 20:47, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: for reasons cited by other editors but I believe the article as currently constituted may not do him justice. He may actually be notable but the article does not do the job of proving this. Recommend whoever created the article redo it after (re-)reading CREATE once this AfD is completed. Quis separabit? 19:43, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:28, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:28, 6 August 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. Mkdw ^talk 03:23, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Renzo Tomellini[edit]

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

Not note as an author or chemist (nothing at WorldCat and Scholar) and searches are simply finding mentions, this is essentially an advertisement. SwisterTwister talk 15:36, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Questionable notability at best and very considerable promotionalism. Actually, there is quite a lot at WorldCat [6]; however, none of these are actual books--,pst are conference proceedings, and his role is editor, not author. A few are technical reports, where his role is more properly compiler than author, None of them have any substantial presence in libraries,because although a few libraries may keep this material, they do not usually catalog it. Certainly does not meet WP:PROF and apparently not GNG. The only reason it was not deleted in AfD1 is that nobody commented. DGG ( talk ) 00:51, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not notable in any of his capacities.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:15, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Although some editors commented that the cited sources generally focus on the subject's founders rather than the subject itself, most editors were convinced that these sources add up to pass the relevant notability threshold. Deryck C. 20:32, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Crowdrise[edit]

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

Still questionable for notability and independence considering the coverage is only because of its founder, Ed Norton, and the listed sources are either trivial because of that or actuslly simply guides or something like this. I'm not confident about a merge since other owners are listed. SwisterTwister talk 15:29, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 15:30, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 15:30, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:52, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:52, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:52, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Passes WP:CORPDEPTH per a review of available book and news sources. Source examples include, but are not limited to those listed below. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:53, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

References

McGrath, Kristin (June 25, 2010). "Ed Norton's Crowdrise Corrals Celebs, Charity". ABC News. Retrieved August 2, 2016.
Wallace, Amy (September 5, 2010). "Crowdrise and New York Marathon Work on Fund-Raising". The New York Times. Retrieved August 2, 2016.
"Edward Norton Uses Social Networking To 'Do Something' With Crowdrise". MTV News. May 13, 2010. Retrieved August 2, 2016.
Graham, Adam (February 2, 2016). "Local CrowdRise helps celebs raise $500,000 for Flint". Detroit News. Retrieved August 2, 2016.
Muth, K.T.; Lindenmayer, M.T.S.; Kluge, J. (2014). Charity and Philanthropy For Dummies. For Dummies. Wiley. pp. pt252–. ISBN 978-1-119-94394-5. (subscription required)
Kelly, J. (2016). Sweat Equity: Inside the New Economy of Mind and Body. Bloomberg Series. Wiley. p. 94. ISBN 978-1-118-91459-5. Retrieved August 2, 2016.
Arrillaga-Andreessen, L. (2011). Giving 2.0: Transform Your Giving and Our World. Wiley. p. pt32. ISBN 978-1-118-14857-0. Retrieved August 2, 2016.

Keep. An actual search for sources reveals further to the examples given above the following, and it all adds up to an article on quote "the world's largest and fastest growing fundraising platform dedicated exclusively to charitable giving" that passes WP:CORPDEPTH. Citations have been added. — Sam Sailor ^Talk! 13:36, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

References

Shane J. Lopez (22 July 2014). Making Hope Happen: Create the Future You Want for Yourself and Others. Simon and Schuster. pp. 171–. ISBN 978-1-4516-6623-6.
Vincenzo Petruzzi (4 June 2015). Il potere della Gamification. Usare il gioco per creare cambiamenti nei comportamenti e nelle performance individuali: Usare il gioco per creare cambiamenti nei comportamenti e nelle performance individuali (in Italian). FrancoAngeli. pp. 97–. ISBN 978-88-917-1294-3.
Patricia Wallace (26 November 2015). The Psychology of the Internet. Cambridge University Press. pp. 161–. ISBN 978-1-107-07913-7. Actor Edward Norton promotes the site called Crowdrise.com, which takes an offbeat and often humorous approach to crowdfunding for good causes. It adds contests, social networking, and a community feel designed to appeal to younger ...
Kerric Harvey (20 December 2013). Encyclopedia of Social Media and Politics. SAGE Publications. pp. 14–. ISBN 978-1-4522-9026-3. Edward Norton cofounded Crowdrise, which is ... Crowdrise allows users to tap into their social networks to raise funds for their charitable causes. Celebrities such as ... Crowdrise allows users to create a microsite to raise money for a cause.
Jason Kelly (29 March 2016). Sweat Equity: Inside the New Economy of Mind and Body. Wiley. pp. 118–. ISBN 978-1-118-91460-1. Wolfe says the off-kilter culture is imported directly from Moosejaw, the retailer he started at age 21, with no retail experience. ... It's a short philosophical hop from there to CrowdRise's tagline: "If you don't give back, no one will like you.") Wolfe ...
Yair Amichai-Hamburger (7 February 2013). The Social Net: Understanding Our Online Behavior. OUP Oxford. pp. 148–. ISBN 978-0-19-963954-0. Not only is it easy to make a helpful contribution, it is also easy to control the extent of further involvement. ... example, the tag line for Crowdrise acknowledges the importance of social pressure with, "if you don't give back, no one will like you.
Ananda Kiamsha Madelyn Leeke (September 2013). Digital Sisterhood: A Memoir of Fierce Living Online. iUniverse. pp. 277–. ISBN 978-1-4917-0639-8. Nonprofit Organizations and Social Causes Women • Crowdrise.com is an online fundraising web site that allows individual fundraisers, nonprofit fundraising, and event fundraising (co-founded by female film producer Shauna Robertson).
Matrix Thompson; Sarika Khambaita (25 January 2016). Who Is Winning The Social Media and Crowd Funding War: The Battle For Good Vs Evil - Will You Be A Casualty Or Emerge As A Trailblazer?. Pamper Me Network. pp. 43–.
Ivana Pais; Paola Peretti; Chiara Spinelli (2014). Crowdfunding: La via collaborativa all'imprenditorialità. EGEA spa. pp. 36–. ISBN 978-88-238-7669-9.

Keep but add some real content. The sources section shouldn't be longer than the actual article content. It is possible to over-source an article. Callsignpink (talk) 21:37, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- Change to "delete"; the analysis of sources below is convincing. //Original comment: "if the sources are there, then the article should be longer. Otherwise, looks like a case of an overcite and makes the company look non-notable." K.e.coffman (talk) 04:54, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Analyzing the first list of sources found that the first source is simply a mainly interview and only actually rarely talks about the company itself, so it's not convincing substance and coverage. As for source #2, I myself mentioned this one and it's only an event listing and is focused with Ed Norton himself, the following sources are either focused at Ed himself, local coverage and the worst one so far is "Charity and Philanthropy For Dummies" which itself is a self-made listing (That's not substance or coverage at all). Even the listed sources at the second list are mainly either group listings, trivial coverage or focused with Ed himself. As I noted with my nomination, there's still nothing at all actually suggestive of its own substance, outside of Ed and any other people, to have its own convincing article. SwisterTwister talk 05:25, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I immediately found sources that talk about the company as the focus of the publication such as [7]. The company is mentioned fourteen times in the article in nearly every paragraph. And then there's this TIME article that has several paragraphs about the company. This along with the other sources found appear to address WP:BURDEN almost to the point of WP:BOMBARD. The article needs a lot of work and the company doesn't seem that amazing to me, but these are personal opinions and seemingly WP:SURMOUNTABLE issues that can be dealt with at an editorial level. Mkdw ^talk 04:17, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - The two emphasized above in this comment mentions those two, but they are still limited mentions and coverage; both of them also particularly focus with Ed himself, and that's not surprising why this would also get attention. All of this still needs better analysis as simply tossing links are not equalizing to the same thing as actual substance; thus this is best relisted. SwisterTwister talk 04:29, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The TIME article is almost exclusively about the company if you read it. It only mentions Norton twice. The other article has 11 paragraphs that talk about the company. I think you're discrediting the articles too casually. Limited mentions... hardly. Mkdw ^talk 04:34, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What about Detroit News article? It's almost entirely about the company and has limited mentions of Norton. Four times in two paragraphs. There's obviously an association with Norton, but just because an article mentions his connection a few times doesn't make the whole article about him. In addition, in the New York Times article, there are a total of 15 paragraphs. Nearly half the article if not more is about Crowdrise directly. The other half is split between Norton and the marathon. This is all more than enough to meet WP:SIGCOV. Mkdw ^talk 04:37, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think it may be appropriate to merge this content with the Norton article, where Crowdrise is already mentioned. Most of the coverage is driven by Norton anyway. The section could be named "Business ventures" or similar. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:00, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There are plenty of sources that have the company as the primary focus of the article. A standalone article for this company meets WP:CORPDEPTH. I'm seeing very little policy based arguments here and this seemingly becoming more and more like WP:IDONTLIKEIT because the keep camp has clearly demonstrated articles that condict the delete camp's arguments. Mkdw ^talk 17:11, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, oppose merge. The subject has received significant coverage in ABC News, The New York Times, The Detroit News, TechCrunch, Time, among other articles. I oppose a merge because there is enough material in the sources to justify a separate article. There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Crowdrise to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 05:45, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
This comment is not acknowledging how the contents mainly focus with Ed himself, even either having Ed mentioned first and then even completing it with a photo of him; all of this about him is also understandable since he would be the celebrity of it. Notifying {{U|DGG} for his analysis of all this. SwisterTwister talk 06:12, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline says, "Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material." In the publications I reviewed, Crowdrise was either the main topic of the source or was covered nontrivially even if it was not the main topic. Cunard (talk) 06:14, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

While DGG is a highly respected editor and I'm sure they would give a fair assessment, I strongly advise you SwisterTwister to stop pinging targeted editors into AFD discussions. I have seen you ping DGG into multiple AFDs and the practice of pinging an editor of your choice into a conversation amounts to WP:CANVASS and campaigning. Mkdw ^talk 17:13, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It is not canvassing as users who want to be notified are exempt from that. SwisterTwister talk 17:18, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There is no exemption in the canvassing policy. Regardless of whether they asked to be notified about company related AFDs or merely AFDs that you've nominated. You're selectively notifying them about either AFDs you're nominating/participating -- and I don't see it being more broad such as notifying them about a particular subject or topic because it's not being done where every company article you're notifying them. It's targeted. Mkdw ^talk 17:25, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The above deletion debate is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of either this nomination or the nominated user). 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 03:52, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merrick Alpert[edit]

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

Non-notable person. Industrialist (CEO of a non-notable company); erstwhile politician (lost to Richard Blumenthal in the 2010 Connecticut Senatorial Democratic Primaries); former soldier and JAG officer of no particular preeminence. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 14:22, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I agree with the nominator WikiDan61. He never made it past a primary in a national campaign (his one almost notable accomplishment). --VViking_TalkEdits 14:28, 2 August 2016 (UTC) Delete One time event is not reasonable enough to keep a biography article. 2607:FB90:D8F:B1:1D32:C7C0:4208:FAEA (talk) 16:31, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as advertorial and still convincing of his own notability. SwisterTwister talk 17:39, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete candidates who lost the nomination for US senate are not notable (ones who won their party nomination for US senate might be default notable if in a major US party, this may be an exception to candidates not being notable, I do not think it has ever really been fully considered, but those who lost the nomination are not for that alone, and nothing else about Alpert is anywhere close to making him notable.)John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:11, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:49, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:49, 6 August 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. Mkdw ^talk 03:23, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

WildCat (energy drink)[edit]

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

Speedied as a G11 (promotional) under a different name, recreated and speedied again. Bringing to AfD for wider attention. Black Kite (talk) 12:05, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please let me know which aspects do you consider promotional? Compared to the earlier page, this one is encyclopedic in nature.Rzafar (talk) 12:33, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:17, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Another advertisement article 2607:FB90:D8F:B1:1D32:C7C0:4208:FAEA (talk) 16:36, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as advertorial and still nothing actually convincing. SwisterTwister talk 17:41, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:19, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - the article is highly promotional in its nature, with most of the sources being primary nature. The two sources that are secondary, do not contain enough information to provide any notability regarding the subject of the article. Other sources are not about the product, but instead only mention it in passing. I see nothing that confers notability, and as such I believe it has no place on Wikipedia. --Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 09:52, 6 August 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 by Ponyo (CSD G5: Mass deletion of pages added by Neebras) (non-admin closure) — JJMC89 (T·C) 01:11, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Markus Bayer[edit]

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

Non-notable tennis player. The only title won by this individual was a junior doubles. No major titles as a professional. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 10:56, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete any yet another non-notable tennis player.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:06, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 07:13, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 07:14, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per WP:NSPORT and WikiProject Tennis, this player is notable for having won the French Open Jr Championships. Fyunck(click) (talk) 20:26, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, an admin has deleted this article under WP:G5. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:58, 6 August 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 by Ponyo (CSD G5: Mass deletion of pages added by Neebras) (non-admin closure) — JJMC89 (T·C) 01:11, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Emiliano Massa[edit]

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

Non-notable tennis player. The only title won by this player was a junior doubles. No major titles won as a professional. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 10:55, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable tennis player.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:09, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 07:10, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 07:10, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per WP:NSPORT and WikiProject Tennis, this player is notable for having won the French Open Jr Championships. Fyunck(click) (talk) 20:27, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I would argue that WikiProject Tennis is overly generous in presuming notability for a player whose only success was a junior's double title (grand slam or not), but that's an argument for a different venue. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 21:04, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - That may well be true... I didn't set up all the notability requirements. But usually, when a player wins one of the four jr Grand Slam events (far and away the biggest tournaments a jr can win), there are articles written about the player at the time. Maybe not so much about doubles but we don't discern between doubles and singles requirements. What's funny is just a day or two ago I was arguing with an editor that WikiProject Tennis requirements are way too restrictive on notability. So I guess it just depends on one's point of view. Fyunck(click) (talk) 22:07, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, an admin has deleted this article under WP:G5. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:58, 6 August 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 by Ponyo (CSD G5: Mass deletion of pages added by Neebras) (non-admin closure) — JJMC89 (T·C) 01:12, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Andrei Karatchenia[edit]

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

Non-notable tennis player. Only title is a junior title. No major professional titles won. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 10:53, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable tennis player.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:35, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 07:14, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 07:14, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: as non-notable sports figure/athlete. Quis separabit? 20:28, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per WP:NSPORT and WikiProject Tennis, this player is notable for having won the French Open Jr Championships. Fyunck(click) (talk) 20:30, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE: article created by indef blocked user (see [8]). Ponyo deleted article in mass cleanup of articles created by banned user (see [9]). So this AfD can be closed out. Quis separabit? 22:51, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Per WP:SK#1, nomination withdrawn and no outstanding delete !votes. (non-admin closure) — Sam Sailor ^Talk! 12:00, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ruby Gyang[edit]

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

this subject fails WP:MUSICBIO and WP:GNG as relatively little has been discussed about her in reliable sources asides this and this which I think is not enough to establish notability. —Oluwa2Chainz »» (talk to me) 09:46, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —Oluwa2Chainz »» (talk to me) 09:51, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. —Oluwa2Chainz »» (talk to me) 09:51, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. —Oluwa2Chainz »» (talk to me) 09:58, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn by nominator - Versace1608 has pointed out sources that are obviously reliable. --—Oluwa2Chainz »» (talk to me) 08:57, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The subject meets WP:GNG and has been discussed in reliable sources such as The Daily Times of Nigeria, Premium Times, The Daily Trust, Nigerian Entertainment Today, and Naij. Her 2016 debut EP, This is Love, was critically reviewed by Pulse Nigeria, a credible website with an editorial oversight. Moreover, she meets criteria 10 of WP:MUSBIO. She was included on The Indestructible Choc Boi Nation, a notable compilation album released by Chcolate City in 2015. Versace1608 ^{Wanna Talk?} 01:18, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Sovereign Hill. (non-admin closure) —UY Scuti ^Talk 13:41, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sovereign hill mine tram[edit]

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

While I understand that many trains are notable, this article does not appear to meet the notability criteria: both references come from the company that runs the train, and the train itself appears to be of no particular note otherwise. KDS4444 (talk) 08:56, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:43, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, does not meet WP:GNG, no useable sources found, just company and touristy sites, possibly add a line or two at Sovereign Hill under Attractions? Coolabahapple (talk) 03:54, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Sovereign Hill No need to delete the content, which really should be included in the Sovereign Hill article, but this article really shsould not exist as a separate entity.

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 08:05, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:16, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Sovereign Hill Does not need a separate article. No third party sources. David.moreno72 12:58, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per above. Mjroots (talk) 09:48, 8 August 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. There were probably several reasons why this would eventually have been deleted, but it was a copyright infringement, so it was speedily deleted. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 09:24, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

曲阜师范学校[edit]

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

Suggest this belongs on one of the Chinese language wikipedias. Jamesbushell.au (talk) 08:05, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 09:09, 2 August 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. Deleted by RHaworth as A10. Randykitty (talk) 13:43, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ባህረ ሀሳብ[edit]

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

This is the wrong language - suggest you post this to the Ethiopian wikipedia. Jamesbushell.au (talk) 08:04, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethiopia-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 09:08, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that such articles should first be brought to Wikipedia:Pages needing translation into English for attempted translation before deletion. I've raised it there. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 09:27, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Drmies (talk) 12:06, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Michelle Tyler[edit]

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

Not notable per WP:NSPORT... plus the reason the creator states "winning the jr US Open doubles".... per the US Open the event didn't exist in 1976. Fyunck(click) (talk) 07:34, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 18:10, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep, took part in several Grand Slam tournaments in both singles and doubles events (see ITF) and easily meets the WP:NTENNIS notability requirements.--Wolbo (talk) 20:55, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

She also participated in the Fed Cup and Wightman Cup.--Wolbo (talk) 21:46, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As the creator of this I agree this is a strong Keep. I went by the sourcing given in the article which was 100% bogus sourcing. Hence the delete request. With this new info I retract the original AfD and ask for a quick close. Fyunck(click) (talk) 23:04, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You can ask, but User:Lugnuts voted to delete. If Lugnuts goes keep per nom, we can close this, but I'd rather they say something more substantive. Drmies (talk) 04:50, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep now it's been updated - nice work! Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 06:40, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

How about now @Drmies:? Fyunck(click) (talk) 07:08, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 07:10, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 07:10, 5 August 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 03:51, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Minako Sango[edit]

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

She's got starring roles in some anime shows, at least according to ANN, but they are mostly minor anime shows, and nothing terribly notable. Would be very difficult to write up a decent biography without some sourcing. Japanese article doesn't show much promise either. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 07:21, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 07:58, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 07:58, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 07:58, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 07:58, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable voice actress.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:12, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Ecclesiastical_Insurance. MBisanz ^talk 03:51, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Claimants Bill of Rights[edit]

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

Non notable insurance company policy statement Nthep (talk) 20:29, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:38, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:39, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Ecclesiastical_Insurance, or delete if you really feel like it. Bearian (talk) 18:05, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Ecclesiastical Insurance (rather than redirect). Though created by church of England and owned by a charity. the company is a general insurer dealing with a wide range of business. As it does not pay commissions to brokers, it is not widely recommended by insurance brokers. I would suggest that the new section resulting from the merge should be "Abuse claimants' bill of rights". Peterkingiron (talk) 17:29, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Yellow Dingo (talk) 00:03, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 07:20, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Ecclesiastical Insurance and move the page history to a subpage Ecclesiastical Insurance/Claimants Bill of Rights rather than leaving this non-notable topic as a redirect in primary mainspace. – Fayenatic London 20:52, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Policy based rationale there is anything worth preserving? The whole thing reads like an WP:ADVERT. Mkdw ^talk 03:29, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Ecclesiastical_Insurance I'm not advocating for merge because the sources for the article were the company website and then wordpress. There's very little salvageable material. It's basically a WP:HOWTO about filing a type of claim for an insurance company: "with the hope that it might inform how other churches and their insurance companies respond to abuse survivors" and "Anyone bringing a claim against the Church should understand how the Guiding Principles will apply to their claim, and how they should expect to be treated in the claims process". This all falls under WP:ADVERT and WP:NOT. The burden is to provide sources to indicate notability of content and I see none. Redirect at best. Mkdw ^talk 03:28, 10 August 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 03:51, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sofia Pablo[edit]

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

Child actress who at present lacks coverage in reliable sources. At best a case of too soon. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 06:53, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 06:53, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 06:53, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

delete we should have a very high bar for including articles on people who are still minors, and in this case this article fails all bars, including the one of having a source.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:20, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
delete looking for sources, I cannot see any reliable independent writings. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 09:48, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:08, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I will have to agree with the comments above. Aoba47 (talk) 20:08, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep (NAC). SwisterTwister talk 15:14, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hazeldine[edit]

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

PROD removed with absolutely no explanations aside to apparently simply drive by; I still confirm my PROD here. SwisterTwister talk 06:35, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep. I listed 19 examples of coverage on the nominator's talk page (which they have now removed) after removing the prod - how exactly does that constitute "simply drive by"? That's 19 sources the nom's web searches somehow completely missed. The band concerned is obviously notable - albums on Polydor and Glitterhouse, coverage from Rolling Stone, The Independent, Les Inrockuptibles, No Depression, Encyclopedia of Popular Music, etc. etc. This editor's deletion nominations are becoming increasingly problematic and they are simply not listening. --Michig (talk) 07:00, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:05, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Mexico-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:05, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Allmusic has a bylined article on the band (now added as a reference), as well as short but bylined reviews of each of their albums, the first of which is reviewed as "Arguably the best of all the alt-country album efforts". Add to that The Independent review (which would have probably been bylined with initials in their style of the time) showing international attention, and I think there are sufficient sources for notability. AllyD (talk) 07:34, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets several bullets of WP:MUSIC. Chubbles (talk) 10:19, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per a review of the sources posted by Michig to nom's talk page in User talk:SwisterTwister#PROD removed from Hazeldine (and please stop!) and now copied to the article talk page: the band meets both WP:GNG as well as several criteria in the SNG. Sam Sailor ^Talk! 13:36, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor ^Talk! 13:37, 2 August 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. J04n(talk page) 17:21, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

GelTech Solutions[edit]

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

I came across this after I was pinged over a G11 I'd done on one of the company's product pages. There does seem to be a COI here as well, but that's kind of an aside.

The long and short of this is that the article has some fairly promotional tones and is almost entirely sourced via WP:PRIMARY and WP:TRIVIAL sources. The only two on the article that are usable are articles from CNN and the HuffPo. The other sources are comprised of reprinted press releases (the TD World one is a press release that isn't clearly marked as such), primary links, links to a general category term (in the case of the NYT, who appears to have only given them one paragraph of routine coverage), and trivial coverage. One of their products is on a list of usable products created by the US Forest Service, but I don’t think that this is something that would make the product or the company notable. It’s not exactly nothing, but that’s not the type of thing that would be seen as something overly noteworthy or significant on Wikipedia.

I tried searching for coverage, however there just doesn’t seem to be anything out there except for a fairly large amount of reprinted press releases. Basically, it looks like the only people who are really interested in talking about the company and its products is the company itself and I don't see where this passes WP:NCORP. If there does happen to be coverage out there (it's possible that it could be buried under the sheer amount of PR the company has released, although typically this doesn't seem to be the case), then the article will still need a pretty good re-write in order to remove the WP:PUFFERY running rampant in the article. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 06:14, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That the TD World didn't mark it as a press release makes the entire website seem a little questionable since a good RS will clearly mark a reprinted press release as a press release in some form or fashion. This website didn't do that. This media kit gives off the strong impression that the magazine offers marketing packages that includes editorial articles written about the company/people and their work, so I'd say that this magazine wouldn't be considered a RS even if the article was written by them. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 06:22, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Also a note for searchers - be very careful since I'm finding that this seems to be a relatively common issue with some of the sources I'm pulling up. I'm also finding that there is some coverage like this, which is just barely re-worded from this press release - and I stress barely. I also checked my school's academic database and only found more primary sources and PR. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 06:27, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:21, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:21, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:NOTFORUM and WP:NOTJOURNAL, as this article appears to have material that teaches more subject manner than facts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by HeatIsCool (talk • contribs) 07:05, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@HeatIsCool: Can you elaborate on this? This is a little confusing. I get the impression that you're likely arguing that Wikipedia is not a place for guides or self-promotion (and possibly by extension that the company is non-notable), but this is sort of brief. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 10:51, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. I did notice that there are only two sources usable for notability. That's more than most promotional pages have. When deciding the current article was acceptable, I compared it to my experience with other company pages rather than to an unachievable policy-based ideal. There are a lot of company pages on English Wikipedia that probably shouldn't be there, but they are, and I don't think it's fair to apply the real standards to some companies but not to others. Besides, this company has a useful product, not some n-th iteration of the same IT concept and not something fringe. Roches (talk) 15:30, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well.. the usefulness of a product has never been something that has contributed to notability on Wikipedia and could fall under WP:ITSUSEFUL in a way. (While that applies to articles, I could argue that you're saying that the usefulness of the product makes the existence of the article itself useful.) The same thing goes with the existence of other pages (WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS). I am aware that NCORP is a fairly hard guideline to pass, but it became that strict out of necessity and it is possible to pass the guidelines even if a corporation is particularly niche. I just don't think that this company passes, is all, and while it'd be nice if every company that put out a useful product could be kept, that's not really the way it works around here because there has been so much rampant abuse by various people in the past. And also since there was question about any potential COI I might have on another page, I want to restate that I have no COI here. I don't work for a competitor, I don't work in the business (I'm actually studying to become an archival librarian), and I have no vested interest in removing this page. I came to this page after I was pinged by Jo-Jo Eumerus to a discussion at REFUND over the deletion of other content the article creator had made, much of which was promotional in tone. It's just that all we have here are two sources about one of the company's products. There's really no coverage outside of that from what I can see and it's not for lack of the company slathering the net with various press releases and other marketing material. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 02:59, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- advertorial on an unremarkable company. Sources are insufficient to meet CORPDEPTH and GNG. K.e.coffman (talk) 07:04, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:OTHERCRAP is not an argument for inclusion. Tokyogirl79 is extremely well known for her thoroughness regarding WP:BEFORE. If she was not able to find anything and other editors have not been able to address WP:BURDEN, then I am arguing for delete under lack of WP:SIGCOV. Mkdw ^talk 04:54, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to 3rd Rhode Island Heavy Artillery. MBisanz ^talk 03:48, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Battery A, 3rd Rhode Island Heavy Artillery[edit]

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

Fails WP:MILUNIT, which specifically states that batteries are not notable.. Every one of these battery articles is a copy of the same material about the 3rd Heavy Artillery Regiment (next command level up) recopied from the same sources with the company letter changed. Therefore, I will be nominating all 12 companies for deletion under the same rationale. They should not be redirected to 3rd Rhode Island Heavy Artillery because they're not mentioned independently there, and they're not even mentioned independently in their own articles. MSJapan (talk) 06:02, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:14, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:14, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Rhode Island-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:14, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. This info ought to be described in the article about the regiment, which is facing deletion, too. Chris Troutman (talk) 07:38, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Individual company-sized units are not generally notable, especially not those that are organic to a larger unit. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:48, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- non-notable sub-units. K.e.coffman (talk) 07:17, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge: not independently notable, although the individual batteries should be covered in the parent article on the regiment itself if that article is kept. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 13:59, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge: content covered in these articles should not be lost and could easily be preserved in the article 3rd Rhode Island Heavy Artillery, although doing so may present some formatting issues for ACW articles that list battles or other actions in which a military unit participated. Each battery of the regiment had different assignments (brigade, division, corps, etc.) during the ACW, so resolving that may be complicated or it could simply be part of the section in which the individual battery is described. Spacini (talk) 15:55, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete - I think artillery batteries in the US Civil War were often land forces "capable of undertaking significant, or independent, military operations", so I don't think that MILUNIT automatically applies, but I'm not sure. I don't see much in these articles that shows this applies to these batteries. In any case, I would like to see citations specific to a battery beyond Dyer's compendium to really establish notability. If someone (Spacini?) would expand any such articles to establish notability, including citations (preferably inline), that would be better than deleting all of these (and numerous other weak articles on Civil War Units). Smmurphy^(Talk) 18:38, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Some statements in the deletion nomination are not exactly correct. They are not exact copies of each other. Each of the batteries has a separate unit history within Dyer's compendium source, which, for Rhode Island, seems to be an uncredited copy of the official 1865 report by the R.I. Adjutant General. Here in browsing format is beginning of Rhode Island's 41 units' histories. There is a lot of overlap but also there is different information available about each unit (reflected in their articles), as they started and ended at different times and sometimes went to different battles. --do ncr am 23:51, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge (to the 3rd Rhode Island Heavy Artillery article). A separate short paragraph or mini-section can/should be given for each battery, giving when/where they were formed and mustered out, and commenting briefly what they did differently from the main body of the regiment. E.g. note that one battery was the only one detached to go to Texas or wherever and participating in whichever battle or campaign. --do ncr am 23:51, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge all to 3rd Rhode Island Heavy Artillery. Not individually notable per WP:MILUNIT and WP:GNG; however, the regiment is in my opinion. Anotherclown (talk) 00:39, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge all relevant, unduplicated content in all of the articles under consideration here to 3rd Rhode Island Heavy Artillery in order to preserve such useful & encyclopedic information. Guy1890 (talk) 21:22, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. A valid rationale for deletion has not been provided. It's not a hoax (verifiable as per [10]), and deadlinks do not disqualify Wikipedia articles. No prejudice against a renomination that provides a valid rationale for deletion. For examples of valid deletion rationales, see WP:DEL-REASON. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:22, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ibrachy Law Firm[edit]

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

Reason Joseph.nemo (talk) 03:14, 2 August 2016 (UTC) Hoax and no sources that are working[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2016 August 2. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 03:36, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep. I get the joke.., you are supposed to give "reason" in an AFD nomination. There is hoax tag in article which I will remove. It is listed in legal500 and is real. Speedy keep because nomination provides no rationale for deletion. --do ncr am 05:45, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2016 August 2. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 06:02, 2 August 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. J04n(talk page) 17:21, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Kim A. Myers[edit]

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

Non-notable individual running for the House. Fails WP:BIO and WP:POLITICIAN. reddogsix (talk) 03:51, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete If Myers wins the election she will be notable, but she has not yet won the election, and if she looses she won't be, so we should delete the article and recreate it if she wins in November.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:56, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Myers is notable as a candidate due to the Congressional district's notability as a battleground race expected to receive national attention and one of a handful deemed a tossup nationally. She is also notable as heiress to the founder of a major American sporting goods retailer. McNurphy (talk) 04:09, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Candidates in "battleground" or "tossup" races do not get any special exemption from having to meet the same inclusion standards as any other candidate. WP:CRYSTAL disallows us from basing an article's includability on predictions about what the person might attain in the future. And notability is not inherited, which means being an heiress to a company constitutes no special notability. Bearcat (talk) 18:44, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Coverage of Myers, already a local political figure as County Legislator and school board president, in major political sources regarding the competitive race might fulfill WP:POLITICIAN criteria #2. While criteria #3 states that unelected candidacy does not guarantee notability, again the designation of her race by the Cook and Roll Call election reports as one of very few contested elections for an open House seat in the United States should be considered "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject of the article". McNurphy (talk) 04:21, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

County legislators and school board presidents don't get Wikipedia articles on those grounds — since covering local politics is the local media's job, all such people always get media coverage. So purely local coverage of local politics is not enough to get a person into Wikipedia in and of itself, because no local political figure of any kind would ever be "non-major" enough to fail NPOL if purely WP:ROUTINE local coverage were enough. "Major local political figures", for our purposes, refers to one of three types of people: (a) mayors of significantly-sized cities, (b) city councillors in global cities of the Toronto, NYC, London, Tokyo class, or (c) figures for whom the coverage expands far beyond the purely local. But none of those have been satisfied here. And no, Cook Political Report rating the race a tossup does not constitute significant coverage; the page, for example, doesn't contain any content about her except for a glancing namecheck of her name on a site that contains glancing namechecks of every single person running as a candidate anywhere in the entire United States, so it does not constitute evidence that coverage about her is nationalizing. She has to be the subject of nationalized coverage for it to get her over the bar, not just have her name mentioned on web pages that fail to do anything more than mention her name. Bearcat (talk) 18:44, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:37, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:37, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. As always, candidates for office do not get Wikipedia articles just for being candidates — if you cannot make and reliably source a credible claim that she was already notable enough for an article for some other reason besides her candidacy itself, then she must win the election and thereby hold office to get an article because election. But nothing here constitutes a credible claim of notability, as being a local officeholder at the county level is not enough in and of itself, and being ranked by pundits as a possible winner of the seat does not make her candidacy more noteworthy in and of itself than anybody else's — and the volume of reliable source coverage here is not enough to claim that she passes WP:GNG in lieu, as the only sources here that are substantive are purely WP:ROUTINE local coverage of her in a local context. No prejudice against recreation if she wins the seat in November, but nothing here is enough to get her an article today. Wikipedia is not a PR platform for aspiring congresspeople's campaign brochures. Bearcat (talk) 18:44, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'm inclined to agree with the delete camp. The individual does not have any notable coverage aside from WP:ROUTINE regarding their nomination. They come short on WP:SIGCOV, but I would say that the article may be recreated without prejudice should they become elected as outlined in WP:POLITICIAN. Mkdw ^talk 04:11, 10 August 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. -- Tavix ^(talk) 01:24, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Save the tatas[edit]

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

no evidence for notability for the extremely small charity. Only the first item is possibly a RS, but, even if it could be found, it's not enough. Speedy was declined back in 2009. DGG ( talk ) 02:30, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 04:37, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 04:37, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:38, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- non notable company (and / or?) charity. Sourcing does not suggest notability. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:22, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and I meant to comment sooner, simply nothing actually convincing. SwisterTwister talk 04:33, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. here's a link to an archived Associated Press story: [11]. Also, it seems to have caused some controversy: [12]. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 06:32, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Appears to be a trivial controversy and not sufficient to justify an encyclopedia article. K.e.coffman (talk) 08:32, 7 August 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). North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:19, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

China Next Generation Internet[edit]

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

Notability not established. This is just a minor plan of the Chinese government, and there are a lot of these. Furthermore, it seems that this particular plan did not affect anything at all. The only source is a government PR agency. Ysangkok (talk) 16:11, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 04:28, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 04:28, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Music1201 ^talk 04:56, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:38, 2 August 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. WP:TOOSOON provides that once a subject becomes notable and meets our inclusion criteria, the article may be re-created without prejudice. Mkdw ^talk 04:09, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Act II: Patents of Nobility (The Turn)[edit]

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

NN album, unreleased album with one source. Not notable for "not being released." AFAICT, track lengths and writers are made up. MSJapan (talk) 05:40, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:37, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:37, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: WP:TOOSOON. As far as I know, the track listing was tweeted by the artist four years ago, but he has changed his Twitter account since then so I can't confirm that. And there is is the screenshot at the foot of this article which supposedly confirms the track times – but that's hardly an RS. The track listing itself is four years old – the likelihood is that it has changed since then, especially as all sources out there say the artist has continued to work on the album. This article has been redirected to Jay Electronica four times over the last four years, and has been reverted each time – I would think another redirect would be in order until the album comes out, if and when it is ever actually released. Richard3120 (talk) 15:41, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well, then clearly this article is a target for some reason, and the redirects aren't holding. Let me see if there's a remedy for this that might work. MSJapan (talk) 23:25, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

MSJapan – Jay Electronica's first album, Act I: Eternal Sunshine (The Pledge), has also now been put up for deletion (it's completely unsourced), and I note that the article has also been redirected and restored twice during its history. So somebody is watching both these articles. Richard3120 (talk) 16:14, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As Bob Dylan said, "It ain't me, babe", but I'll take a look at it just the same. MSJapan (talk) 22:28, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:38, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:CRYSTALBALL. I mean seriously, a Wikipedia page on an unreleased album? --Lemongirl942 (talk) 16:06, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Lemongirl942, articles on unreleased albums happen quite a lot, but it's usually for a confirmed forthcoming album by a major artist - for the likes of Madonna or U2 or Rihanna, there's often a lot of publicity, teaser tracks, interviews and promotional work ahead of the record, enough to create a decent sourced article weeks before the album is released. But in this case we aren't talking about a major artist, and there is nothing confirmed about the album... the track listing, the release date, nothing. Richard3120 (talk) 16:14, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I understand. I should have explained it though that I wasn't able to source the details. We do have articles on unreleased albums or games (Duke Nukem Forever - when it was still unreleased), but they are all notable unreleased albums or games. This is a case of borderline notability and lack of sources other than simple announcements. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 16:18, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it's the lack of sources at the present time that's the problem. I have no doubt that if and when this album is eventually released, it will make the Billboard 200 and there will be reviews of it, because Jay Electronica is a notable artist and he is connected with Jay-Z, Kanye West and other big names. If that happens I will gladly support the aricle's recreation, but at present it is all just poorly sourced speculation and WP:TOOSOON. Richard3120 (talk) 19:18, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no indication of this being released. Karst (talk) 10:47, 9 August 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 03:47, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Safaree Samuels[edit]

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

Fails WP:NMUSIC. WP:NOTINHERITED, as his notability is entirely reliant on Nicki Minaj. He gets one mention in her article, so I'm not inclined to redir for trivia. MSJapan (talk) 05:59, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:34, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:34, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:34, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:35, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as I also happened to encounter this article, nothing at all actually suggestive of independent notability by all means. SwisterTwister talk 17:36, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:37, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete notability is not inherited, just because someone dates a notable person does not make them notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:29, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is classic BLP1E. I don't think a redirect is appropriate here either considering that it is based on the subject's personal life. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 16:09, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The individual may make something of himself in the future (or not) that merits sources devoted to him. Until then, there just is not anything deserving of an article or a redirect.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 01:04, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. WP:GNG takes precedent over WP:NHOCKEY. Sources do not have to be in English to be considered reliable and the keep arguments have addressed WP:BURDEN. Mkdw ^talk 04:08, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Erik Černák[edit]

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

fails WP:NHOCKEY and WP:GNG Joeykai (talk) 22:49, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:47, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Music1201 ^talk 15:01, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:NHOCKEY and WP:GNG. — Jkudlick • t • c • s 23:14, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Can you elaborate on why a player who received significant coverage in multiple reliable sources fails GNG? Rlendog (talk) 16:10, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Seems to have gotten adequate coverage in Slovakian sources, e.g., here, here, here and here. Also apparently received some coverage in the US as a potential 1st round draft pick, although he ended up being picked in the 2nd round, e.g., this. And has received further coverage in North America, e.g., this. Rlendog (talk) 15:51, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to be technical pretty much all of those are Q&A articles which are specifically debarred from proving notability. -DJSasso (talk) 12:04, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The last Slovak article I linked is pretty much Q&A. But the first is not at all. The 2nd and 3rd seem to intergrate some quotes from Cernak into the articles so there is some degree of Q&A but not entirely (and in the case of the 3rd not much at all). The Hockey Writers article is also not a Q&A. The draft article I admit is weak, but there is other draft coverage (admittedly also minor) that I found, and the fact that he was regarded as a potential 1st round pick is indicative that there may well be more coverage that is more difficult to find. But even if you exclude entirely the 2nd and last Slovak articles and the draft article that I linked, that still leaves 3 substantial articles (and I think even under the harshest interpretation of debarring Q&A articles the 2nd Slovak article should not be completely dismissed). Rlendog (talk) 13:19, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not certain that this is a reliable source but here is some more pre-draft coverage he received [13]. Rlendog (talk) 16:13, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable hockey player.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:20, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Can you elaborate on why a player who received significant coverage in multiple reliable sources is "non-notable"? Rlendog (talk) 16:10, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jujutacular (talk) 03:37, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - per Rlendog, sources meet GNG. --Hockeyben ^{(talk -} ^contribs) 14:33, 6 August 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. -- Tavix ^(talk) 01:20, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Henry G. Hynds[edit]

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

Junior officer who received a single Distinguished Service Cross, a second-level award. No other claim to fame. Completely fails WP:SOLDIER and every other standard. -- Necrothesp (talk) 20:44, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 20:44, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 20:44, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete --only seeing trivial coverage in Google books: preview. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:10, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:48, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:37, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:43, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: doesn't appear to meet the requirements of the WP:GNG. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 11:23, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, does not rise to the level of notability for stand alone article. Kierzek (talk) 21:08, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) ProgrammingGeek (Page! • Talk! • Contribs!) 08:01, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

René de Chambrun[edit]

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

Withdrawn, see below ProgrammingGeek (Page! • Talk! • Contribs!) 07:56, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User:ProgrammingGeek: I have significantly improved the article, with lots of references, new content about his legal career, and a list of publications. Would you like to cancel this AFD now?Zigzig20s (talk) 06:23, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User:Zigzig20s yes. Closing. ProgrammingGeek (Page! • Talk! • Contribs!) 07:56, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep: Important figure in the historiography of modern France.Zigzig20s (talk) 20:49, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have any sources to back this up? Searching Google only shows that he was a lawyer and author. Fails WP:ANYBIO and WP:AUTHOR. ProgrammingGeek (Page! • Talk! • Contribs!) 08:57, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:49, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep: Keep only if someone can translate the information from the corresponding page in French. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 23:54, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, here is the Fr wikiarticle - [14], most of it (apart from 'Works') appears to already be here. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:10, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The fact that he was the chairman of Baccarat is another element of notability. Also a prominent attorney, who defended Coco Chanel and Stavros Niarchos...Zigzig20s (talk) 06:32, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:37, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:47, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:47, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:47, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:47, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:48, 2 August 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 03:47, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

QuantumLinx[edit]

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

Fails WP:N CerealKillerYum (talk) 19:07, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no indication of notability or significant coverage in reliable sources. It seems the refs consist of announcements (not journalism) and passing mentions in sources not considered to be reliable. Also, GNews search leads to press releases and more announcements. Fails notability and fails WP:CORPDEPTH ---Steve Quinn (talk) 19:38, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:50, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:57, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:57, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:57, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:36, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- typical advertorial. Sources are insufficient to meet CORPDEPTH and GNG. K.e.coffman (talk) 07:20, 7 August 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 03:47, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Andy LoCascio[edit]

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

Fails WP:N CerealKillerYum (talk) 19:02, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:51, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:06, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:35, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:48, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:48, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Notability not demonstrated in the references - some of which (e.g. Scotus blog) do not even mention him. Large amounts of article unreferenced, and I did not find better sources. Some mentions (nyt article) but nothing substantially about him. Fails BLP. LaMona (talk) 23:54, 8 August 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. J04n(talk page) 17:20, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Gen inertia[edit]

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

WP:NEOLOGISM KDS4444 (talk) 09:20, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:57, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Management-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:57, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:58, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - a concept coined and used by one or two researchers, and an article largely consisting of original research. There is quite a bit of SPA activity in the article, too - not a reason to delete it, of course, but worth keeping an eye on. --bonadea contributions talk 17:37, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:34, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Yes, neologism, sourced to articles form 2016, with no showing of general uptake. May be suitable for an article at some future time. LaMona (talk) 00:01, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - neologism cannot be the sole criteria for deletion unless if it has any copyright issues, since there are as many terms that could easily be categorized under 'neologism'. Besides, not being an "archaic" word doesn't render a new concept void. Therefore, it requires more time to invalidate a conceptual term derived from other established idea(s) even though if it is not an archaic word. Agree with LaMona, that it may be suitable in future time.

M kench (talk) 04:28, 9 August 2016 (UTC)— M kench (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Indeed, there are many new terms being coined in academic research, which is why Wikipedia does not include articles about concepts that are not well-established. Please read this information, and note that "may be suitable in [the] future" is in fact an argument in favour of deleting; if and when it becomes generally used there could be an article about it, but not before. --bonadea contributions talk 06:55, 9 August 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 03:47, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Tone Poet[edit]

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

Non-notable musician. Doesn't actually make any assertion of notability and might be eligible under WP:CSD#A7, but as it is a contested PROD, I decided to nominate it here. Passes neither WP:BIO nor WP:MUSIC. ~ | twsx | ^talk_cont | ~ 04:11, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ~ | twsx | ^talk_cont | ~ 01:51, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. ~ | twsx | ^talk_cont | ~ 01:52, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. ~ | twsx | ^talk_cont | ~ 01:52, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor ^Talk! 09:31, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – Notable musician. Tone Poet as stated is true and is found of high rank with google search engine. Let the records show that he is a new artiest. All statements appear to be correct. More on what I found can be found at. facebook.com/tonepoetband — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.181.202.215 (talk) 12:39, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:34, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:49, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:MUSICIAN. What appeared to be references are only links to his web site. I can't find any clear sources. Also, articles is a copy vio of his web site. Would advise new editors to start with Articles for Creation so that they get a chance to learn about Wikipedia. LaMona (talk) 00:09, 9 August 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. Mkdw ^talk 04:05, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nazar Mohammad Mutmaeen[edit]

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

writer of unpublished books, appears to be non-notable anyway Jimfbleak - talk to me? 05:47, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor ^Talk! 09:52, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor ^Talk! 09:52, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Afghanistan-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor ^Talk! 09:52, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor ^Talk! 09:52, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:34, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

delete Poorly sourced WP:PROMO Mutameen is bviously not notable as a published political analyst, scholar, or writer, since there is no evidence that he has published (article itself cites only "Unpublished" "articles and books". The on the page, and those I can find by searching under this spelling, are uniformly very like this one form Voice of America, quoting Mutameem and describing him as "a pro-Taliban analyst based in Kabul." That's all that I can source, and it fails to support notability. Being a talking head, spokesman, analyst, or writer does not confer automatic notability.E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:25, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- sourcing does not suggest notability. K.e.coffman (talk) 21:12, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete' or Userfy - This article clearly doesn't meet any WP style or referencing standards, so it would require a full rewrite if it should survive. Two articles (LeMonde, NYT) list the subject as a kind of expert on Afghanistan today, so he may even be a notable journalist. The problem is that the best sources will probably be local to Afghanistan, and those are hard for US Google to find. Very obviously the article as it exists is not suitable. LaMona (talk) 00:17, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. WP:TOOLITTLE is typically considered an editorial problem and even stub articles may be kept. In regards to whether the band passes the threshold of WP:SIGCOV it would seem the two keep editors found additional sources putting it within the realm of inclusion. Not exactly the picture of SIGCOV but the keeps have the strongest policy based argument by addressing WP:BURDEN, albeit barely. Mkdw ^talk 03:59, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Stars Are Falling[edit]

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

Another non-notable band article created by Metalworker14. The AllMusic entry has no review. http://www.verbicidemagazine.com/2007/06/21/stars-are-falling-the-consequence-of-revenge/ appears to be a RS, but the rest are not so fails WP:GNG and WP:MUSICBIO. Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:37, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The Christ Core interview is another RS so this is getting pretty close to passing general notability guidelines, and this puts it over the top by looking at CMnexus, where a story and a review was written by HM Magazine. This article was created by myself not Metalworker14.The Cross Bearer (talk | contribs) 18:39, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@3family6 and Metalworker14: I just want to see what these two editors think about the merits of the article in question.The Cross Bearer (talk | contribs) 02:15, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor ^Talk! 09:53, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor ^Talk! 09:53, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor ^Talk! 09:53, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:33, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- a rather unremarkable short-lived band. Coverage is insufficient to sustain an encyclopedia article. I restructured the article a bit by removing unneeded section breaks and repetitive information, and there's really not much there. K.e.coffman (talk) 23:42, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - There's the Verbicide coverage, substantial HM coverage (which might be difficult to access), and the Scene Point Blank coverage. I'm not sure if Lambgoat could be considered RS or not, but ChristCore is, though in this case the latter is an interview. I also found a Punknews.org review by a staff member. So there is enough coverage by independent RSes to warrant an article.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 03:30, 10 August 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 03:47, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dublin Bus Route 46A[edit]

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

Notability not asserted - only notable source is of a "Lyrics Bay" ref, where the route was noted. This, I believe, is not enough to prove notability. Nordic Nightfury 10:32, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Nordic Nightfury 10:33, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Nordic Nightfury 10:33, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. Nordic Nightfury 10:33, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Included within Music delsort due to its musical connection. Nordic Nightfury 10:44, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep- I disagree. Whilst it may not have enough sources to back up what's being written, surely the musical reference could make this pass GNG. it may however need a {{refimprove}} tag if kept because more sources need to be found, and I am sure some are available.Class455fan1 (talk) 11:53, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Featuring in an unknown song isn't a free pass to an article, Article still fails GNG etc etc. –Davey2010^Talk 21:18, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:33, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Notability is not inherited from a passing mention in a song. There would have to be significant secondary sources directly discussing the route.Charles (talk) 08:52, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete—the musical reference qualifies as the definition of insignificant coverage. Unless other sources have picked it up and expounded upon it at greater depths, that fails GNG. Imzadi 1979 → 21:06, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Royal & Derngate. MBisanz ^talk 03:46, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Errol Flynn Filmhouse[edit]

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

Simply not notable. duffbeerforme (talk) 13:41, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:20, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:20, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ as the three references added by User: Isaidnoway constitute significant coverage in reliable sources to satisfy WP:GNG. Qwfp (talk) 09:17, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:30, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:51, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It's a small, three-year-old cinema. What on earth is notable about it? -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:06, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 14:06, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Changing !vote to Merge to Royal & Derngate, the theatre complex to which it's attached (having read article and sources slightly more thoroughly). Some coverage in recently added refs, but as it's only short there's no obvious need for a separate article. Qwfp (talk) 17:16, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Royal & Derngate per Qwfp. There's nothing wrong with the article's present text that precludes merging, but this venue doesn't seem to really be independently notable of the main theatre. Blythwood (talk) 20:44, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Royal & Derngate. Insufficiently notable on its own. K.e.coffman (talk) 07:03, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Royal & Derngate, which is a functional outcome that will improve the merge target article, which presently only mentions the filmhouse in passing. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:19, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. A willing editor may request 'userfication' WP:REFUND. Mkdw ^talk 03:54, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Melissa Ifidzhen[edit]

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

This player is not notable by project standards; she has no Fed Cup or WTA main draw appearances, has not won any ITF tournaments above the $25,000 category, had no remarkable junior career (neither a Grand Slam champion nor ranked within the world's top 3), and there are no further claims that she is otherwise, at present, generally notable. Jared Preston (talk) 20:06, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Looks like a big delete to me. Just a tiny little blip in a sea of minor league players. Fyunck(click) (talk) 23:20, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:43, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:43, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:43, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:37, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or userfy: Looks like a puff piece. If she was on the Olympic team or competed in international events, I'd change my position on this. Can anyone locate evidence of international competition? Montanabw ^(talk) 21:59, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The main international teams for female tennis are Olympics, Fed Cup and Hopman Cup. She has played in none of the above and all the events that have recently been listed in the article are children's competitions for under18 and under16 players. She not notable for anything Tennis project related, so it's strictly if she meets wikipedia GNG. It's possible since there aren't a lot of tennis players from Nigeria and she has a Russian background. This may need to be userfied in the creator's space in case she does become notable. Fyunck(click) (talk) 22:11, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I like the notion of userfying the article, adding that option to my !vote. Montanabw ^(talk) 17:16, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Anarchyte (work | talk) 12:02, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Misty Snow[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Misty Snow

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

Individual does not appear to meet notability requirements required for politicians or activists. ALPolitico (talk) 03:57, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

She's a major party nom for Senate. You sure? --108.33.71.212 (talk) 18:17, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Being a major party nominee for office does not mean that one meets Wikipedia's notability requirements. Should Snow win or come close, then she may meet that threshold. However, as it stands, she does not. ALPolitico (talk) 07:21, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. ALPolitico (talk) 13:50, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Her notability comes from being "...one of the first two openly transgender people in the United States representing a major political party to be a candidate for a national office, and the first to become a nominee for the United States Senate..." That is a valid claim for notability and her press coverage easily passes WP:GNG. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 01:32, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

One event WP:BLP1E, candidates don't pass WP:POLITICIAN unless they pass WP:N so their involvement in politics is a moot point except for the fact that it is the reason they are being covered in the news. Which, coming full circle, is only because of one event.--Savonneux (talk) 11:24, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Misty Plowright Anna Frodesiak (talk) 01:52, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2016 August 2. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 02:08, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The coverage she's garnered is enough to pass WP:GNG and WP:NBIO, probably due to the LGBT rights aspect, which establishes notability. Colonel Wilhelm Klink (^Complaints|_Mistakes) 02:39, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is another article on a non-notable candidate for public office.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:06, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Anna. Significant coverage, passes GNG easily. Unique candidate, not just your average office-seeker. Victoria Woodhull also was a first-time losing candidate from a disenfranchised group. Montanabw ^(talk) 22:25, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Who was also the first woman to own a stock brokerage, one of the firsts to own a newspaper, noted suffragist, testified in front of the House Judiciary Committee on women's rights, and had a Broadway musical written about her. Compared to someone who is a candidate for office.--Savonneux (talk) 09:37, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notable for being the Democratic nominee for Senate in Utah in 2016. Add to that that she's the first openly transgender candidate nationwide for Senate. No matter how you slice it, her name will always be there when people look for the results of this Senate race AND for notable 'firsts' when it comes to transgender rights. I'd also add that the agenda of contributors such as Johnpacklambert is pretty transparent if you look at their page.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.21.5.78 (talk)

Comment Further to the debate, reading WP:EVENT, you will see section WP:LASTING. Being the first in a unique social group entering an extrdordinarily major group is lasting by any terms. And, that guideline's pertinent section reads "...An event that is a precedent or catalyst for something else of lasting significance is likely to be notable..." Anna Frodesiak (talk) 12:05, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In the end, notability is all that matters; if there is enough coverage, the subject is notable. Is there enough coverage? Well, there's The Huffington Post, The Nation, The Telegraph, The Deseret News, NPR, a brief mention in US News & World Report, and The Deseret News again. This is enough to prove evidence of notability. Colonel Wilhelm Klink (^Complaints|_Mistakes) 20:08, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:31, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, she is notable for being the first transgender nominee of a major party for United States Senate.--TommyBoy (talk) 01:47, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Typically a major party nominee for US Senate would not be notable just for that, and there are nominees this year and every election year that do not and should not have articles. But because Snow is a historic first than that provides additional notability. -LtNOWIS (talk) 19:49, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Taking the delete !votes into account, the consensus to keep is still strong. (non-admin closure) Anarchyte (work | talk) 12:03, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Misty Plowright[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Individual does not appear to meet notability requirements for a politician or for an activist. ALPolitico (talk) 03:58, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. ALPolitico (talk) 13:48, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Her notability comes from being "...one of the first two openly transgender people in the United States, representing a major political party, to be a candidate for a national office...and...the first openly transgender candidate to win a major party primary for the US House of Representatives..." That is a valid claim for notability and her press coverage easily satisfies WP:GNG. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Misty Snow. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 01:52, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2016 August 2. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 02:08, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The coverage she's garnered is enough to pass WP:GNG and WP:NBIO, probably due to the LGBT rights aspect, which establishes notability. Colonel Wilhelm Klink (^Complaints|_Mistakes) 02:39, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The coverage is just one event, if Plowright does not win, there is no lasting notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:05, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Anna. Adequate coverage and unique accomplishment. Victoria Woodhull was also once a losing candidate too, but her run was groundbreaking. Montanabw ^(talk) 22:23, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Victoria Woodhull's notability does not solely come from being a losing candidate for public office. ALPolitico (talk) 08:16, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Woodhull also authored many articles for the suffragist movement, was the first woman to own a stock brokerage (with her sister), ran a newspaper, and testified before the Congress of the United States. Also WP:OTHERSTUFF--Savonneux (talk) 14:32, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

MY point is that losing candidates can sometimes be notable, particularly where the candidacy itself is groundbreaking. Montanabw ^(talk) 20:23, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly. Nail on the head. That is why she is notable as a person even if she may not be notable as a politician per se. (Whether she wins or loses, she will always be the first in representing a major political party and being a candidate for a national office. Winning or losing will not change that.) It is the same as would be the first black judge or astronaut or brain surgeon. Not all of them may be notable per WP:NOTABILITYFORTHATPROFESSION but with extensive press coverage because of their being a first, are easily notable under WP:GNG, or in this case, WP:BIO. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 23:46, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

So you are arguing they are notable based on the coverage caused by a single event.--Savonneux (talk) 11:02, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Reading WP:EVENT, you will see section WP:LASTING. Being the first in a unique social group entering an extrdordinarily major group is lasting by any terms. And, that guideline's pertinent section reads "...An event that is a precedent or catalyst for something else of lasting significance is likely to be notable..." Anna Frodesiak (talk) 11:51, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The part you are quoting is about topics on actual events. If the article was First X nominated for X that would be the event, this is about the person. If you read further down that page it actually says People known only in connection with one event should generally not have an article written about them. If the event is notable, then an article usually should be written about the event instead.--Savonneux (talk) 12:09, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Another editor above referred to "just one event". I am just trying to point out that even that guideline supports this article because the event "...is a precedent or catalyst for something else of lasting significance..." If you wish to move the article to First openly transgender candidate to win a major party primary for the US House of Representatives, then that is a matter for the article talk page.

In this case, the article is about the candidate herself. We are talking about a person, widely covered in the media, who is notable for who she is, what she represents, her accomplishment, her campaign, the impact in the LGBT and political world and its obvious lasting effects, the precedent it sets. etc. And I think in the guideline you cite, the key word is "generally". We have to look at who this person is, what they have accomplished and what sort of media coverage they received. Plenty of Wikipedia's guidelines conflict with each other. We have nothing that says one guideline supersedes another and this subject obviously and easily passes Wikipedia:Notability (people). Anna Frodesiak (talk) 18:22, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This person has done nothing of note other than be a member of a demographic and be nominated for a political position. I'm not against putting them on a list of firsts or something similar. The fact they haven't done anything particularly unique (being nominated isn't unique) just waters down the inclusion criteria for BLPs which is already very open (seriously all you have to do is win an award for literally anything). I don't care one way or the other (which is why I didn't vote) but equality in application of policy is what separates an encyclopedia from a news service.--Savonneux (talk) 19:33, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In the end, notability is all that matters. Notability is determined by coverage. Thus, one should ask: does this person have coverage to meet notability? Well, let's ask The Washington Post, The Guardian, The Colorado Independent, The Times of London, Democracy Now, The Denver Channel, and The Washington Post again. Let the evidence speak for itself. Colonel Wilhelm Klink (^Complaints|_Mistakes) 19:56, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That isn't the sole criteria or every news story would have an article. The question is does one event, by itself, warrant an article.--Savonneux (talk) 21:10, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This, however, is not just any news story, as is shown by the evidence. How often do most news breaks stay in the mainstream press? Usually a few days or a week at most. Look at some of the dates for the articles cited: respectively, they are June 30, July 4, July 15, July 3, July 1, June 30, and July 31. That shows that Plowright's nomination has (at least so far) lasting significance; thirty days passed between stories of this event, something which rarely happens with WP:ROUTINE political nominations, or with any significant events at all. Additionally, look at the scope of the coverage; how often does a newspaper from Britain cover a senatorial primary election from Colorado? Not often; the fact that such coverage exists is another point towards notability, as it shows the unique (and significant) quality of this event compared to others of the same nature. To quote WP:LASTING: It may take weeks or months to determine whether or not an event has a lasting effect. This does not, however, mean recent events with unproven lasting effect are automatically non-notable. Your argument that "every news story would have an article" is illogical, as not every news story receives this much coverage over such a long (for news) period of time. Whether or not one event deserves an article should be judged on an individual basis. In this case, with all things taken into account, I'd have to go with "yes". Colonel Wilhelm Klink (^Complaints|_Mistakes) 22:17, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:25, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Per all the above.VictoriaGrayson^Talk 02:22, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, she is notable for being the first transgender nominee of a major party for United States House of Representatives.--TommyBoy (talk) 19:28, 8 August 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. -- Tavix ^(talk) 22:14, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ramachandran Manickam[edit]

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

I can't find evidence of meeting WP:BIO or WP:GNG. Adam9007 (talk) 02:05, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. the relevant standard is WP:PROF. I see no significantly cited publications, and the journals he is editor of are minor journals. This is what would be expected for an assistant professor--and assistant professors are generally not yet notable. DGG ( talk ) 20:05, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Does not seem to pass WP:PROF. Looking at the page history, it would seem to be yet another autobiography. David.moreno72 03:30, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as I concur with DGG, nothing at all here for WP:PROF. SwisterTwister talk 03:51, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:22, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:22, 6 August 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. -- Tavix ^(talk) 22:13, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dr. Pawan Malhan[edit]

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

I have only been able to find limited evidence of notability. Adam9007 (talk) 01:49, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable business person.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:45, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:SOURCE and may even meet criterion A7. Heat Is Cool 06:52, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and this should've been PRODed first s the only cases we would consider AfD is if chances of restarting again; which may perhaps happen. He is certainly not notable as a businessman or professor; essentially nothing convincing. SwisterTwister talk 20:19, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:18, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:18, 6 August 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 has not been established after several weeks. -- Tavix ^(talk) 22:06, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Tracker (2001)[edit]

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

No indicaton of notability (WP:NFILM or the WP:GNG) Tazerdadog (talk) 00:48, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:14, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Doesn't seem to have received any reviews in reliable sources. There's a trivial mention in this article, but that's about all I can find. It could also be redirected to the director's article. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 00:55, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Music1201 ^talk 16:05, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Appears to be a TV movie. I found very little, one of the few items mentioning it being this. --Michig (talk) 06:48, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:28, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. A difficult call because quite a few people had recommendations for the article but only a few policy based arguments were presented. Fundamentally WP:NOT carries the day here. Phrases are included on the English Wikipedia if there is encyclopedic content to accompany the definition. As for whether it should become a redirect, there were different opinions on it, but ultimately once deleted, a redirect is an editorial choice and thereby can be decided by the editors subsequently. It should be noted that this page was at one time a disambiguation page before being deleted at WP:MDP. Mkdw ^talk 03:37, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You're fired![edit]

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

not sourced and it doesn't seem to be relevant enough. you can't have articles about phrases, or else the encyclopedia would be infinitely large. I don't know...

Well, I'm looking forward to see opinions on this. FabulousFerd (talk) 14:55, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:59, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:59, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:59, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have no opinion on this matter, except to say that you clearly can have articles about phrases, per Category:Phrases. Then again, check out the category description! I don't think I've ever seen one quite like it. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:02, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Transclude to Termination of employment or Layoff. May violate WP:NOT#DICT and the catchphrase section also may violate WP:V. NgYShung ^huh? 15:09, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The phrase is used a catchphrase and a title for a variety of publications and other media. It should be kept as some kind of dab page to help readers get to the topic they are looking for. Andrew D. (talk) 19:42, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Wikipedia is not a dictionary, Urban Dictionary, WikiQuote, TVTropes, Catchphrasepedia, etc. There are notable subjects which have uttered those words, and if there's sufficient coverage of them doing so, it could be included in those articles, but we don't need articles about popular phrases for their own sake unless we have a whole lot more coverage of the phrase itself beyond simply usage. A redirect doesn't seem like it makes sense as there's no clear target (especially given the exclamation mark). With Trump in the media quite a bit, the recent coverage might tie it to The Apprentice, but the phrase existed beforehand, and that's not even the only well-known pop culture usage (i.e. recentism). We could redirect to termination of employment, but with the exclamation mark that seems awkward. I'm not quite sure about a dab page, and I think that could be evaluated on its own irrespective of this AfD. After all, the subject of the AfD isn't the article title (except insofar as there's the question of a redirect), but the article subject -- and the article subject is the phrase "you're fired", not a Wikipedia disambiguation. Update: Not opposed to a Soft Redirect to wiktionary:you're fired. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 21:17, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete While we do have plenty of articles on truly notable catchphrases, this doesn't appear to be one. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:49, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I'm the one who proposed the deletion, so I'm not sure if my opinion will matter. Anyway, I think that the article is not notable or relevant enough at all. edit: Oh, and by the way, the creator of the article actually created a redirect to The Apprentice (link), so maybe it should have never been an article. FabulousFerd (talk) 02:43, 24 July 2016 (UTC)--Blocked sockpuppet[reply]
Merge into The Apprentice or Vince McMahon. This article/phrase has been on wikipedia for 10 years and is unfortunately facing the brunt of just one of it's regular users political ambitions, also because Frankly, my dear, I don't give a damn pop culture phrases DO have precedence on this website. GuzzyG (talk) 20:09, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: At this point, it's pretty clear we're not keeping this, but totally unclear if it's delete or merge, so I'll let this run for another week. -- RoySmith (talk) 00:45, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- RoySmith (talk) 00:45, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep it is essentially a disambiguation page for one of the most popular catchphrases of the past decade. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 19:30, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Wiktionary entry for "you're fired", although I'm not sure what the exact process is for cross-wiki redirects. I think this is best because the phrase is used in different circumstances and by different tv programmes/people, so there's not a "one-size fits all" redirect, but Wiktionary is able to have different usages/examples etc. Seagull123 Φ 20:36, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to The Apprentice. Tired meme. Montanabw ^(talk) 22:08, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: It's just a phrase. Should we really have an entry for every phrase uttered by someone notable. Generally not encyclopedic. Niteshift36 (talk) 19:25, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Technically, I agree. But a redlink is just clickbait to recreate. Montanabw ^(talk) 19:30, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Disambiguate. The dab would include a Wiktionary box and links to The Apprentice, The Apprentice: You're Fired!, You're Fired (film) and a see also to Termination of employment and You're Hired (TV series). -- Tavix ^(talk) 22:11, 9 August 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. Mkdw ^talk 03:33, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

William Fenning[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG from what I can see, although Johnpacklambert is under the apparently mistaken impression that the source is an obituary in the Los Angeles Times and DEPRODDED because thus the guy might pass. It is a news story, not an obituary. Sitush (talk) 00:40, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:12, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as there is nothing here at all convincing. SwisterTwister talk 01:36, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:54, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – Does not meet WP:BASIC. Several searches are not providing any significant coverage in reliable sources. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:38, 9 August 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. WP:SIGCOV threshold not surpassed especially with primary sources and user submitted content websites like Last.fm being used as sources to support the keep camp arguments. Mkdw ^talk 03:32, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Aardvark Records[edit]

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

Does not meet notability guidelines. I declined speedy deletion, as this is an older article with a number of editors. Gaining consensus here will help solidify decision. Jujutacular (talk) 00:33, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:52, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:52, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:52, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:52, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

care must be taken not to confuse it with record stores of the same name in the United States. According to Google News, there are or were more than one. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:55, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as nothing at all convincing. SwisterTwister talk 01:31, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: fails WP:CORP. Article written by a WP:SPA, Phil Hiett, who is a DJ/producer and one of Aardvark Records former artists. Richard3120 (talk) 03:25, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- advertorial with too many red links. Perhaps created as a "map" to expand the walled garden? Nothing suggests notability here. K.e.coffman (talk) 07:06, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

K.e.coffman – if you follow the five blue links they all link to completely unrelated articles that have nothing to do with the artists, so in fact the entire artist list is non-notable. Richard3120 (talk) 22:43, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I think the page is acceptable. It seems factual and neutral in tone to me. Aardvark is mentioned in Issue 4 of the Association of Independent Music Journal, first published in July 2008. http://www.musicindie.com/news/1164. It is mentioned by Eurogamer.net with respect to its supply of music for the entertainment product "Eurosurf" again in 2008. http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/aardvark-records-supplying-songs-to-audiosurf. The page on last.fm http://www.last.fm/label/Aardvark+Records says Aardvark Records is part of Aardvark Music Ltd. Companies House records show that Ardvaark Music Ltd (Company No. 04227106) was incorporated in 2001 and dissolved in 2014; the website http://aardvarkrecords.co.uk/ has the year 2015 on it and appears to be actively trading. There is no company called Aardvark Records Ltd in Companies House but that in itself does not have to be a problem, in my opinion. A name with proven 15 years history and the subject of two independently published articles seems reasonable to me. In the two articles, the subject was the focus of the article and not a passing mention. I am happy to accept Musicindie and Eurogamer as reputable sources. In particular the AIM reference is not trivial, it goes on for some length and AIM seems to be well respected trade organisation with 800 company members covering UK and EU. http://www.musicindie.com/membership. I agree the article is the product of a single purpose account but the author has done a commendable job of observing the spirit of Wikipedia and so I think it should be kept. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Philjones573 (talk • contribs) 22:40, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: AIM is a reputable organisation, but as the article for it was written by Aardvark's marketing and promotions manager, it hardly counts as an independent source. Richard3120 (talk) 22:53, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Fair enough but as a burnt new contributor to Wikipedia I found the forcible demand for "independent sources" bewildering. I thought offering factual information in a neutral tone in good faith was welcome. To say I have been on the receiving end of "biting the newcomers" is an understatement. I have written to the author to let him know what is wanted is his press cuttings. He is bound to have some. I think the article has problems but I think they are fixable and I am going to help him. I ask for the author to be given time to collect the information requested.

Philjones573 (talk) 00:29, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Not notable. Exemplo347 (talk) 23:39, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
(refactored) Hello. My name is Andy Reeve and owner of Aardvark Records.co uk. Indeed I did close the Limited company after a disaster which involved a key staff member departing bu I won't go into any more detail here. I was encouraged by some of my artists to start up again but this time as a Sole trader and did so with ful compliance with English Law. If you care to check with the HMRC you will find that I have already made my first tax return to them. All other legal requirements have been taken care of. So it is Business as usual. The key here is that there is no conflict with the American Record shops because of the .co.uk in our website address. There is an American Record company in the USA and we have quite happily ignored each other since 2001. So we exist. We are trading successfully so can we end this discussion now please. Andy Reeve — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.41.108.182 (talk) 09:25, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:CORP and WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 15:30, 9 August 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.