Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2016 July 23

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 22 July	24 July >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:07, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Brianna Knickerbocker[edit]

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

The article topic lacks significant coverage from reliable, independent sources (?) or at least enough to build a full article. No suitable merge/redirect targets. czar 21:35, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. czar 21:35, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. czar 21:35, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. czar 21:35, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Wikipedia:BLP and Wikipedia:V. I can't find any substantial information about this person on reliable sites. Pianoman320 (talk) 21:50, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No coverage in reliable sources. KGirlTrucker81^{talk what I'm been doing} 23:25, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Can't find very many reliable sources. —MRD2014 T C 00:20, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:TOOSOON. About the only stuff I can find is cast announcements and a video interview for Yuki Yuna where she is with the rest of that cast. No special appearances at multiple anime conventions. Why did the creator of this article push it out of draft? It would have been fine there as a chance to find decent sources. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 01:10, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable voice actress.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:47, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, does not meet WP:GNG, no useable sources found. Coolabahapple (talk) 15:31, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per this Google search. No reliable coverage found; doesn't seem to meet WP:GNG. Omni Flames (talk) 08:42, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above, and specifically as lacking any reliable sources. Just for kicks, I looked on Omni_Flames's link, and found lots of social media and Wiki mirrors, but nothing really good. The only thing she seems to be good at is self-promotion. Bearian (talk) 21:10, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Snow Delete - Not notable per WP:TOOSOON, WP:GNG, and as per above self promotion. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 15:59, 28 July 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 (G5, created by a sock of a blocked or banned user). --Bongwarrior (talk) 05:15, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Donald Trump and White Supremacy[edit]

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

Unencyclopaedic: is essay of no notability, obviously created for purely political purposes. Recommend merge or speedy delete. Dschslava^Δxparlez moi 21:20, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It's already covered, more concisely and encyclopedically, at Donald Trump presidential campaign, 2016#Endorsements by white nationalists and white supremacists. Clarityfiend (talk) 22:23, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete overly POV-pushing article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:47, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete agree unencylopedic personal essay of no value or reason to exist. Sro23 (talk) 03:20, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/Merge As per Clarityfiend. If necessary, we can merge the information onto the presidential campaign article. JTtheOG (talk) 04:05, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

KEEPhave any of you even read either of the pages in question? This material is barely covered at the main article. Everything is sourced here, and phrased neutrally. There is much more to come. Give this baby a chance to live. This is an obviously notable and significant topic-- far more so than the "Barack Obama Anti-Christ conspiracy theory article" or whatever it's called. I call out the conservative bias of Wikipedia. This is an extremely notable topic. In just an hour, I've assembled over 50 notable sources, and have many, many, many more. (At least 500-1000 notable articles on this topic alone.)Very Good Friend of the Encylopedia (talk) 04:15, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

— Note to closing admin: Very Good Friend of the Encylopedia (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this AfD.

And? Am I not alone to speak in my defense? What sort of kangaroo court is this? This is an excellent, heavily sourced page on a topic of enduring international interest. Years from now this is likely to be the only thing anyone remembers about Trump. Very Good Friend of the Encylopedia (talk) 04:38, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing says you cannot give your opinion. This is just a template used to identify the creator of an article when he or she fails to disclose that information. Meters (talk) 04:52, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent! I had no idea a disclosure was necessary. In my opinion, all the reasons given above are altogether spurious. Very little of this information is re-produced elesewhere on this website (please verify these claims with links that show where there is any overlapping material if I am mistaken, I have not seen any), and the material is obviously notable. We have full articles on many much smaller controversies involving political figures that have received much less coverage than this one. In just the first day, I've provided nearly 200 references. What is the need for a rush to suppress this before the article is even fully formed? I added the stub tag indicating a work-in-progress. Very Good Friend of the Encylopedia (talk) 05:00, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is not a neutral encyclopedia article but rather a POV pushing essay. The most obvious example of lack of neutrality is that David Duke is described in the present tense as the leader of the Ku Klux Klan. Actually, Duke Duke led one faction of the Klan in the 1970s and quit the Klan in 1980. There are many other such examples. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:07, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

so fix the error, this is completely irrelevant as a reason to delete the article; excuse me if I'm not an expert on the leadership structure of the Klan. Very Good Friend of the Encylopedia (talk) 05:11, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The strength of the comments provides a consensus to delete. Without prejudice to recreating when the album has been released. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 16:25, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Solid Gold (Nikki Yanofsky album)[edit]

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

Unreleased album, with no reliable sources to show notability. In reponse to "uncited" tag, the editor put references to the artist's tumblr and instagram. Claim that Wyclef Jean is the producer might be true, but also not supported by reliable sources. A brief web search didn't turn up in-depth discussion of the topic. Slashme (talk) 18:46, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This album along with her single "Young Love" that was released yesterday is HUGE news to the fandom and her community. Her Instagram, Twitter, and other social media sites she's verified on are already posting promos, teasers, and clips of what's to come with the new album "Solid Gold." It'd be a real tragedy to hide that considering that we haven't heard anything new from Nikki Yanofsky on her songs for more than a couple years now. I've made a post on the Wikipedia reliable sources noticeboard to get some clarification on whether or not her profiles can be used as reliable sources, since Yanofsky is a rising artist and not many reports are being done on her, making it hard to find other sources. In short, the reply I got was that these profiles CAN be used in the articles citations as long as it follows the policies given in WP:SOCIALMEDIA. In this case, I'm sure that Nikki Yanofsky is an expert on the topic Nikki Yanofsky and can provide reliable information. The article has sources that also link to this years IdeaCity fest where she announced that she's working on the album with Wyclef Jean. (IDEACITY, @5:52). She performed a number of the songs to be featured on the new album including "Me Myself and I" and "I Owe It All To You." Both these songs along with her latest single "Young Love" are featured in one of her posts that talk about the track listing of Solid Gold. Because there is this background information, using her social media profiles shouldn't be an issue as shown in Wikipedia's social media policies. They just add more information and details.

This is very important news and the album should be coming around within the next few weeks. This has been known already since November of last year. EDIT: Her tumblr is currently the redirect from her official website http://www.nikkiyanofsky.com which is owned by Quincy Jones Production and her A440 Entertainment label. Me00lmeals (talk) 20:05, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

So if I understand you correctly, you're saying that all the information you can find about this song is from self-published sources? --Slashme (talk) 12:59, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or redirect - This article should be kept, or redirected to either Young Love (Nikki Yanofsky song) or Nikki Yanofsky. That being said, the page history should NOT be deleted. --Jax 0677 (talk) 03:47, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please provide sources that show that this album passes WP:NMUSIC? --Slashme (talk) 12:58, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:38, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:38, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Reply - @Slashme:, at this time, I am not specifically advocating for a separate article for the album. However, if the article cannot be kept, it should be redirected per WP:CHEAP as a valid search term. --Jax 0677 (talk) 15:19, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Understood. I'd be OK with a redir, but then we need a decision here, otherwise there will just be an edit war about whether it should be redirected or not. --Slashme (talk) 19:57, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

All albums are not automatically notable just because they (will) exist; an album is notable enough for its own article only if and when reliable source coverage in published media which (a) is independent of the musician's own self-published social networking presence, and (b) verifies one or more criteria that would pass WP:NALBUMS, can be provided to support it. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a free advertising platform — articles on here must be based on reliable sources, and not on an artist's own self-published marketing efforts. Creative professionals are not objective observers of their own work, so their own self-published content about it can be larded through with overinflated public relations hype — which is why her own social media posts about a new album are not sufficient sourcing to get the album an article if real media outlets haven't written about it yet. Delete, without prejudice against recreation if and when proper sources can be added to carry it. Bearcat (talk) 17:19, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Reply - @Bearcat: What if A440 Entertainment which is her label announced that the album is coming out? Would that be considered a reliable source, and if so would the other sources we already have up on this page be usable if there's the label to back it up? Me00lmeals (talk) 04:03, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'll step in here. No, it would not. Notability is based upon reliable third-party sources. The label releasing the album is clearly not a third-party source. I don't believe that the article as it stands is using one single reliable source, period, as everything is being sourced directly from the artist. You need to understand what is required for a proper article first, and probably one of the biggest things is that the album (in this case) needs to exist. MSJapan (talk) 04:36, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It would help only in the sense that once the label announced an official release date, the media would probably start actually writing about it. The record label's own press release would not cover off the reliable sourcing issue all by itself, however — it would be a step in the right direction, not the final answer, and you'd still have to wait for actual media coverage to actually appear. Bearcat (talk) 15:02, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No WP:RS, WP:CRYSTAL at present, overuse of WP:SELFPUB, fails WP:NALBUM by default as a result. MSJapan (talk) 04:36, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Reply - @MSJapan: Ok I see, then this album shouldn't have it's own article. However I'd rather have this redirected to the Nikki Yanofsky Discography section but not lose any of what we have on here so far. Only because this album is VERY close to it's release and it's very important news in the community. Nikki and her label A440 along with Quincy Jones Productions have confirmed it so it should make some appearance on her article. Then once reliable sources are discovered this page can in a way be brought back. Keep this discussion going till there's a decision and let me know what you think. Me00lmeals (talk) 05:07, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Me00lmeals: "What is here" is not encyclopedically appropriate. It's also not important until someone besides Yanofsky et al says it is. Wikipedia is a lagging indicator of notability, not a forerunner. It doesn't matter what anyone involved with the album has said or done with it, period. Album info can be added to the Yanofsky article once it actually exists, and if the album gets to a point where it meets NALBUM, it can have its own article, but not before. BTW, you're sounding a lot like a PR rep here, and if you have any sort of connection with any of the companies or artists you have mentioned, you should not be creating articles on them, and you need to read WP:COI as well. MSJapan (talk) 05:58, 25 July 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. adequate consensus after relisting DGG ( talk ) 04:44, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Shaji Nadesan[edit]

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

Biographical article on a non notable person. Shaji Nadesan is one of the co-producer of the film production company, August Cinema. Article lacks reliable sources on the person, but this nomination is not only based on that. This article is made only for "linking" purpose. The awards received for his productions are used to cover his non-notability. Then there is the content issue, other than the two line intro there is nothing, film list is from the article of the production house. The thing is, there no biography in this biographical article. Charles Turing (talk) 20:40, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - First things first. "Co-producer" does not rob him of the fact that he is a filmmaker. And for a biography of a filmmaker, per WP:FILMMAKER pts. 3 (...has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work. In addition, such work must have been the subject of an independent book or feature-length film or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews...) and 4 (...person's work (or works) either (a) has become a significant monument, (b) has been a substantial part of a significant exhibition, (c) has won significant critical attention, or (d) is represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums..., this person is fairly notable. To dig into his works, films like Indian Rupee, Manjadikuru, and Ennu Ninte Moideen have won critical acclaim and multiple National awards. Secondly, I don't understand what you mean by "linking" purposes. Do you mean that this guy has an SEO team working for him trying to rank this Wikipedia page of his on page 1? Highly unlikely, but on second thought, and quick Google search, it does seem possible. Lastly, I agree there are no sources to back the personality's notability, but his work should be enough. Cheers, Nairspecht Converse 06:55, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 05:47, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 05:47, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Dan arndt (talk) 05:59, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What is this article contribute to a reader looking about producer Shaji Nadesan. The very known information itself, he is the co-producer of August cinema, other than what?. This article is only useful for "linking" in other articles. I just clarified what I meant by linking, the rest I have already mentioned in my nomination. --Charles Turing (talk) 12:01, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Also, WP:FILMMAKER#Creative professionals is not valid here, co-producer is not a Creative professional. He has no creative contributions/inputs to the work, he is only financing it and hire creative professionals to design the work.--Charles Turing (talk) 12:18, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kharkiv07 (T) 15:17, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete instead as there are still troubles regarding substance, notability and sources, thus this would be better Drafted for the necessary improvements and then analyzed for acceptance. SwisterTwister talk 00:33, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Music1201 ^talk 21:25, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 18:26, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I'd have to concur with Charles Turing on this one. As a co-producer he is responsible for arranging financing of the films - not any creative contributions. The awards that the films have received are based on the creative input of the director and actors not the producer. Notability has clearly not been established. Dan arndt (talk) 23:59, 24 July 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. After being relisted, it seems this article passes both WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:WEBCRIT per all references that were found during this discussion. As others have said, the promotional content can now be rewritten. (non-admin closure) Anarchyte (work | talk) 12:14, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

WAYN (website)[edit]

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

promotional and not notable,with no sources except notices of funding, social media mentions, and the like. Mostly written by editors with undeclared COI -- see the COIN discussion: [1]. Borderline notability combined with clear promotionalism is an urgent reason for deletion. DGG ( talk ) 05:51, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:18, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. The best and most frequently cited source used here is a softball interview by Tnooz (who?) that is thin on researched facts, instead using phrases like "WAYN says...", "the company will debut...", "The business, which says...", and "WAYN proudly refers to itself as...". The other sources, as stated by the nominator, are in-passing mentions of routine funding, corporate announcements and press releases, and more softball interviews. This simply isn't encyclopedic per WP:CORP guideline. I also agree with the promotionalism label, being the one who initiated the COIN discussion. Unfortunately for Wikipedia, once you take that away, there isn't enough left for an article. - Brianhe (talk) 09:29, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - WP:CORPDEPTH is not met, and there's far too much sprinkling about of useless userbase numbers and funding trivia, most of which has little to do with the topic as a main focus. MSJapan (talk) 20:31, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. A well-known website (one of the first social networks, no less, though I've never used it) that has received ample press attention over the years and can be dealt with by normal editing, not TNT. There is nothing so dreadful on this article due to COI editing to warrant deletion; that would be cutting our nose off to spite our face. Sources: http://www.cntraveler.com/stories/2016-02-29/beyond-facebook-the-travel-social-networks-you-need-to-know; http://ventureburn.com/2013/09/social-travel-network-wayn-marks-22-million-registered-travellers/; https://techcrunch.com/2010/05/03/niche-travel-social-network-wayn-hits-profitability-mobile-apps-on-the-way/; http://www.usatoday.com/story/travel/roadwarriorvoices/2016/02/16/travel-social-networks/80448712/; http://www.dailymail.co.uk/travel/article-1190855/Website-week-wayn-com.html; https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=pGxyBgAAQBAJ&pg=PA116; http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/mediatechnologyandtelecoms/2789852/WAYNs-Ward-of-courtship.html; https://gigaom.com/2008/03/17/419-travel-network-wayn-appoints-bank-to-seek-sale-report/; http://thestartupmag.com/qa-session-peter-ward-founder-where-are-you-now/; http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/376c7226-a856-11dc-9485-0000779fd2ac.html?ft_site=falcon&desktop=true#axzz4EhWxTsrw; https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=wfkDgc4KnOMC&pg=PA234; http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-14808977; http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/7140599.stm; https://www.theguardian.com/business/2010/dec/12/new-york-london-tech-firms; http://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/news/bidders-are-circling-round-wayns-world-783203.html; http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/5154438/British-social-networking-site-WAYN-takes-on-Twitter.html; http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/mediatechnologyandtelecoms/2786267/Wayn-duo-eye-sale.html; http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/8151450/Watch-out-New-York-here-come-Londons-tech-stars.html. Collectively, this coverage passes WP:CORPDEPTH. Fences&Windows 21:17, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 18:18, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Passes WP:WEBCRIT per a review of available sources. The minor promotional tone can be addressed by copy editing the article. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:41, 26 July 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 redirected to Myrath. Even though the consensus is probably to delete, a redirect has already been implemented and there is no opposition to it in the delete comments. (non-admin closure) ansh 666 23:57, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Anis Jouini[edit]

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

PROD removed by page's creator. His band is notable but the subject seems to lacks coverage in independent reliable sources. Meatsgains (talk) 01:57, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The page's current references are to primary sources. Simply being in a well-known band does not make a musician inherently notable. Meatsgains (talk) 02:02, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There are numerous Wiki pages for far less known musicians than Anis Jouini I need to understand the sources required to prove his credibility as a known musician, I updated the references — Preceding unsigned comment added by Evadowdinternational (talk • contribs) 04:46, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have updated the references in correct format and sited sources and will continue to add more, please advise if this prevents the page from deletion evadowdinternational — Preceding unsigned comment added by Evadowdinternational (talk • contribs) 16:00, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 19:00, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, the creator and major contributor to this article, Evadowdinternational, may be involved with Eva Dowd Productions International that has Jouini as an exclusive artist, see here - "Anis Jouini"[2], i have left coi messages on their talkpage. Coolabahapple (talk) 19:30, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Good find, thanks. Meatsgains (talk) 19:36, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I do donate my time to helping artists around the globe and have never made any money and have won awards for my efforts , I was unaware that you had to be a total stranger to create page, this was done to bring attention to an artist that I felt deserved recognition like his other band members that have pages in French, I don't even know how to proceed from here. If the page needs to be deleted just tell me how, there was nothing malicious in my intent. I changed my name as suggested because I am not a business. talk —Preceding undated comment added 21:37, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete/redirect to Myrath. First, a disclaimer: I was asked to come take a look at this AfD by Coolabahapple. Now that that's out of the way, I can't really see anything to show that Jouini is independently notable outside of Myrath. It's actually fairly difficult to establish notability for performers outside of their band, as you have to show where there's coverage that focuses specifically on the performer - in other words, a news article (for example) that goes into depth about Jouini and isn't just something that mentions him in relation to the band. Even then the article would be expected to focus on Jouini, not just on his time with the band. I don't really see where this exists at this point in time. It's possible that he might achieve independent notability in the future, but he just doesn't pass notability guidelines at this point in time. He might never pass - it's actually more common for someone to not be independently notable. For example, not all of the Cradle of Filth members are independently notable, despite the band being extremely popular. There might be other performers in the group with articles and it might even seem like there are other people who are less notable that have articles, however the existence of other articles doesn't mean that every performer merits an article. (WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS) It might be that the other people pass notability guidelines on other criteria or it could just mean that these other performers don't pass notability guidelines and just haven't been found and deleted yet. As far as COI stuff goes, I'll post a message on Tuscany's (formerly Evadowdinternational) talk page about that. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:46, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Update I have added solo Awards and article mentioning Anis Jouini on his own merits as a bass player and put a notice on my talk page with my role helping bands, not sure if this changes the notability but I did want to post an update. Tuscanyatnght (talk) 09:56, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as still nothing suggesting independent notability. SwisterTwister talk 04:51, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Update Added session work and link to session work videos with known Wiki artists.Tuscanyatnght (talk) 18:22, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - That's simply still not enough. SwisterTwister talk 18:55, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 18:15, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Apart from being off the charts COI (article even has subject talking about themselves in the first person) and being very poorly written, as many others have said, subject is not independently notable. Any useful, referenced and encyclopaedic info worthy of inclusion can be Myrath'd and this article deleted. Rayman60 (talk) 23:18, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - What's the purpose of this AfD since the article in question has already been redirected to Myrath?-- Isaidnoway (talk) 21:56, 24 July 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) — Music1201 ^talk 16:20, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jassa Ahluwalia[edit]

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

Does not (yet) meet Wikipedia's standards of notability. Quote the only reliable third-party source: "his CV was lacking in serious acting jobs". Was prodded, prod removed without improvement. Huon (talk) 17:53, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

But that article dates from November 2012 and the quote is about his career "this time last year", i.e. 2011 when he was only 21. There's a more recent (and much longer) profile from the same source in 2016. Qwfp (talk) 16:07, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable actor.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:48, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:49, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:49, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Meets WP:NACTOR criterion 1 as having "had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions", namely Some Girls (TV series), The Whale (2013 film) and the 2016 stage play Wipers, in which his performance was positively reviewed by Lyn Gardner in The Guardian [3] and by The Stage [4]. Qwfp (talk) 16:07, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Qwfp. Also the current page already has some newspaper sourcing [5], a good sign there is more. Yvarta (talk) 20:19, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Passes WP:NACTOR. Anarchyte (work | talk) 11:40, 30 July 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. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 16:27, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Kevin Burns (Illinois mayor)[edit]

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

He is not notable enough of a politician to get his own article. There is a lack of sources in most of the article. It contains much outdated information. Needs to be deleted Bbob221 (talk) 16:24, 23 July 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 July 23. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 16:43, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:54, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:54, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete mayors of places with under 25,000 people are almost never notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:49, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per WP:BIO "Major local political figures who receive (or received) significant press coverage". Large amount of mentions / coverage in the Chicago Tribune [6]. He has been mayor of an Illinois county seat for over a decade, with coverage as a US Congressional primary candidate as well. --Dual Freq (talk) 12:21, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, I agree he is not notable enough. I live in the area where he is Mayor and he has not held a higher office than Mayor of Geneva. Yes, he has run for higher office, but was unsuccessful. I don't think he plans to run for higher office anytime soon. Plus, Geneva has less than 25,000 people. Both St. Charles and Batavia (neighboring towns) have populations bigger than that, but their Mayors don't have articles. Finally, a lot of the information is outdated and unsourced. I agree this article needs to go. -- NBA2020 (talk) 19:56, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
A population of 21K is not large enough to get a mayor over WP:NPOL #3 just because he exists. If there were a genuinely sizable volume of sourcing here, then things might be different — but of the four sources here, three of them are to his local community weekly newspaper (a source that's not widely distributed enough to get him over WP:GNG all by itself), and the only one that's in a major daily newspaper is just supporting the names of his kids, rather than any substantive content that would have anything to do with making him belong in an encyclopedia, and doesn't appear from its title ("Mayors pick their spots for quiet, communing") to have all that much else to offer. And having been a candidate in a congressional primary doesn't assist his notability, either — a person does not get over NPOL by being a candidate for office (or by being a candidate in a primary), but only by winning the election and thereby holding office. So that counts for nothing, and we can evaluate this only by virtue of the office he did hold — and the office he did hold is not one that gets him into Wikipedia if the sourcing for it is this weak. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 21:35, 24 July 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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:11, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Joseph Spiess Company[edit]

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

This company has been out of business for 20 years. Even when it was around, it was not known outside of the western suburbs of Chicago. There are few sources for the information and the article is not linked anywhere. I do not believe it is notable enough for an article and it should be deleted. Bbob221 (talk) 16:28, 23 July 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 July 23. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 16:43, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:54, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:54, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Prominent coverage of one store's demolition here, with a more local article on the site here . Some local small press book coverage here. I agree there isn't much. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:02, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, I rarely heard of this store when it was open and I live in the area. I was surprised to see it had a wikipedia article. No one I've talked to knows of this store. And the article has uncited information. It needs to be deleted. -- NBA2020 (talk) 19:59, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all the coverage seems to be local. If there are any articles about this company from out of state, then I might support a WP:GNG.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 12:02, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as expected, everything is only trivially localized and there's nothing actually convincingly better. Certainly nothing to suggest new now because the company is closed. SwisterTwister talk 18:45, 26 July 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. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 16:33, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hydra (digital repository)[edit]

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

Still nothing suggesting convincing independent notability, the listed sources are not convincing and I have found nothing else better. SwisterTwister talk 22:52, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 22:52, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 22:52, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. On one hand, there's no significant coverage. On the other, this software is clearly used by a number of major universities. Of course, that doesn't mean that there's sufficient information to be able to write a well-sourced article - and indeed, there isn't. Enterprisey (talk!) _{(formerly APerson)} 01:19, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The topic has two dozen institutions as formal partners. This topic is referenced in Wikipedia articles, and is also used in citations to reference material stored in certain Hydra repositories. In Google searches I'm seeing text from Finland, Denmark, Korea, and England, as well as U.S. locations. Whatever is done with this topic, deletion would appear to do harm to the encyclopedia and the ability of editors to maintain the encyclopedia. I doubt that most editors care if it is merged to another topic, as long as they can locate information and link to it. Unscintillating (talk) 02:54, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Unscintillating, I completely agree with you that the software is used by a number of major universities and institutions. However, I don't think that's a valid claim of notability; for example, NSOFTWARE (an essay, admittedly) doesn't talk about uses of a given piece of software. Also, the topic is only referenced once in a Wikipedia article, a passing mention in the "Software implementation" section of Digital library. Enterprisey (talk!) _{(formerly APerson)} 05:05, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You make good points, and my content knowledge cannot address your content questions. For example, why is this topic not covered or mentioned at Fedora Commons? I'll drop notes on the talk pages of Digital Library and Fedora Commons. Unscintillating (talk) 14:59, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed that it's strange that more articles don't mention this seemingly widely-used piece of software. Enterprisey (talk!) _{(formerly APerson)} 19:13, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Lack of significant coverage by reliable third party sources. Being used by notable people/companies is not much different than being employed by one to me. Niteshift36 (talk) 15:34, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Appears as a topic in digital library literature: "Domain-Specific Program Generation", The Librarian's Introduction to Programming Languages: A LITA Guide, Video Data Management and Information Retrieval, Digital Scholarship 2009, Building Trustworthy Digital Repositories: Theory and Implementation. Those are books; I could also provide articles, e.g. here.

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Music1201 ^talk 04:30, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge. Although the significance of the software in general may not warrant an article, its prominence in its own field hopefully warrants a section in its field article, Digital library. Coincidentally that article needs improvement. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lyuflamb (talk • contribs) 09:38, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hydra is listed in that article, but I don't see a feasible way to add more information. Similar software packages, like Islandora, have their own articles, and those are part of the FOSS portal. I will try to add to the Hydra article, but I am hampered by lack of access to databases that cover library topics. LaMona (talk) 15:59, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Please review the changes I have made to the article, and let me know if you think it now meets WP:NSOFTWARE. Thanks. LaMona (talk) 16:50, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Music1201 ^talk 16:11, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of law enforcement agencies in Tennessee. Try to boldly merge these before coming to AfD czar 09:24, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Fayette County Sheriff's Office (Tennessee)[edit]

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

Fails WP:ORGDEPTH. Not bundling because this one actually has a source, self-referential though it is. MSJapan (talk) 01:53, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Music1201 ^talk 16:09, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of law enforcement offices in Tennesse. KGirlTrucker81^{talk what I'm been doing} 23:22, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Could you have meant List of law enforcement agencies in Tennessee, KGirlTrucker81? --Sam Sailor ^Talk! 12:42, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sam Sailor: Yes. KGirlTrucker81^{talk what I'm been doing} 13:23, 24 July 2016 (UTC) [reply]

Redirect to List of law enforcement agencies in Tennessee - Not independently notable but redirecting to a list is a good solution at the moment. See also related AfDs Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Collierville Police Department and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jonesborough Police Department. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 08:47, 28 July 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. J04n(talk page) 15:06, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Easton Park[edit]

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

PROD removed with the thin explanation that it not being built is not sufficient for deleting, but the fact is there's simply nothing else to suggest any notability, here or later; the article is still rather advert-toned and the local sources are simply press talking about this, there's still nothing at all to suggest the needed independent notability. As it is, it's been planned for 4 years now with no actual founding signs of any assumed notability but with only news expectedly talking about a local business venture, there's nothing to accept. SwisterTwister talk 06:36, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:45, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:45, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Austin, Texas, which presently has no mention of this topic, which has received significant coverage in multiple, independent reliable sources. See sources below. The state of the project (not built) is not aligned with topic notability per WP:GNG. See also WP:NOTBUILT. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:52, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

References

Barragan, James; Rockwell, Lilly (June 27, 2016). "Master-planned community in Austin will have 1,000 affordable units". Austin American-Statesman. Retrieved July 8, 2016.
"Who's in the Pilot House?". The Austin Chronicle. February 9, 2016. Retrieved July 8, 2016.
Lim, Andra (June 27, 2016). "Emails show mayor irked, departments concerned over Easton Park deal". Austin American-Statesman. Retrieved July 8, 2016.
McGivern, Kylie (March 4, 2016). "City council reconsiders controversial Pilot Knob affordable housing deal". KXAN-TV. Retrieved July 8, 2016.
King, Michael (February 12, 2016). "Put This in Your PUD and Smoke It!". The Austin Chronicle. Retrieved July 8, 2016.
Buchholz, Jan (March 19, 2014). "Brookfield Residential unveils master-planned community in Southeast Austin". Austin Business Journal. Retrieved July 8, 2016.
"City strikes back on Pilot Knob lawsuit". Austin Monitor. March 15, 2016. Retrieved July 8, 2016. (subscription required)
"Council starts Pilot Knob amendments". Austin Monitor. March 4, 2016. Retrieved July 8, 2016. (subscription required)
"The nitty-gritty of a Pilot Knob reconsideration". Austin Monitor. March 3, 2016. Retrieved July 8, 2016. (subscription required)
"Updated: Rodgers sues city to stop Pilot Knob deal". Austin Monitor. February 11, 2016. Retrieved July 8, 2016. (subscription required)
Theis, Michael (December 21, 2015). "Hundreds of affordable houses, new commercial projects set for Southeast Austin". Austin Business Journal. Retrieved July 8, 2016.

Keep There are enough sources to show this is a significant development in Austin.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:20, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Despite rumors to the contrary, this is a real place with real homes -- some of which are occupied by residents. There should be 50-100 occupied homes by the end of the year. I've added a photo to the article to show this development. Straley (talk) 17:03, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – I deprodded this in part because the prod rationale stated, "Still too soon considering that, not only has it not been built, but it's nowhere near there. Delete at best for now as independent notability has not been established yet." (diff). In part, I feel that the "delete at best for now" part is inaccurate, because the Austin, Texas article presently has no mention of the topic (other than in the merge template I added), and the topic has received a great deal of significant coverage in Texan sources. As such, "at best" in my opinion extends to at least a merge of the content, as a functional WP:ATD that will improve the merge target article. Also see image at right. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:54, 14 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! 02:31, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Music1201 ^talk 16:09, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep under the condition that this article be rewritten so the the subject is actually the 1000 units set aside for low income families (perhaps in conjunction with the other units). It also appears that a number of units are to be slated for mid-level income families. It seems to me, these facts illustrate the significant impact of this project. Not tedious and monotonous promotional details that are not worthy of note.

In fact, I think I will try to rewrite this later today. Also, I am willing to bet this can be moved to a more appropriate title (or topic heading) for Wikipedia after this AfD concludes - such as "Easton Park affordable housing" or something like that. I think the current title, as it is, is based on promoting this development more than its significant effect. Also, thanks again to @Northamerica1000: for providing sources that demonstrate notability of topics. Steve Quinn (talk) 18:54, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep yes the content may need tweaking and trimming. Slu tsu (talk) 18:39, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't able to get back to this as soon as I hoped. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 19:47, 1 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 Withdrawn by nominator. While a page move to South Republican State Wildlife Area may be necessary, that is not a matter for Afd. (non-admin closure) Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:51, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Bonny Lake State Park[edit]

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

The park was closed in 2008 and is no longer a state park. It is dissolved as a state park. Jeffrey Beall (talk) 13:46, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. If that's the case, the article should simply be updated to reflect the park's closing. State parks would be notable under WP:GEOLAND, regardless of whether it's a current or former park. Indeed, GEOLAND links to WP:NOTTEMPORARY, in cases like of abandoned places -- and that would apply in this case here too. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:55, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:55, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Colorado-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:55, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:GEOLAND. The park did not close down in 2008, if I read the sources correctly. NYT reported in May 2010 that the park was still running to some extend, and this source says the park became part of South Republican State Wildlife Area in late 2011. Sam Sailor ^Talk! 09:14, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- in which case , Jeffrey, you could perhaps redirect to South Republican State Wildlife Area, retaining the content on its history as Bonny Lake State Park, and expanding for its current role, per WP:PRESERVE. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:07, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - Thanks, this is helpful, Jeffrey Beall (talk) 14:43, 24 July 2016 (UTC).[reply]
    - @Denverjeffrey: if you do wish to withdraw this, just say so here. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:31, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      - If that's your recommendation, I am happy to accept it. Thanks, Jeffrey Beall (talk) 19:21, 24 July 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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:14, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

FASTLANE(Zootopia)[edit]

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

This looks to be a non-notable fanfiction. I like the author's creativity, but I just don't see where this would pass WP:NBOOK. Most fanfiction never gets to the level of notability needed to pass that criteria without being published ala Fifty Shades. Even one of the most infamous fanfiction works out there, My Immortal, doesn't qualify for its own article and that's kind of a household name in the fanfic communities. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 13:31, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'd have A7'd this, except that I'm not sure that works of fiction like this would qualify even if they were uploaded to the Internet. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 13:34, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Correction: looks like My Immortal finally got its own article. When I'd last seen the article in 2013 it was a redirect, so you can kind of understand why it's so difficult to establish notability on Wikipedia. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 06:13, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 16:22, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 16:22, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No independent sources have been provided. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 01:42, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG Self-published fan fiction. No independent coverage, and highly doubtful there ever will be any based on the original work I found here https://www.fanfiction.net/s/12042566/1/FASTLANE-Zootopia. I'm also not sure if A7 web content applies either. Meters (talk) 03:56, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Just speedy delete it. It someone's fan fiction, 'nuff said editorEهեইдအ😎 05:53, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:BKCRIT. This would be A7-worthy, but unfortunately A7 doesn't apply to books. I can't seem to find any RS out there. On an unrelated note, it's cases like this where it just goes to show that we really need to make A9 apply to books. Omni Flames (talk) 08:46, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The article was blanked by an IP with no previous edits. I've restored it and asked the IP if he or she was the article creator, and suggested commenting here if so. Meters (talk) 22:18, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- And now the article creator has blanked the article, so it seems he or she is not against deleting the article. At this point I think we're better off to close as "delete" rather than speedy G7. Meters (talk) 15:52, 28 July 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. clear consensus DGG ( talk ) 04:46, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Barvas Project Management Tool[edit]

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

Per WP:NCORP, software entry created on 18.07.2016, software in beta status (still in development), merely a software guide close to pure advertising, barvas.com: "Barvas is set for a commercial release towards the end of September 2016.". Maybe redirect to MindGenius (the producer) + a few lines of context will serve. Gunnex (talk) 12:46, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 15:27, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, does not meet WP:GNG, nothing useable found only product/company webpages, and info sites about the crowdfunding they are seeking to develop this, WP:PROMOTIONAL and WP:TOOSOON. Coolabahapple (talk) 15:37, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Dialectric (talk) 14:38, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Software article of unclear notability, lacking independent references. A search turned up no significant WP:RS coverage. Dialectric (talk) 14:38, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No claim to notability. A redirect would be fine too, per nom. Grayfell (talk) 02:33, 1 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. Speedy deleted four times today and now salted. (non-admin closure) Sam Sailor ^Talk! 16:27, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Music&Records Co.[edit]

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

Non-notable company. No refs, search on a couple of variations of the name finds nothing. There’s a Ja.wp page ja:Music&Records Co. but that is no help, just confirms that I searched on the right thing. A retail store or small chain perhaps, but nothing that rises to the level of notability. JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 12:10, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A re-search using the above link found two online stores, for instruments & clothing, but no actual refs.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 12:14, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Speedily Delete and block the original user, as it doesn't comply A7 and G11. The original user keep removing CSD tag. The article was already been deleted, but please block the creator as he keep removing CSD tag before that (Note: The revision was deleted as well though). NgYShung ^huh? 12:29, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, if I had checked the deletion log or the editors talk page then I should have stuck with the CSD (now deleted but I added a CSD, it was deleted, so started this discussion). Nothing else to do here now it has been deleted, except perhaps salt the address to stop any further recreations.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 12:41, 23 July 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) 07:45, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Bright Computing[edit]

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

Puffed and advertorial with there still being notihng minimally better convincing thus this would be best deleted entirely, my own searches have found nothing convincingly better. SwisterTwister talk 21:08, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 21:09, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 21:09, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:19, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – Below are a couple bylined news article sources that are not press releases. This is evidenced in part by utilizing Google searches using the titles of these article, in which links are only present for these articles themselves, as opposed to press releases, which typically have the same article hosted on many various websites. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:25, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

References

Morgan, Timothy Prickett (June 20, 2011). "Bright Computing revs up cluster manager". The Register.
Morgan, Timothy Prickett (November 8, 2011). "Bright Computing bursts HPC to EC2 clouds". The Register.

More sources

Wong, Kenneth (April 1, 2016). "Preparing for the HPC Floodgates to Open". Desktop Engineering
Russell, John (February 3, 2016). "Create Mixed HPC/Big Data Clusters Today Says Bright Computing". HPC Wire

— Preceding unsigned comment added by MGR1boston (talk • contribs) 21:28, 13 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) 00:14, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – Another user added additional sources within the source list above, which I titled "More sources". North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:37, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Those sources are relilble enough to meet WP:GNG. KGirlTrucker81^{talk what I'm been doing} 14:01, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Anarchyte (work | talk) 11:04, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Plenty of sources including reliable (online) magazines/news sites. Article problems (a little bit one sided point of view) could be balanced later.Pavlor (talk) 10:30, 24 July 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 and salt, consensus is that notability is not evident. I believe paid editor concerns so far are handled on WP:COIN, seeing as the issue has been raised here. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 15:21, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Deskera[edit]

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

Not sufficiently notable; promotional effort by paid editor Alexbrn (talk) 10:32, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 (talk) 02:42, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 (talk) 02:42, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 (talk) 02:42, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment They have been seriously insistent in trying to get a Wikipedia article up. In addition, the article creator seems to be indulging in undisclosed paid editing and it unwilling to declare. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 03:21, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and Salt as this is another classic example of repeated advertising which was depeted only 7 months ago , still nothing at all convincing. SwisterTwister talk 18:39, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this please, the founder is a fraud — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.93.153.67 (talk) 10:10, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not notable promotional article. The refs arem ostly just noticesabout financing. DGG ( talk ) 04:47, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Question: I'm leaning delete, per DGG, but what is the evidence of paid editing? I would like a couple links to past evidence. Montanabw ^(talk) 20:23, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Start at the top of User talk:27century. Alexbrn (talk) 23:42, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, there's more but it involves private information and I am not willing to be indeffed for outing. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 01:03, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Totally unrelated to this AfD, but there should be some kind of equivalent to SPI for UPE accounts (undisclosed paid editors). WP also needs to figure out how to dovetail with the policy of the WMF overall because there are contradictions and no easy way to parse it all. One of the things we deal with here is the question of whether UPE is a grounds for summary deletion of an article that otherwise passes GNG. I don't have an answer, am just thinking out loud, but anyway... Montanabw ^(talk) 04:23, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete] I've got too many AfDs on my list right now, but these corporate advertising pieces seem to be less notable than the junior hockey league champion. Montanabw ^(talk) 04:23, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt This fails WP:CORPDEPTH by a wide margin. The article had a bunch of unreliable sources which I had trimmed a bit. Even now, most of the sources wouldn't pass WP:AUD. For companies, COPRDEPTH needs to be satisfied and over here most of the coverage would fall into the routine category. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 01:06, 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. Clear consensus. (non-admin closure) Millbug ^talk 05:13, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Buenavista High School (Tarlac)[edit]

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

This page is not an article and has no reference. Jcmpineda (talk) 08:52, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. Of course this page is an article. It's not a good article, because it is barely a stub and has no sources. But this high school does appear to exist, and if indeed this is a high school, normally it would be an appropriate subject for a Wikipedia article if there are adequate sources. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 01:47, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep of course, per long-standing consensus as documented on OUTCOMES, and the full description on a Philippine government web site. I'm positively amazed t the persistent sloppy sending of articles to AfD by editors who can't be bothered to do their homework. It took me all of 2 minutes to fid a reliable source and it would have been even lessif my Internet connection here in Thailand had not been so slow today. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 15:28, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Obvious keep given the reference now in the article shows that it does exist. Gab4gab (talk) 10:45, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per longstanding consensus on secondary schools. VMS Mosaic (talk) 01:39, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and almost speedy keep as per WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES. Sure, it's a pretty terrible article, but it exists, as proven by it's sole reference, so it should be kept. The rationale given for deletion here is invalid and not policy-based. See WP:BEFORE. Omni Flames (talk) 08:48, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the consensus on school deletion discussions. High schools are typically kept if they exist, and as Metropolitan90 showed above, this school exists. Anarchyte (work | talk) 05:05, 30 July 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 withdrawn by nominator with no opposition.---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 17:24, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Pulau Saigon[edit]

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

Prod removed. Per WP:Geoland: "Named natural features are often notable, provided information beyond statistics and coordinates is known to exist. This includes mountains, lakes, streams, islands, etc. The number of known sources should be considered to ensure there is enough verifiable content for an encyclopedic article. If a Wikipedia article cannot be developed using known sources, information on the feature can instead be included in a more general article on local geography. For example, a river island with no information available except name and location should probably be described in an article on the river." Nothing of relevance here to merge with Singapore River. Author notes on talk page there are no additional sources available.--Moon King (talk) 07:13, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 (talk) 07:27, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I am not going to AGF any longer. This seems like a WP:POINTy nomination as I disagreed over an edit and warned the editor for edit warring. I see this is the nominator's second AfD after Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Suzuka Naval Arsenal and I would like to remind the nominator that WP:BEFORE needs to be done. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 07:30, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The user brought herself to my attention, I examined her edits, came upon this particular article and determined it was not notable. It's not personal.--Moon King (talk) 07:32, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, there was not an edit war. It was a misunderstanding over a non controversial edit. --Moon King (talk) 07:35, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You have not done WP:BEFORE here. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 08:07, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (Disclosure: I am the article creator) Seriously, the reason for deletion is Author notes on talk page there are no additional sources available? This is notable per WP:GEOLAND. This is a former island which used to exist in the Singapore river. There is one whole book entirely about the Island - Pulau Saigon: A Post-eighteenth Century Archaeological Assemblage Recovered from a Former Island in the Singapore River as well as mentions here and here. A search for Pulau Saigon in the Singapore Newspaper Archives shows that it has been referenced multiple times. The island was the subject of an exhibition at NUS Museum. There is enough information available on this island to write a detailed article. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 08:07, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That is not enough for a standalone article. It can all easily be added to Singapore River.--Moon King (talk) 08:22, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Did you read the book Pulau Saigon: A Post-eighteenth Century Archaeological Assemblage Recovered from a Former Island in the Singapore River? One whole book entirely about the island. Putting it in Singapore river is WP:UNDUE. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 08:30, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No. Have you? It looks to be about an archeological dig in the river. --Moon King (talk) 08:35, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I have read the entire book and it was after reading it that I created the article - I'm not sure if an online copy is available. There is enough information about the island. The archaeological dig was on the site of the island. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 08:39, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

So the book is about a dig on the Singapore River, not the island since it didn't exist at the time? How would this be undue on Singapore River? --Moon King (talk) 08:45, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to include Pulau Seletar and Lazarus Island in this AFD as well. They also are non notable islands on the Singapore River. All information available is about location and name only.--Moon King (talk) 09:00, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

LOL --Lemongirl942 (talk) 09:18, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You should see WP:BEFORE, which recommends doing Google, News, Books, searches before nominating for Afd. While Pulau Seletar technically did not meet WP:GEOLAND at the time of nomination it was trivially easy to find sources that provide more than name, location, statistics on the island and add that information to the article. Lazarus Island already had a cited section on the island's etymology, so GEOLAND wouldn't apply there either. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 16:16, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep. I've used the sources provided by Lemongirl942 to expand the article a bit more. Sources there before my edit clearly established the economic and archaeological history of the site, beyond the requirements of WP:GEOLAND. and my changes only reinforce it. Given this, there is little reason this should be open for a full week. My suggestion to the nominator is to avoid AfDs and work on their own content for the time being.---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 15:52, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn. Great work from Patar knight satisfies all my concerns. --Moon King (talk) 16:55, 23 July 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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:18, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

NaturoPack[edit]

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

Non-notable organization without any cited or existing reliable sources to generate a quality article. Delta13C (talk) 06:41, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Despite some passing 2007-8 local coverage in Now Magazine (such as [7]) and a couple of passing Google Books mentions, one of which is more about materials than this campaign, I am not seeing evidence that it achieved notability in and beyond its time. AllyD (talk) 07:07, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not notable. The link to the website does not work. They may be closed. QuackGuru (talk) 07:15, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:00, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:00, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete All the sources I could find and the ones already in the article are either unreliable or not independent. Blogs are not WP:RS, and this organization appears to fail WP:GNG. Omni Flames (talk) 08:51, 26 July 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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:20, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

TH Baker[edit]

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

no clear evidence for notability DGG ( talk ) 06:26, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Of the given references, one is local coverage written in terms that "a family-owned Black Country jewellery chain is still thriving", the second is a "hot 100" recognition in an annual industry award, and the third concerns another firm who did work for them. These indicate a firm going about its business, but neither these not my searches are providing evidence that it has attained encyclopaedic notability. AllyD (talk) 07:21, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as I myself planned to nominate sooner but was reluctant because I considered PROD which has vulnerability of being removed ; overall there's nothing at all minimally convincing here. SwisterTwister talk 07:25, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:00, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:00, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:00, 25 July 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. Many new references have also been uncovered during this AfD. (non-admin closure) Anarchyte (work | talk) 05:08, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dean John-Wilson[edit]

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

Only major best known work so far is Aladdin and even his Miss Atomic Bomb was simply as a "Soldier" character, it's still too soon at best for any actual convincing independent notability; my searches have simply found expected trivial mentions and nothing yet substantial. SwisterTwister talk 00:05, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete He has one major acting role, but he needs 2 to pass the notability criteria for acotrs. His role in Miss Atomic Bomb is not enough to count as a second role.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:15, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – Only one of the sources has more than a passing mention of him, so he also fails WP:GNG. KSFT ^C 15:09, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:58, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:58, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep I am really befuddled by this nomination. I have found several notable sources and published interviews, indicating he clearly passes WP:ENTERTAINER. But just to be sure folks aren't missing anything, here's an example of what I mean: here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here and here, (this one is notable because it lists some of his other professional stage credits besides Aladdin and Miss Atomic Bomb: "stage credits include Songs For A New World at the St. James Theatre, London, Here Lies Love at the Royal National Theatre, From Here To Eternity at the Shaftesbury Theatre, Super Ordinary at the Soho Theatre, Bare at the Union Theatre, London and Sister Act: The Musical’s UK Tour.")

I should also probably correct some misinformation from above. According to the sources, his role in Miss Atomic Bomb was also a leading role, as this review clearly shows; and the character's name was "Joey" - not just "Soldier" - as this review clearly states.

But even those exclude the additional notability he derives from being one of the top finishers on Britain's Got Talent, as noted here, demonstrated here covered here and even referenced here. By receiving significant coverage in multiple published reliable sources, he also easily passes both WP:BASIC and WP:GNG.

So in review, he's received significant coverage for his prominent theatre and television show work, as well as the tabloid coverage he's received as the boyfriend of recent Tony Award winning "Best Actress" Cynthia Erivo. So to those who've argued that he only has the one stage credit of Aladdin and "minor" work in Miss Atomic Bomb to support his notability, I think a full review of the reliably sourced, published record obviously shows much more than that. Subject clears WP:ENT, WP:BASIC and WP:GNG. X4n6 (talk) 21:45, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to allow time for consideration of sources presented in the most recent !vote. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:42, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:42, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to allow time for consideration of sources presented in the most recent !vote. Pinging participants SwisterTwister, Johnpacklambert and KSFT to revisit the discussion. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:22, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:22, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Now that these other sources have been shown, it looks like he meets GNG, so I'm changing to keep. KSFT ^C 12:48, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Federation of International Bandy#Ireland for now. It can be re-expanded into an article with significant coverage in reliable sources when such becomes available. Deryck C. 13:11, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Bandy Federation of Ireland[edit]

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

The reference provided does not support any claim made on the page, plus the lack of games makes this page non-notable. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 22:54, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:32, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:32, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:32, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'd be very surprised if the topic isn't notable but the article as it stands is highly inadequate and I don't feel motivated to investigate. However, deletion is not a suitable option because there could usefully be a redirect to Federation of International Bandy#Ireland. Thincat (talk) 04:21, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete from what I can, see Ireland's national governing body for bandy fails, WP:ORG. More specifically, while it clearly meets the first criterion of WP:CLUB, it fails the second. What's more, I see it is listed in Federation of International Bandy so WP:BRANCH would apply, as well. I suggest we leave a redirect to Federation of International Bandy, if deleted. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:07, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:46, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:20, 23 July 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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:22, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Bukola Ogunyemi[edit]

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

Non-notable person lacking significant coverage in reliable sources. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 22:02, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Main claim to notability seems to be journalism, but none of the 4 notability criteria of WP:AUTHOR apply. And even when considering the weaker notability criteria from the article itself ("Ogunyemi's articles have appeared in [...] several international media platforms") those do not actually appear to be supported by the references given in the article (e.g. reference http://www.slate.fr/story/103099/nigeria-elus-parlement-prime-vetements is not written by Ogunyemi, is not written about Ogunyemi, and at most possibly quotes a Tweet by somebody who might be Ogunyemi.) --Fëanor (talk) 22:50, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:36, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:36, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:36, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:47, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:29, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:29, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:20, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete, consensus indicates a lack of notability. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 15:29, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Prime Transport Limited[edit]

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

Not notable enough as per links provided. GreenCricket (talk) 11:20, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:59, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:20, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:20, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:20, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:19, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Having trawled Google for notability, I find it somewhat a dubious subject. I find nothing relating to the company worded in current tense and no notable news stories (other than a BBC World Service entry in 2006) since its conception. On that notion I support deletion of the article. Nordic Nightfury 12:19, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. doesn ot appear to have evidence for notability . If sucessful, there would certainly be better sources. DGG ( talk ) 04:48, 1 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. czar 09:24, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Eddie Scarry[edit]

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

Searches have simply found simple mentions, nothing suggesting the needed substance for his own notability, the listed sources are also not sufficiently convincing. SwisterTwister talk 04:24, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 04:24, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Yellow Dingo (talk) 07:02, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Yellow Dingo (talk) 07:02, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Yellow Dingo (talk) 07:02, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington, D.C.-related deletion discussions. Yellow Dingo (talk) 07:02, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Yellow Dingo (talk) 07:02, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - writer for minor blogs and less-than-reliable news sources. 17:47, 22 July 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bearian (talk • contribs)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:18, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable blogger and journalist, who has gotten interviews with notable people, but it is extremely rare getting an interview makes one notable, we would have to have lots of coverage from reliable sources of how important this interview is to justify such an article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:13, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable writer Prevan (talk) 23:47, 23 July 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 15:27, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

R. Cade Parian[edit]

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

I nearly PRODed too, but in case it's removed, here we are; my searches have found nothing at all and that's not surprising considering this is also basically an advertisement job listing for a local lawyer. SwisterTwister talk 06:32, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk) 18:53, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I found his author profile for The Legal Examiner, but there is nothing in-depth about him.

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:17, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable lawyer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:28, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Uncontested this time around. Sandstein 15:30, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Obama chmo![edit]

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

Previous AfD was in November, and was a less-than-stellar lack of consensus. Keep votes were based on:

SHOUTING MAKES THINGS MORE CONVINCING! and
Meets WP:GNG with no explanation whatsoever.

News search yields 29 results all but two of which are not in English. One of the English results is a blog and the other result is this article from The Observer about "vulgar and racist" rhetoric in the Russian media. It's got some treatment there but it's not entirely clear why this phrase should be more notable than others mentioned like “Obama is bad” and “Obama is the devil”. Of all things, one of the phrase's claims to fame in the piece is that it got its own Wikipedia article. It claims the article was deleted, but all I saw was the previous no-con AfD. Maybe it was speedied?

Two other English sources on the article, one is a blog, and the other is this The Times article. All I have is a preview, but seems to just be listed along with other propaganda: an image of a Red soldier "sodomizing" a Nazi, and "Bardak Obama" meaning apparently "whorehouse cheat".

To summarize, seems that this is at best a meme and a slur that's gotten very little attention in sources in any language, and basically none in English. Does not appear any more notable than an article on Depictions of Obama with a Hitler mustache, which incidentally, gets 289 results in a news search. In the same vein, Fuck Obama, which this phrase appears to boil down to, gets more than a quarter million. TimothyJosephWood 14:24, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - badly sourced neologism, bordering on the notion (sic.) of synthesis. Bearian (talk) 17:42, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:17, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The phrase's only possible claim to notability is that it was one of four 2015 winners of Russian "Word of the Year" ("anti-language" category). Of the 11 other winners mentioned in that article, none has a Wikipedia article about the word, although seven of the winners are references to events or phenomena that were sufficiently notable for their own articles (none of which mentions the prize-winning Russian word). Perhaps that tells us something about the "notability" of being a winner of Russian "word of the year". — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 02:44, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - on further reflection about what's been in the news, can an administrator see if this is Russian propaganda? Bearian (talk) 21:13, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- The page was created by Messir, who self identifies as Russian, so the most parsimonious answer would seem to be no. Also, looking at their history, apparently there is an article for Putin khuilo! that...exists, which survived a robust AfD, but it seems to have also originated as a song, which turned into a chant some people were actually sent to jail for, and otherwise received more substantial coverage in sources generally. TimothyJosephWood 21:25, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete per consensus that notability is not established/present here. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 15:24, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

P T Mohammed Sunish[edit]

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

Non-Notable. Fails WP:BIO Uncletomwood (talk) 17:06, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk) 18:49, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk) 18:49, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:14, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable government functionary.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:22, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - run of the mill bureaucrat. Bearian (talk) 21:14, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. sufficient consensus DGG ( talk ) 22:22, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sher Singh (administrator)[edit]

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

Non-Notable retired Civil Servant Uncletomwood (talk) 17:07, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Subject lacks notability and coverage in reliable sources. Meatsgains (talk) 03:35, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk) 18:48, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk) 18:48, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:14, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable civil servant.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:48, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - run of the mill bureaucrat and writer. Bearian (talk) 21:15, 27 July 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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:22, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jessica Miller (fashion model)[edit]

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

Entirely un-cited biography of a living person. No real claim to notability; run-of-the-mill fashion model. While she's done some editorial work, there are no references describing her specifically, with non-trivial content. Mikeblas (talk) 17:12, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non-notable. The sources and external links are entirely self sourced, a brief listing at New York magazine, and press releases. A C-Lister, she dated a B-Lister. Bearian (talk) 17:46, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:14, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Concur with nom. No reliable secondary sources to establish notability. MB 03:53, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable model.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:35, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. No prejudice against an appropriate redirect. czar 09:39, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Kuliscene[edit]

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

Non notable film. PROD was removed but still no evidence of any notability. Only its star seems to have the vaguest hint of notability, the film has none at all. Fails WP:GNG Velella ^{Velella Talk} 21:05, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not notable despite some very limited press coverage. That coverage is enough to reference it as a list item in RJ Mathukutty#Filmography but not enough to justify an article for the film. I'd be neutral on redirecting this title back there. I don't see a need but it would be harmless. --DanielRigal (talk) 21:48, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody loves this AfD. Those who would protect the article keep removing the AfD header and it seems that almost nobody else has any interest in it. Let's see if we can do something about that... --DanielRigal (talk) 22:47, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. DanielRigal (talk) 22:47, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. DanielRigal (talk) 22:47, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:13, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I've protected the page because people have repeatedly removed the AfD tags. That said, I can't really find anything substantial about this movie. It's mentioned offhand here and there, but there's very little out there in places Wikipedia would consider reliable. The most in-depth coverage was in this article, where the video was mentioned as being popular on YouTube - and being popular on YouTube counts for little on Wikipedia. (WP:ITSPOPULAR) If it was that easy to gain notability on Wikipedia that way, we'd have a lot more articles about the various LP-ers out there. Other than that, everything is just offhand WP:TRIVIAL coverage. There were two other sources on the page, but I'm not sure that either is particularly reliable. This source is very brief and I can't seem to find anything about the site's editorial process. Given that the article has some grammatical errors, this makes it questionable enough to where it wouldn't be considered a RS on here even if it was more in-depth. Kerala9 is better, however I'm concerned that this might be based on a press release. It's questionable at best, however even if we decide that this is usable (I'm on the fence with this one) this paired with the Deccan Chronicle source just wouldn't be enough to assert notability. If foreign language sourcing can be provided then that would be great, however this looks like it was one of those viral videos that became popular enough to gain a few nods in the media but not popular enough to really gain substantial coverage. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:19, 23 July 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. Sears credit cards noted. czar 09:37, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sears Vacations[edit]

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

fails WP:CORP, no independent reliable secondary sources. all references are primary, blogs, press releases, etc. MB 02:11, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:38, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Fails WP:GNG. KGirlTrucker81^{talk what I'm been doing} 23:30, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as newly started and still nothing at all to actually suggest independent notability. SwisterTwister talk 18:46, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as pure spam. FWIW, I have a Sears credit card. Bearian (talk) 21:06, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Very poorly referenced and fails WP:N. Anarchyte (work | talk) 07:49, 30 July 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.